I think one of the recurring LA TIMES myths that AIA/LA can help expel is that paying higher rates is entirely bad, when indeed it may actually be a marble of good, better and best. If we pay higher rates for cleaner energy, and thus have a healthier environment, we are actually saving money in the long run that would otherwise be spent on the added expenses of healthcare, pollution mitigation, etc.
I think we might need to present two fundamental ideas in 2009:
1. Higher rates for cleaner energy is a 'positive' condition of paying for a healthier environment that inevitably results in a net cost savings.
2. The cost of building a new transmission line to connect the City of LA to rural geothermal renewables in Imperial Valley or utility-scale solar thermal in the Mojave Desert may or may not be wise. Instead, with net zero energy buildings becoming a future State mandate, perhaps our City will actually require less energy than we do now. Also, perhaps it really is a question of DISTRIBUTED POWER GENERATION v. A NEW TRANSMISSION LINE. Maybe this is the line in the sand we should emphasize in 2009, once we better understand the subtleties of the issues.
I've been following the Sunrise Powerlink, which was approved yesterday by the California Utilities Commission. Although this particular transmission line might be the right thing to do in 2010 (if and only if the line is committed to delivering 100% renewables as opposed to taping into the coal-fired plants in Mexico) - Will building a transmission line from the Salton Sea to City of Los Angeles (as Mr. Nahai suggested at the December 5th AIA/LA POC breakfast) be the right thing to do in 2015 or is it more appropriate for us as a City to utilize feed-in-tariff's to foster a culture of distributed power generation with excess capacity facilities on net zero energy buildings. Real #'s should be analyzed here. If, in fifty years, we are expected to have 50% brand-new higher-performing building stock, then it would only be logical that our net zero energy buildings might not require the infrastructure of an additional transmission line.
I think this is the real question. Do we need a new transmission line? The focus on whether or not we should be paying higher rates is a distraction to the real issue: If a healthier planet and a healthier City is what we desire, then we should be prepared to spend a little extra on our electricity rates now in effort to save money by spending less on the hidden costs of environmental degradation in the future.
____________________________________
Will Wright, Director of Government & Public Affairs
American Institute of Architects / Los Angeles
3780 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 639-0777 phone | (213)639-0767 fax
ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
No comments:
Post a Comment