The Mayor's Infrastructure Stimulus Wish List...prepare to be Underwhelmed

Pittsburgh's mayor Luke Ravenstahl released his list of projects for the Obama administration's massive infrastructure program, which should should go into effect as early as Obama's first month in office.. The mayor announced his plan amid criticism from members of Pittsburgh city council, who were upset that the mayor did not submit the city's wish list to the US Conference of Mayors in time to be included in the group's Jobs and Infrastructure Report, although 427 other cities were able to do so. You can view that report here.

My first reaction after looking over the list of 110 projects was "Where is the green?" and "Where are the transit projects?" Where are the big and bold ideas for light rail and commuter rail, like the things we have proposed as part of CityLive's Transportation Wiki? I've compared Pittsburgh's list to the wishlists of other cities, such as Miami, which asked for funding for $3.4 in projects, including $280 million on a new streetcar system, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, which requested $2.3 billion in funding, with over $1 billion of that money being earmarked for renewable energy projects. Below is a list of the ten cities which requested the most money for infrastructure projects. (The jobs figures are so inflated that you shouldn't even pay mind to them)



Again, the mayor's plan left me asking for plans to expand the light rail to Oakland, or a massive plan for citywide energy efficiency initiatives, like Councilman Peduto's LED lighting plan. To be fair, a lot of the projects on the mayor's list are essential and are long overdue. Our sewer systems should have been upgraded decades ago, and Pittsburgh is not alone as many cities across the US are asking for money for water and waste related projects. But when looking for true green projects I only found a handful that even come close to being considered "green". These projects included bike trails, LED lighting along the trails, and new parks and green spaces. These 10 projects, listed below, represent $38 million of the $1.02 billion in requested funds, meaning only 3.3 % of the total that Mayor Ravenstahl is requesting is going to projects that will make Pittsburgh a greener city. This is a joke when stacked up against other cities, both larger and smaller than Pittsburgh, who realize that projects focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency, not to mention CO2 reductions, will be at the top of the Obama's administration's list of priorities.




A friend, who had reviewed the list earlier today, sent me an email with the following:

Where’s the leadership? Where’s the innovation? The imagination? Where’s the $%@$ creativity or inspiration?

That’s just a rote $%#@ laundry list of stuff that came out of the backs of reports that have been filed away in the City-County Building for years.

My thoughts exactly. As I said earlier, the mayor's plan does address some essential fixes to things which are in dire need of upgrades, but anyone who has been living in Pittsburgh for a few years could have recommended those projects. These are not the big bold ideas that we need to "move Pittsburgh forward", as the mayor likes to say often. Obama's stimulus plan will be an unprecedented opportunity to improve our transportation system and finally build out our light rail network, which still only serves the South Hills and downtown Pittsburgh. Other cities have put forth bold ideas that will make them more competitive not only here in the US but on a global scale as well. Like every other issue, this one shows the glaring weakness of Pittsburgh : the lack of bold leadership from our top public officials.

The complete list of projects can be viewed and downloaded to a spreadsheet from Swivel.com

City "guru" Kotkin: Don't spend Infrastucture Stimulus Money on Stupid Projects, like the Boodoggle right here in Pittsburgh

Joel Kotkin, author of "The City" and columnist on about all things pertaining to regional economics, wrote about how it is critical that the Obama administration determines which infrastructure projects are worthy of a piece of the several hundred billion dollars in infrastructure spending that he has promised. I couldn't agree more. Kotkin also singled out Pittsburgh and highlighted our "tunnel to nowhere" project as an example of how easy it is to waste half a billion on a needless infrastructure project:

Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban "renaissance," Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.

Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown's heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This "tunnel to nowhere," derided by a local columnist as the nation's "premier transit boondoggle," will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of "green" agenda.

Ouch. I can't say I disagree with Kotkin, and I think his points further emphasize the need for the NIB - the National Infrastructure Bank. We need to take the politics out of deciding which projects get federal funding, and an independent board on the NIB is a smart way to make sure that projects that have the highest probability of generating jobs and growth get the funding instead of projects where we have to import Japanese labor to bore holes under the Allegheny River.

Hopefully the North Shore Connector boondoggle doesn't hurt our chances for new infrastructure projects here in the burgh, but judging from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's announcement today of the city of Pittsburgh's Stimulus plan wish list, it seems like instead of bold audacious projects, like commuter rail, streetcars, or linking downtown to the Oakland corridor, the mayor is playing it safe with projects such as a supermarket, and $10 million worth of asphalt. I am not kidding you - read for yourself. More on this in the next post.

Pittsburgh Councilman's plan to convert all of the city's street lamps to LEDs could save the city of Pittsburgh $3 million annually

Earlier today I received an email from the office of Pittsburgh city councilman Bill Peduto announcing an ambitious plan that will reduce Pittsburgh's carbon footprint while saving the city millions in electricity costs. Peduto, who has been the only city legislator to propose green legislation of any sort over the last few years, wants the city to convert all 40,000 of its street lamps to energy efficient LED lighting. The cost of the program will be around $24 million and will be paid using a combination of the annual costs savings and funding from the state's Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreement. Pittsburgh would join cities such as Austin, Raleigh (home LED manufacturer CREE), and Toronto as major cities who have adopted LED lighting on a large scale. According to Peduto, Pittsburgh would be the largest city in the US to roll out a complete conversion to LED lighting. This would be great news for Pittsburgh's green agenda, especially in light of today's Pittsburgh Penguin's press conference, where they announced the 21 year naming rights deal for their new arena, which will be known as the Clean Coal Center.

Check out this Wikipedia entry to learn more about Light Emitting Diodes.

Below is a copy of the Peduto plan for a bright and green Pittsburgh:

A Bright, Green Idea for Pittsburgh

The Pittsburgh LED Project

Saving Tax Dollars While Saving the Environment

THE PLAN:

Over six months ago, Councilman William Peduto launched a trial of LED lights along the Walnut Street business district. Today, he is submitting a proposal for Pittsburgh to replace all 40,000 existing street lights with 200 Watt LED lights.

THE BENEFITS:

1) Green – Financial

Pittsburgh currently spends $3.2 million each year in electricity costs for our street lights. With the reduction of 137W of energy used by each of the 40,000 lights in the City of Pittsburgh, taxpayers will save $1.92 million per year in energy costs.

Pittsburgh currently spends approximately $1 million each year maintaining our street lights. An HPS bulb has 2 - 4 year life span versus 10 - 15 years for an LED light. Additionally, an LED fixtures burns out one LED at a time, which is in contrast to the current lights HPS lights which completely blow out all at once. This is expected to save taxpayers approximately $700,000/year in maintenance costs.

2) Green - Environmental

A 200W LED light only uses 93W of power. However, the existing 150W High Power Sodium (HPS) bulbs use approximately 230W (includes the ballast) of power. Therefore, over the year, the City of Pittsburgh will save 600 kWh of energy. This translates into 984 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions eliminated by switching all lights to LED.

LED lights turn on and off instantly with no warm up time. The existing HPS bulbs have a slow warm up period that is a waste of energy. Additionally, the existing sodium bulbs contain mercury in the ballasts, LED lights have no mercury.

LED lights produce a white light that stimulates the rods and the cones of our eyes. This creates a higher quality white light, while using less energy than the HPS lights that only stimulate the cones of our eyes and produce a yellow-orange light.

THE COST:

Each LED light costs approximately $500 to purchase. Additionally, it would cost about $100 in labor/light in conversion costs. Therefore, the cost to replace 40,000 lights would be approximately $24 million.

PAYING FOR IT:

With a total cost of $24 million and an annual savings of $2,620,000 upon complete conversion, the City can fully payoff the LED conversion in 10.5 years.

Pennsylvania’s Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreement (GESA) can be utilized to cover the upfront costs of the LED conversion. According to the State, “Projects will be implemented where, through simple-payback analysis, cost savings resulting from energy conservation improvements exceed the associated financing. In other words, these guaranteed savings are used to cover operating budget finance payments over a period not to exceed fifteen years.

NEXT STEPS:

The City should issue a Request for Proposals (RFP’s) immediately requesting that all interested companies provide the City with ten test lights to install throughout business districts in the City for a six month trial (February 1, 2009 – July 31, 2009). During the trial period, measurements should be taken to determine the luminous intensity and the energy produced. Solar powered lights and those with photo-sensitive detectors that lessen the light during dusk and dawn should be included in the trial.

The City should award the contract no later than August 31, 2009, based on required conditions of the RFP process, reliability through trial phase, and long term financial and environmental impact. The contract should require work to begin no later than October 1, 2009 and completed by December 31, 2010.

The City should immediately submit an application with the State through the Guaranteed Energy Savings program.

The City should determine programs we can work with to properly dispose of the existing HPS lights. This could be done through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or a similar program.

The Pittsburgh Penguins Award their New Arena's Naming Rights to a Local Coal Company

Pittsburgh Penguins fans, prepare yourself for annoying advertising about how good coal is for you and our country. Prepare yourselves for an onslaught of misleading ads regarding Consol Energy's commitment to "clean coal", because the Pens just awarded Consol Energy, a coal company located right here in Southwestern PA, with the naming rights to their arena in deal worth a reported $5 million dollars a year. Prepare yourselves for an arena powered by, but filled with dirty filthy stinking coal industry representatives.

KDKA news broke the story:

When the Penguins' new arena opens, it will have a new name.

KDKA Investigator Andy Sheehan has learned that Consol Energy has won the naming rights.

The local coal and energy company is claiming more and more of a national and international spotlight. Next week, the Penguins will announce the sale of the arena naming rights to Consol on a long term basis for at least several million dollars a year.

The Penguins aren't commenting, but in a similar deal, the New Jersey Devils sold naming rights to their arena to Prudential Insurance for $5 million a year.

Environmentalists and advocates for energy policy change should have major issues with the naming rights and also the media's lame ass coverage of this event.

Here are a few reasons why I am particularly pissed off about this:

1. During the segment on KDKA, Andy Sheenan mentions Consol's development of "clean coal" as if it was a real thing. As we have seen, heard, and read time and time again coal is not clean, it is freaking dirty and toxic substance for Christ's sake, but remember, we shouldn't expect the media to report the facts, right? The media's failure to get on board with climate change and clean technologies is why this blog exists, after all.

And how could I omit this clean coal demonstration that is now hitting the airwaves across the US.




2.The second thing I have a problem with is that the media has made no mention of coal's negative impact on our environment. I'm not surprised that they have ignored the climate change issue, but come on, right here in our own backyard we have First Energy's Bruce Mansfield plant, which has been spewing and raining soot and toxins upon the families that live in the vicinity of the power plant in nearby Beaver County.

To the right is a picture of what is left after companies like Consol Energy perform their magic of mountaintop coal removal.


3. The third thing has to do with Pittsburgh's image. We were known as the smokey city throughout most of the 20th century due to the abundance of coke works and steel mills. The air is much cleaner now, and Pittsburgh is trying to position itself as a leading city in the new clean energy industry. But how can Pittsburgh be a true green city when its largest indoor sporting venue is named after a coal company? Burning coal to produce electricity is the biggest source of CO2 emissions, which, along with other green house gasses like methane, are the primary culprit behind climate change. How can the mayor of Pittsburgh say with a straight face that Pittsburgh is one of America's greenest city's when our professional hockey team is represented by one of the least green entities around, a friggin coal company.

4. Penguins fans, most of them at least, won't give a you know what about the decision and may even buy into this clean coal myth. From the sounds of the people interviewed in the KDKA story (above), the arena could be named after the Bin Laden family and it still wouldn't matter because, as the guy stated:

"As long as I can come see the Pens I don't care what they call the arena."

Way to be and sound like a dumb yinzer, buddy.


The irony of course is that a coal company's name will now adorn the arena of a hockey team named The Penguins. Climate change is causing a ripple effect that is warming the arctic and antarctic air and water, which is melting the ice at alarming rates, rates that are even more aggressive than the scientists predicted at least a decade before climate change and global warming were even brought to our attention. Real life penguins live in these areas, and the burning of coal and other fossil fuels will advance the melting of glaciers, which lead to the demise of animals such as polar bears and penguins unless something is done to drastically cut he amount of greenhouse gas emissions we are putting into the atmosphere. This is not likely to happen because corporations like Consol, who could be investing in ways to sequester their CO2 emissions, are instead investing their money on PR campaigns like the billboards and advertisements we see all around Pittsburgh, and now they are spending money on naming rights, which they will use as a strategy to further enhance their image and spread the word that they are actually the good guys, and that they are doing the right thing when it comes to developing this thing, this myth known as "clean coal.'

Bravo gentleman, and a big thank you to Mario Lemiuex, Ron Burkle, and the rest of the owners and management of the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey franchise for bringing us the Consol Energy Arena, or "Clean Coal Place", or "We are the power behind America" arena, or whatever the hell these imbeciles and climate change deniers decide to call it.

Obama chooses Nobel Prize winning Physicist to be the next Energy Secretary

This might be one of Obama's best cabinet selections to date. Dr. Steven Chu is your typical energy secretary, as he is not a politician or energy industry executive. Some had speculated that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was in the running to be Energy Secretary, and as Bill Richardson's two year tenure as Energy Secretary showed, politicians are the wrong choice as our nation's top energy chief The Wonk Room blog over at Think Progress had a nice write up on the announcement and this paragraph tells why Steven Chu is such an awesome choice as our next energy secretary.

It’s hard to decide if the selection of Dr. Chu is more remarkable for who he is — a Nobel laureate physicist and experienced public-sector administrator — or for who is not. Unlike previous secretaries of energy, he is neither a politician, oil man, military officer, lawyer, nor utility executive. His corporate ties are not to major industrial polluters but to advanced technology corporations like AT&T (where he began his Nobel-winning research) and Silicon Valley innovator Nvidia (where he sits on the board of directors). Chu is a man for the moment, and will be a singular addition to Obama’s Cabinet.

Here is a 9 minute clip of Dr. Chu at the last National Energy Summit. He is wicked smart when it comes to all things energy - he gets climate change, energy efficiency, and clean tech.

Plextronics CEO: "Today’s clean-tech intellectual property is tomorrow’s oil"

Popcity recently published an Op-Ed by Andy Hannah, CEO of Pittsburgh clean tech startup Plextronics. Hannah just returned from the Middle East, where he was on a trade mission with the US Department of Energy. Following his trip Mr. Hannah wrote about what he thinks the incoming administration needs to do to position the United States as the world leader in the clean technology and renewable energy.

The following are Hannah's steps for success:

• Collaborate. Participate with other nations, such as the UAE, where the vision is to be the world leader in energy technology.
• Compete. Establish a competitive platform that “reaches for the moon”. Let’s build a new city that has net zero carbon emissions or overhaul an existing city so that it has net zero carbon emissions. Let’s build a cluster of companies in a city that drives more than half of its economy from the export of energy technology.
• Use our assets. All of our government properties could convert its energy sources from traditional energies to clean and alternative energy technology.
• Win. What are the global visionaries expecting to achieve? Let’s double the ante.There are many efforts already in progress across the United States to establish excellence in clean and renewable energy technology.Sometimes they are loosely connected and most times they are independent in their efforts. As a country of ingenuity, invention and determination we need to harness all of those traits and drive a coordinated, nationwide effort to ensure that America’s clean-tech intellectual property is tomorrow’s oil.

The Ford Motor Company's Business (Survival) Plan

Below is the section on sustainability and electric vehicles from the business plan that Ford presented to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2nd. After reviewing this plan as well as the plans, the big three CEO's testimony to Congress, and also the financial health of the Detroit automakers, I have to say that Ford's relatively stronger balance sheet, their aggressive plans for rolling out electric vehicles, and having a chairman in Bill Ford who has longed to make Ford a green auto company, makes Ford the favorite to come out of this recession with a plan and strategy that will put them in a position of strength to compete with the Toyotas and Hondas who have been eating the big three's lunch throughout the past three decades. More to come on the plans of GM and Chrysler, but from first glance it looks like GM is asking for $18 billion to gut the company, while Chrysler seems to be a counting down the days until its cash shortage forces them to turn off the lights.

Here is the press release from Ford, which has links to both the plan (PDF) and appendix (PPT).

A WSJ reporter lived blogged the testimony, and it is worth reading in its entirety, especially the parts where Nardelli and Wagoner seem to be losing it.



Ford's Sustainability and Electrification Strategy
(page 16 in the report)

Ford’s sustainability plan will achieve continuous and substantial improvement in fuel economy and a corresponding reduction in CO2 through affordable technology in high volume. Ford’s plan is to make affordable fuel efficiency available to millions of consumers.

Our three-phased approach – with near-term,medium-term and long-term advanced technologies and products – begins now with advanced internal combustion engine and
transmission technologies, such as our EcoBoost engines going into production on several vehicles in 2009. The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles, as battery costs improve and as the transition from Hybrids to Plug-in Hybrids to Battery Electric Vehicles occurs. (See Appendix, Slide 4.)

Next month at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, we will discuss in detail Ford’s accelerated vehicle electrification plan, which includes bringing to market by 2012 a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. Our work will include partnering with battery and powertrain systems suppliers to deliver a full battery electric vehicle (BEV) in a van-type vehicle for commercial fleet use in 2010 and a BEV sedan in 2011. We will develop these vehicles in a manner that enables us to reduce costs and ultimately makes battery electric powered vehicles more affordable for consumers.

Our plan also includes building on our competence in hybrid vehicles, as demonstrated by the industry-leading fuel economy of the Ford Escape and Ford Fusion hybrids. We are now developing our next generation full hybrid technology, which includes plug-in capability, for vehicles in 2012 and beyond. We are targeting a substantial increase in hybrid volume through a greater than 30% reduction in cost, installation of hybrid capability in global platforms and hybrid vehicles that are uniquely styled.

We cannot, however, accomplish significant electrification by ourselves. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires American-developed breakthroughs in high-power energy batteries (e.g. lithium ion). In order to make significant progress in electrification, Ford supports establishing a U.S. public/private partnership to accelerate the development of this capability, including supporting infrastructure, within the United States.

Obama's National Security Adviser "Puts Energy First"

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog has a story on President-elect Obama's choice for our National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones. Gen. Jones has been on record stating that energy is a national security issue. This should be a no brainer, but it is a 180 from the Bush administration, which has talked the talk but failed to walk the walk when it comes to taking action on climate change and energy security. Here is an interesting quote from Jones, provided by Environmental Capital:

“We are in a race against the clock and complacency is our greatest enemy. If we do not take this challenge seriously, America’s economic prosperity, national security, and global standing will be at risk. The status quo is not only an option, it is a recipe for failure.”

Can I get an Amen!? This is another sign that energy independence will be at the top of Obama's list of priorities. My friends, the closer we get to PE Obama's inauguration the more I can sense that change to our backwards energy policy is around the corner. How about you?

The EPA is seeking local applicants for its Green Jobs Training Program

According to Pop City the EPA is looking for 60 Pittsburgh area applicants for its Brownfields Jobs Training Program. The federal agency is looking for applicants who live in local brownfield areas, such as Braddock, Swissvale, Clairton, Duquesne, McKeesport and Homestead. The training will develop the individuals to become certified environmental technicians and brownfield remediation specialists.

From the Pop City announcement:

The jobs pay about $12 to $15 an hour and include health insurance and benefits. Job placement services are available after training. Graduates will receive licenses for positions such as field technicians and phase I environmental technicians that conduct soil, water, air and building material testing and may receive further certification as a lead or asbestos inspector or clean-up technician.

While $12 to $15 an hour doesn't sound like much, and it isn't, it is a start, and these are the types of jobs and skills that will soon be in high demand. The program will lead to higher paying positions once the trainees get some experience. The EPA reaching out to potential applicants in areas like the aforementioned East Pittsburgh neighborhoods is what I call the Van Jones effect. As Van Jones said, the green movement cannot be just about rich people putting solar panels on their rooftops. The green movement must be inclusive, and must be about green jobs for all, especially those who are struggling and looking for jobs that have the potential for advancement and higher incomes. Green jobs can and will be the "rising tide that lifts all boats" and I am glad to see this announcement that there are indeed real green job openings right here in Pittsburgh.

Project Better Place is on a Roll

Last week Shai Agassi, CEO of Better Place, announced a $1 billion project that will bring his electric vehicle network to the Bay Area. Now there is news that Agassi has struck a deal with the Governor of Hawaii to bring his electric car network to Aloha state by 2012. This is huge news for everyone concerned with the environment and energy independence, and it is proof that the state of Hawaii is serious about cutting its dependence on foreign oil by 70% by the year 2030.

MSN Autos Editorial Bashes Tesla Motors, skeptical of GM's Volt

Auto critic Lawrence Ulrich tells us to "get read to pull the plug" on Tesla motors. Mr. Ulrich says that transmission glitches and the delayed roll out of its model "S" roadster is proof that the demise of Tesla is around the corner:

While the fledgling electrocar specialists haven’t hung a “gone fishing” sign on the front door just yet, it might be just a matter of time. That isn’t changing anytime soon, regardless of how much money company founder and newly appointed CEO Elon Musk can scare up for his pet project. And this group of Silicon Valley geniuses isn’t alone. You can simply add Tesla’s name to the long list of electric car builders that have talked a big game and failed to deliver.

Yes, the production delays and the issues with the model S's transmission have made Tesla motor's customers, fans, and followers like myself a little anxious. We want to see this company succeed and live to be a model for 21st Century American auto manufacturing. One reason I think Ulrich is too quick to write off Tesla motors is the man behind the company - Elon Musk. I've read several interviews and stories about him in magazines such as Fast Company. He may come off to some as arrogant but you can't argue with success - and someone who puts his money where his mouth is. In his latest interview Musk discloses that has invested $55 million of his personal money in the company, which has raised close to $200 million overall. Musk also listed a string of his accomplishments and successes, which include PayPal, which he co-founded, and added "I've never had a failure, and I'm not going to add one now." Do you think that this guy would let Tesla Motors fail this early in the game?

Ulrich does expect them to fail, and it is clear that he doesn't think tech geeks belong in the auto industry. He says that starting a real car company takes billions. Well, eventually, yes, it does, but a brief history lesson is in order here. If Mr. Ulrich studied some history of the struggles of Henry Ford he would realize that starting a car company from scratch is a journey of ups and downs, and, as Ford showed, it takes perseverance and dedication to see it through. In fact, Ford's first auto company, The Detroit Automobile Company, failed soon after it was started due to financing issues.

So, while the road has been bumpy and the company is already on CEO #4, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. First, Tesla Motors will survive the devastation of our capital markets. The company did have to lay off a lot of its employees and delay its production of its 4 door $70k Sedan, but it was recently able to secure another round of financing and will soon be on the receiving end of a DOE loan, and may very well see a small slice ($400mm) of the proposed $25 billion auto industry bailout. Secondly - they are rolling vehicles off the production line, and they are still taking orders and offering test drives for potential customers. These facts seem to be absent from Ulrich's column, and while he does think GM's Volt is more likely to be accepted by consumers than Tesla's pure plug-in vehicle, he is also skeptical of GM having much success with the Volt, even saying that sales of 10,000 units in its first full year would be a "monumental success." I doubt this guy feels the same way, and I have a strong feeling that if GM can stay afloat and produce the Volt closer to the $30k price point, they will have difficulty producing enough vehicles to meet demand. The Volt is really the future of GM, they are putting all their chips on its success, and if you combine that with the Volt's range extending gasoline/E85 tank, not to mention a federal tax credit of $7500, it is difficult to think that the Volt will be a flop. Forget Ulrich's column where he is trying to hard to be a contrarian, and forget about the demise of the electric car, because the revenge of the electric car is around right around the corner!

Update: I may have found an even more ridiculous column, this time in the New York Times Business section, that is critical of Tesla Motors for requesting $400 million of the $25 billion auto industry bailout. The column's writer, Randall Stross, is so short sighted in his analysis it is painful:

The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?

Does Stross really think tax payer money is in better hands if all of it goes to the big 3? Hello McFly!!! Does Stross realize that Tesla is requesting less than 2% of the total package? It is clear that he doesn't know much about Tesla Motors, and that they will be producing two electric vehicles to be sold lower price points within the next 2 to 5 years, and that the survival of Tesla Motors is actually more important than the big 3 in terms of the technological advancement of America's auto industry. Two tech heavyweights offer their take on Stross's column, including Jason Calcanis, an owner of a Tesla model S, who wrote a point by point retort of Stross at his blog. His conclusion is worth re-posting here:

Randall says “Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be
put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to
benefit fewer people?”

Sure, how about the Iraq war, which costs around $400m a day–dollars
that we have no chance of ever seeing again (as opposed to a loan,
which is paid back with interest).

Your editorial should have started with this fact: if we leave Iraq a
week early, we can give two billion dollars in loans to *five*
electric car companies. That’s your lead right there, Randy. That’s
leadership, that’s the truth and that’s your job as a journalist. Not
this “damn the billionaires” crap. In fact, the billionaires in this
country have done a hell of a lot (see Gates, Buffet, Turner and
countless others)…But that’s for another email. Let’s get back on
the subject.

You need to put things back in their proper perspective instead of
obsessing about the fact that some of the investors in Tesla are
really rich, that the first version of the car is slightly more
expensive than a luxury car, and that battery power is *only* going to
*double* every ten years.

You really should rewrite the editorial and give the public a fair
world view instead of one warped by some short-term populist
propaganda. Tesla isn’t about rich Silicon Valley guys in sports cars:
it’s about extracting ourselves from the environment-killing,
human-rights violating, terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle
East. The only reason we deal with countries that suppress women and
homosexuals and give money to terrorists who kill based on a religion
is because we are dependent on their oil. If we didn’t need their oil,
we would treat them like we treat other rogue regimes–isolate them
until they got their act together.

Companies like Tesla are the direct path to our independence from such
treachery.

The DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a blog!

I found a very useful blog brought to us by none other than the Department of Energy's Office of EERE. The blog is titled Energy Savers, and the blog contains, you guessed it, tips on how each of us can save energy in and around our homes. I found the blog while doing research on ways to weatherize our house. Although the Energy Savers blog was created just this past September they have already posted helpful information on a wide range things from energy audits to tax incentives for energy efficient appliances and home improvements.

The following are a few of their best posts to date:

Six Places to Find Help with your Energy Costs
Two Stories of Successful Energy Audits
Energy Tax Credits: Stay Warm and Save MORE Money!
EERE's Energy Calculators

According to their first post from back in September, we can expect about 2 posts a week on the Energy Savers blog:

Welcome! The Energy Savers Blog is a new undertaking here at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We've been hearing so much great feedback from consumers who visit the Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that we decided to offer a new way to share your ideas, needs, and issues around energy. And this is it!

This blog is our place to discuss important energy issues with you, and your place to converse with us and others facing those issues. We've gathered a small team of bloggers who each offer a different perspective on saving energy and using renewable technologies. We hope that (at least occasionally) you'll find an outlook that you can relate to and information you can use.

Since many of us are already feeling a bit of a chill in the air, we are well aware that the approaching winter and high energy costs are probably on your mind as well. To help you get prepared before the snow flies, over the next two months we will be gearing our blog posts specifically toward "winterization" strategies that can help you save energy and money.

Expect to see regular posts approximately twice a week, with more posts throughout the month of October, widely known around here as Energy Awareness Month.

Finally, here are a few more helpful links from the Office of EERE:

EERE Consumer's Guide
Energy Saver's website
Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EERE Information Center

Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low Carbon Economy

Tickets to the event in DC are sold out but click here to RSVP for the live Webcast

Live Webcast

Green Recovery

December 1, 2008, 12:00pm – 1:30pm

Please join the Center for American Progress and three of the country's leading advocates for investments in a green economy for a discussion on how each step of an economic recovery package (stabilization, stimulus, recovery, and growth) can be greened, and explore both national and state perspectives on policy solutions towards transforming our economy to a low-carbon model.

Introduction by:
Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

Featured Speakers:
Governor Ed Rendell (D - PA)

Thomas Friedman, columnist, New York Times; author, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- and How It Can Renew America

Moderated by:
Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

A Green Building Report with some awesome statistics on LEED certified buildings

Joel Makower points us to a great report on the impact of LEED certified buildings. The Green Building Impact Report, written by Robert Watson, one of the brains behind the creation of the LEED certification program, is free to download or view online. The report, at only 24 pages long, is worth your time if you have an interest in green building, especially if you, like me, are trying to sell the idea of building LEED certified to stakeholders in your town or company.

Page 3 of the report summarizes the following statistics related to the environmental impacts of LEED certified non-residential buildings:

• Nearly 400 million vehicle miles traveled have been avoided by the occupants of LEED buildings, thanks to efficient locations and the myriad of alternative transportation options supported by LEED. This will grow to more than 4 billion vehicle miles by 2020.
• Expected water savings from LEED commercial buildings will grow to more than 7% of all non-residential water use by 2020. The equivalent of 2008 LEED water savings would fill enough 32-ounce bottles to circle the Earth 300 times.
• LEED buildings consume approximately 25% less energy on average than comparable commercial buildings. By 2020, these energy savings will amount to more than 1.3 million tons of coal equivalent each year, representing approximately 78 million tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions.
• LEED has helped spur an entire industry in green building materials. Certified projects to date have specified a total of more than $10 billion of green materials, which could grow to a cumulative amount exceeding $100 billion by 2020.
• Companies with employees working in LEED buildings realized annual productivity gains exceeding $170 million resulting from improved indoor environmental quality, a number that will grow to nearly $2 billion of annual productivity improvements by 2020.

A Green Wishlist for Obama

Renewable energy trade groups came together on a conference call last week to submit their wish lists for the Obama administration. Here is the summary courtesy of the Green Wombat blog:

• A five-year extension of the production tax credit for the wind industry (it currently has to be renewed every year) to remove uncertainty for investors.
• A major infrastructure program to upgrade the transmission grid so wind, solar and geothermal energy can be transmitted from the remote areas where it is produced to major cities. Obama advisor Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google (GOOG), recently joined with General Electric (GE) chief Jeff Immelt to launch a joint initiative to develop such smart grid technology as well as push for policy changes in Washington to allow the widespread deployment of renewable energy by rebuilding the nation’s transmission system.
• Impose a national “renewable portfolio standard” that would mandate that utilities obtain a minimum 10% of their electricity from green sources by 2012 and at least 25% by 2020. Two-thirds of the states currently impose variations of such requirements.
• Mandate that the federal government - the nation’s single largest consumer of electricity - obtain more energy from renewable sources.
• Enact a cap-and-trade carbon market.

I am supportive of all of the above, but here are a few things I would add to that list:

• A green bailout for the auto industry. If we're not building cars here in America then that means we no longer build anything - period. If all it takes is $25 billion of the remaining $350 billion that the Treasury dept. will have left to its disposal in 2009 then I say we bail out the big 3 with the following conditions: they must manufacture enough plug-in electric hybrids to meet President-elect Obama's goal of 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. They must also raise the average fuel economy of the fleets and they must do so by 2020. Joseph Romm of Climate Progress, and a former employee of the Dept. of Energy, lists some additional reasons for the green bailout over at Salon.com. The following is his bottom line for the bailout:
  

If we are going to bail out Detroit, the deal has to be based on meeting the new fuel economy standards of 35 mpg by 2020, and meeting them increasingly with hybrids. The deal has to be for multiple plug-in hybrid car models. And most important, the deal has to include a management team that is wholly committed to that inevitable transition, a team that will not waste a penny of the taxpayer-funded bailout lobbying against the even tougher standards and regulations that will be needed to avoid the harsh consequences of global warming and peak oil.

• The introduction of feebate system for all new automotive purchases from 2010 and beyond. Allow people to purchase 10 mpg SUVs but only with a gas guzzler fee attached to it. The gas guzzler fees will go towards paying incentives in the form of rebates to purchasers of hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles. For more information on recent legislation please read this article on the bill proposed in California.
  
• A new New Deal - a massive infrastructure program for new roads, bridges, and network of high speed rail. If we have to spend $200 billion then great, spend $200 billion, but the total cost of current infrastructure needs has been estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. China is planning on spending close to $600 billion on infrastructure projects over the next 2 years.
  
• A National Infrastructure Bank like the one proposed by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, so we have a systematic way of awarding taxpayer money for roads and rails to somewhere and not bridges to nowhere.
• Is clean coal for real or are we going to continue to waste billions on research and pilot CCS plants? If clean coal is viable then let's go for it, but if its BS then let's stop wasting our time and money and move on.
  

A huge win for environmentalists and energy progress

Earlier today California Representative Henry Waxman defeated Michigan Rep. John Dingell in a secret ballot vote to claim Dingell's seat as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From Politico:

The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.

This is a huge win for both the Obama administration and each one of us who has been advocating change at the top for a long time. We now have an environmentally savvy Congressman heading the energy committee instead of a protector of the status quo, as Dingell has held that post since 1981 and has been a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to raise fuel standards for the Detroit automakers. I don't have to go into details telling you how abysmal his track record over the past 27 years has been. My friends - the change we need is on the way!

"It doesn't hurt to dream"

I just came across yet another Pittsburgh transit blog, this one titled the East Busway Blog. The Busway's latest post has an interesting idea for a light rail extension that would utilize the MLK East Busway (coincidence?) to reach towns to the northeast and southeast of the city of Pittsburgh. Here is the sketch of the proposed extensions courtesy of the East Busway blog:



As the East Busway blogger said, it doesn't hurt to dream. Hopefully the East Busway blogger finds his or her way to the Pittsburgh wiki's Regional Integrated Transportation Plan, which is entering its final stages of development. If you have dreams of a better transportation future for Pittsburgh please visit the site and let us know!

Sustainable Business Symposium at Duquesne University

This Thursday I will be attending a symposium on sustainability at Duquesne University here in Pittsburgh. I will be posting more following the event. Here is the event website.

Program schedule »

Envisioning a Sustainable Future

Daniel C. Esty, co-author, Green to Gold

An author and businessman, Esty has worked with large global companies—including BP, Toyota, GE, IKEA, Coca-Cola, Unilever and Shell—to foster innovation and competitive advantage through environmental thinking in a range of industries. Expect to capture viable ideas for reducing costs and risks while building your organization's reputation and revenues. Esty will be on hand to autograph complimentary copies of his book.

CEO Forum: Identifying Strategic Opportunities

Moderated by (photos from left to right):
Dr. Alan R. Miciak, dean, Palumbo-Donahue School of Business
Greg Babe, president & CEO, Bayer Corporation
Todd M. Bluedorn, CEO, Lennox International
Joseph C. Guyaux, president, PNC Financial Services Group
Diane P. Holder, president and CEO, UPMC Health Plan

Capture the leader's perspective on how sustainable practices fit into corporate strategy in different industries. Chief executives from three Fortune 500 companies and an internationally-renowned healthcare system will present their views. Learn what motivates an executive to support sustainability initiatives and gain insight to the issues that lie ahead for corporate leaders.

Luncheon Keynote Address: Governing for Sustainable Development Christine Todd Whitman 50th Governor of New Jersey and Former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency As head of a consulting firm that specializes in energy and environmental issues, Governor Whitman will share her perspectives on sustainability related to emerging regulatory issues, connecting the public sector with the business community, and comment on post-election expectations from a new administration. Read Bio »

Putting Sustainability into Practice

Moderated by (photos from left to right):
John T. Buckley, SVP and director of corporate social
responsibility, BNY Mellon
Nate Hurst, director, stakeholder engagement, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Susan Baker Shipley, SVP & managing director, Citizens Bank
Dr. Norbert Verweyen, vice president, RWE (Germany)

Senior managers, empowered to execute, share their experiences from building sustainable practices into their organizations. Learn about carbon trading from a leader in the European community; explore the challenges and rewards of metrics-driven accountability for sustainability commitments in a large organization; and follow the path that an organization traveled to leverage its scale while implementing high impact programs across the supply chain.

Building a Sustainability Action Plan

William R. Blackburn
president, William Blackburn Consulting
author, The Sustainability Handbook

William R. Blackburn's global consulting firm focuses on sustainable development; environment, health and safety management; and emergency and crisis response. A 35-year veteran in the field, Blackburn will discuss practical tactics for building a customized sustainability action plan in any organization. He will offer tools and advice for getting started, developing an action plan, adapting for unique operating needs, establishing criteria and implementing initiatives.

Pittsburgh's $6 million subway system

While doing some research on Pittsburgh's transportation history I found a reference to a report from 1925 titled "Report on a recommended subway in the first and second wards of Pittsburgh: Or, Proposed first step in a rapid transit program"

The reference was found in a report in the American City Planning Institutes's archives:

For Pittsburgh, there is a report published by the Traffic Commission, prepared by
Messrs. Turner and Haydock* on Recommended Subways in the First and Second Wards,a
proposed first step in a rapid transit program. In 1919, $6,000,000 was voted by the
citizens of Pittsburgh for such a subway, and in 1924 a Traffic Commission becoming
the Bureau of Traffic Relief was named to determine the character and route.  The
Report strongly recommends construction with a sub-street to care for pedestrians
and such a route as will spread the business district out from the over-concentrated
"Triangle". The plans and diagrams to show the advantages of through-routing are of
particular interest. 

So we could have had a subway system for $6 million back in 1925?
(roughly $73 million in today's dollars - still a bargain!)

Who is responsible for not implementing those plans?!  Well, according to the City
Paper story, the Port Authority screwed it up! So we have something to add to the
list of terrible decisions during the Port Authority's reign over the region's
transportation system: the East Busway, the SkyBus fiasco, the rejection of the
Spine Line plan, and last but not least, today's North Shore Connector aka the chunnel to nowhere.

From the 2005 City Paper story titled "Lost Tracks" :

Reworking concepts first proposed in 1917, city engineers Daniel L. Turner and
Winters Haydock offered up their 1925 Report on A Recommended Subway in the First
and Second Wards of Pittsburgh, or Proposed First Step in a Rapid Transit Program.

They proposed a rail system beyond the imagination of T riders today. It would have
joined East Liberty to the Central North Side, Squirrel Hill to the South Side,
Beltzhoover to Perry Hilltop -- and all of them to Downtown. Such a system could
have made Pittsburgh the Manhattan of the Alleghenies.

Turner and Haydock's top priority? A route they called the "Fifth Avenue Line" --
a two-track subway line with 17 stops connecting the Central North Side to Downtown,
Soho, Oakland, Shadyside and East Liberty.

Future lines could be built later, they noted. But "this line will furnish a rapid
transit connecting link between East Liberty, the Oakland center, the Triangle
District and the North Side business area." Taken together, the Golden Triangle,
the North Side and East Liberty made up the city's largest commercial engine;
the planners sought to "weld such separate centers more nearly into a single
community."

If money were scarce, the engineers urged, at least go from the North Side to Oakland.

That dream persisted for decades. And the year 1964, when the Port Authority was
formed, might've seemed a good time to begin work on it. Instead the transit agency,
built from the merger of dozens of struggling private bus and trolley companies,
hung its hopes on a scheme that was even more ambitious: Skybus.

Proposed to replace old trolley lines in the South Hills, Skybus was a novel system
featuring rubber-tired, driver-less coaches that would run on elevated guideways.
Controversial from the start (some objectors preferred rail while others were
spooked by buses that drove themselves), arguments grew so feverish that by 1974,
funding for Skybus was suspended by the federal government. One year later, the
Port Authority decided to give the South Hills light rail instead. The rest of the
city -- particularly the East End, home to the region's largest number of transit
users -- had to content itself with bus service.