The Burlingame Voice

Earthquake Warning: 3 Months Without Water

The SF Chronicle is reporting on a USGS study about the impact of a major quake in the Bay Area--something they say is overdue

While nearly 113 years have passed without a major earthquake on the fault from the Peninsula north, the quiet will end. It could happen tomorrow or next week or decades from now. When it does, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will feel the ground shake like they’ve never felt before.  Based on current understanding of earthquake recurrence, that’s a statistical anomaly, according to a report this month from U.S. Geological Survey scientists.  According to a 1,000-year earthquake history of those fault branches, the chances that not a single site would experience a major temblor in any given 100-year period is about 0.3%, the paper said.

Yep, we are riding on a 0.3% wave of luck.  Burlingame is doing more than most to prepare for this by way of our annual Neighborhood Network disaster drills, supply caches, ham radio courses and the like we discussed here.  The added bit of information from the USGS study is that a major quake on our San Andreas fault would have the probability of causing 3.7 million people to go without water for the following periods of time:

1-3 days has a 60% probability

1 week has a 58% probability

1 month has a 48% probability

3 months with no water has a 30.5% probability

Wow.  It's basically 50/50 that we would have to go a month without running water.  That is one of the reasons I believe we should be strengthening the Hetch Hetchy pipeline, building more reservoirs and limiting further population growth until we have done that.  It is somewhere between sad, ironic and scary that plenty of politicians read the headlines about the IPCC's 100 year climate change model and want immediate action, but this much nearer and more identifiable threat goes unnoticed.  Forewarned is forearmed.  This year's drill is Saturday, October 12th.  Put it on your calendar and if you don't have a group working in your part of B'game, think about volunteering.

Update:  I just got my 33 gallon water barrel with pump and preservatives to last 5 years from our local B'game preparedness experts, Earthshakes.com.  $143 all in and very well worth it.  Here it is

 

Affordability Problems Explained

The former CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, T.J. Rodgers, has been an outspoken critic of much of what goes on it Sacramento for decades.  His latest pointed critique of brand spanking new Guv. Gavin brings some well-known statistics together in one place in reply to Gavin telling the business community I should (must?  will?) do more about affordability.

When I was CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, I chose Round Rock, Texas, over San Jose, Calif., for Cypress’s second wafer-fabrication plant, and I chose to locate our third plant in Bloomington, Minn. Other CEOs made similar decisions. Silicon Valley barely has any silicon left; there are now zero state-of-the-art wafer-fabrication plants here. We had to move because government has made Silicon Valley uncompetitive for manufacturing.

Despite boasting the second-highest gasoline tax in the U.S., California’s roads are so potholed it actually pays to buy tire insurance. California power costs around 15.7 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared with 11.2 cents in Oregon and 9.7 cents in Washington state. But even those state-regulated windfall rates aren’t enough: Pacific Gas & Electric is about to go bankrupt again.

California took in record tax revenue in 2018, beating estimates by $1 billion according to the Los Angeles Times. But Mr. Newsom demanded even more: “I want to see the [companies in Silicon] Valley step up and match our contributions,” he said.

Rodgers also invokes the dreaded NIMBYs but doesn't dwell on that aspect of the housing supply equation.  Nice to know our electricity is 62% more expensive than the State of Washington's juice.  Anyone know where you can buy good tire insurance for those trips on El Camino?

 

Clean Power or Reliable Power?

Congrats to readers who have developed their Critical Thinking skills and can recognize my provocative, but ultimately false, title of this post.  The falsehood is the appearance of a dichotomy between clean power and reliable power.  We can probably have both, but do we have them right now?  The big outage in downtown San Mateo is almost five hours old as I type.  I am just opening the glossy brochure that arrived in the mail from Peninsula Clean Energy courtesy of the SMC Office of Sustainability.  Based on the massive traffic jam on El Camino, the extra car emissions and likelihood of a lot of spoiled food and health emergencies, one has to wonder if the County and various City Councils are focused on the right thing? I'm glad it wasn't pouring rain without working sump pumps.  Personally, I vote for reliable power first.  One of the few worthwhile things ex-councilwoman Terry Nagel advocated for was more reliable electricity in town.  I'm not sure we ever got it, but the aspiration was good.

In the fun facts from Germany department, we get this

The mindless (German) rush to renewables has already done tremendous damage to the German standard of living, with 300,000 households each year having their electricity turned off for non-payment.  With the cost of consumer-born subsidies at 25 euros bln per annum and surcharges of 6.88 euro cents per kWh, or twice the market price of a kilowatt, Germans pay three times more than Americans today.

Worse is to come.  According to the German consumer agency NAEB, by 2020, they will be paying 45 euro cents per kWh, compared to 10 cents for the U.S. and 20 cents in France.

Lest we digress too far, take a look at your PG&E bill.  "Delivery" is the bulk of the cost and that is where the power failures originate.  You can feel free to stay enrolled in the I-didn't-ask-for-this "Clean Power" program and save 5% on the minor part of the bill, but don't lose sight of the real issue-- reliable first world electricity.  Councilwoman Donna Colson has promised me an article about the benefits of Clean Power--which we will publish.  This post is just contextual background for that future post.

Slow Progress on Broadway

The DJ is highlighting the installation of the new (replacement) power pole at the B'way - 101 interchange

Work began Friday, Dec. 11, and is expected to be completed by Sunday, Dec. 13, as crews assemble a 130-foot steel pole near the Broadway overpass designed to hold the high-voltage lines sent sprawling across the highway after heavy equipment accidentally knocked down the previous structure, said a Pacific Gas and Electric spokesman Joe Molica.

As we know from the comments on the September post here, traffic and creative driving have been an issue there during construction.  I loved this quote from the PG&E guy in the piece

“For safety purposes, everyone keep their eyes on the road,” he said.

Solid advice all over town.

Council Candidate Forum - Part 1

OK, OK, alright.  Yes, I have delayed writing my analysis about Thursday's Candidate Forum for a very good reason.  I believe one candidate stretched the truth in six instances and I am doing a bit of fact checking before I call her out as a liar.  You deserve that much, dear reader.

In the meantime, let's just talk about the event itself.  This was my seventh or eighth Candidate Forum put on by the League of Women Voters.  They get worse every election.  The LWV sends someone who knows nothing about B'game because that is how they think they remain objective.  Mostly they just appear clueless.

The scuttlebutt in council chambers afterward was how few of the real B'game-specific questions that were submitted actually got asked.  I took seven pages of notes and here were some of the topics:

• What are the senior citizen issues these days?
• Where will the money for the new Rec Center come from?  (Great question, not such good answers).  Many questions later the LWV emcee asked about General Obligation bonds instead of following up immediately.
• What will you do about low income housing?  (Ugh.  We are the fourth densest city in the county with 52% renters already.  That stone has no more blood.  Later came the Rent Control question over again.  I'll be addressing that in the Part 2 post.  In the meantime, ask yourself what is the difference between "rent control" and "rent stabilization"?  
• Then "what should we do about Climate Change"?  Two questions later the same thing on "Sustainability".  Then another one about "Community Choice Energy" like B'game is going to become its own power company.  What BS.  You would think Putin, Obama, Xi and the Pope were on the dais.
• My favorite was a few questions later about the "Role of libraries".  Everyone was in favor of libraries.....are you surprised?

And yet there were two clear winners that did not surprise me one bit.  When I get a response from City Staff regarding one central question, I will give you a more complete review.

B'way Observations

I always appreciate tips from regular readers and I got one today about the Broadway intersection.  I've heard a few complaints (separate from the crane mishap) about delays and long hours of the day when nothing seems to be happening, but in the meantime one reader notes

At least 5% and as many as 10% of the cars coming south on 101 and getting off at Broadway are making illegal u-turns at Rollins causing a very significant risk of injury to many drivers. Have not seen any police presence there whatsoever. I am planning to contact Burlingame PD as well.

I'll add it to my list for the Chief as well, so thanks.  In other news, the two months might be even tighter than usual at that intersection

Beginning this Sunday evening, September 27, 2015, and continuing through November 22, 2015, PG&E will be working at the intersection of Rollins Road and Broadway between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. every night except Saturday. PG&E’s proposed work involves necessary improvements to an existing PG&E underground electrical transmission main. As the work is within the intersection, there will be lane reductions on all approaches. 

As of yesterday when I went through the whole maze twice, here is what the dirt pile on the east side looked like.

Climate at the Pump

I'm just back from a couple of weeks in New England that included a goodly amount of driving--and filling up my gas tank.  The price difference between there and here is astounding even to someone like me who is used to a significant differential.  I paid $2.19 for regular.  Put that in your mental carburetor.

So it was with gratitude that I returned to a San Mateo County Times headline on Thursday that read "Brown's priorities defeated".  I would link to it, but you guessed it, even putting the exact title in the Times and Merc website doesn't yield the article.  No matter since the two reporters did an abysmal job of reporting their own opinions instead of the news.  Here is one fact-based sentence from the article

The governor's infrastructure plan seeks to raise $3.5 billion annually by boosting the gasoline tax 6 cents per gallon, increasing the diesel tax by 11 cents and increasing the vehicle registration fee by $65.

For the real complete story, we turn to yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial

Cap and trade has raised fuel costs, though it effect is hard to isolate from other environmental mandates.  The Western States Petroleum Association last year projected that cap and trade would add 16 to 76 cents per gallon to the retail price of gas based on data from the Air Resources Board.

In 2006 Californians paid about 23 cents more per gallon than the national average due to higher gas taxes and the state's reformulated fuel regulations.  The price premium increased to 41 cents last year and spiked to $1.14 in May after several in-state refineries experienced problems.  The average gas price in California now is $3.22....

I could go on with the market data and the effect of the ethanol requirements on people's cars, but you get the point.  That is why 21 Democratic assembly members also voted against Brown this week.  So what does he do?  "Mr. Brown vowed to use regulation to end-run the legislature."  Oh goody.

Electric Bounce

The electricity went out twice this morning for short periods causing a bit of havoc for contractors and work at home information workers.  The automated phone calls from PG&E were somewhat helpful--at least you know they know.  

Water You Thinking?

In the daily barrage of water news and drought legislation, the Wall Street Journal is doing a better job than most newspapers on the Big Picture.  On April 27, it covered the 1.4 trillion gallons of water that have been released into the Bay since 2008 to keep the delta smelt from going extinct, but which isn't really working.  Turns out dry conditions leave the water clearer and makes it easier for the little guys to be eaten.  Regardless, the longfin smelt, steelhead and Chinook salmon will continue to get a good deal of water.

On May 6, the Journal covered the slow move to smart water meters.  Smart electric meters were not without their controversy noted here while smart gas meters seemed to happen magically in B'game.  Smart water meters cost about $300 each plus the cost of the network that makes them smart and the savings from human meter readers is offset by higher maintenance.  If you have never looked inside the concrete box out at your median strip, it looks like this.

 

I have no idea if mine is smart or not, but it doesn't look like much and I do know I've never been alerted to a website or portal where I can watch usage by time of day or look for continuous usage at night (a sign of a leak).  San Francisco is wrapping up a five-year, $60 million program to install 178,000 smart meters so some EssEffers will be able to do that and compare against their neighbors (controversy awaits).  The Journal notes

The data show that about a quarter of customers have some sort of leak, commonly in toilets, irrigation systems or water-softener systems, says Dave Wallenstein, who oversees the district’s smart-meter program. “One family tried to conserve water but didn’t realize a pipe was broken until they logged in,” he says.

In most cases, though, it’s too early to tell how much all this data contributes to conservation. For one thing, water managers haven’t figured out how to separate the impact of their other conservation efforts, such as incentives for water-efficient appliances and drought-resistant plants, from the impact of smart meters.

Districts also are still working out ways to use the data more effectively in conjunction with other information. For instance, the East Bay district is looking at how to use property records and weather data to figure out how much water individual homes should need each month, so that it can give consumers that information.

More disconcerting is the May 9 article that reports on a lawsuit filed by something called Restore Hetch Hetchy that seeks to demolish O'Shaughnessy dam in Yosemite.  But

Hetch Hetchy supplies the Bay Area with pristine water, which requires little treatment and energy for pumping, at low cost. Its hydropower is also cheap and helps offset the city’s pricey renewables such as solar.

San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, now a U.S. senator, called Hetch Hetchy water her “birthright” and proclaimed that she would “‘do all in my power” to fight the teardown. “All this is for an expanded campground?” Ms. Feinstein mused. “It’s dumb, dumb, dumb.”

I agree.  Water you thinking?

Update:  see the comment below for more info on our meters.  Here is the same meter cleaned off so you can see the gauge.

Green Power...or Not?

For better or worse, I know a lot more about regulated utilities' business models, accounting practices and competitive responses than most lay persons.  I learned it in the telecom industry, but parts of it are transferable.  My first job out of college was for a telephone company and the first thing my first boss had me do was read all of the tariffs that formed the description and pricing of all the telecom services.  Boring, but quite a learning experience.

When I read that the government wants to help green power competitors compete with PG&E my antennae go up and start to quiver.  This SM County Times article did just that

In the latest sign that a Bay Area renewable energy trend is picking up steam, San Mateo County is taking a close look at buying its own power on the open market, instead of relying on PG&E, in a bid to lower its greenhouse gas emissions.

The county is exploring whether to establish a community choice aggregation program, which allows local governments to create their own energy portfolios that rely more on alternative sources like wind and solar and less on fossil fuels. On Tuesday, the board of supervisors will vote on allocating $300,000 toward a technical study of the proposal.

Digging into the details we find

The county anticipates that the program will lower rates for consumers and generate savings that can be plowed into local renewable energy projects.

Where can I go to take that bet?  Looking further we learn

Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power have seen promising results. Marin forecasts that its basic package, which consists of 50 percent renewable energy, will be $80.14 a month for a typical user in 2015, compared to $81.58 a month for PG&E power that is 22 percent renewable.

Marin customers can pay more for premium plans -- $84.77 for power that is 100 percent renewable and $107.92 for energy delivered entirely from local solar farms.

Until battery technology takes a super quantum leap in performance and price, the "100 percent renewable" advertising slogan is really just that.  Neither wind nor rain can stop the postal service, but the lack of one and the presence of the other certainly stops green power sometimes.

Leave it to the IBEW Local to find the flaw

Local 1245, said Marin Clean Energy's approach is flawed, relying too much on renewable energy certificates to meet its alternative energy targets. These certificates, purchased from renewable energy suppliers, allow the group to take credit for renewable energy generation without actually buying it.

We will have to watch this one.  $300K is fine for a technical study, but I have to ask who is doing the "business study" that will cover the taxpayers' interests?  It all smells a little like high-cost rail.