High speed rail moves forward
The California High Speed Rail Authority, during a meeting this morning in San Francisco, voted unanimously to set the Bay Area route through the Pacheco Pass and up the peninsula into the Transbay Terminal and to approve the related environmental documents. The action ends a three-year controversy over whether to bring the proposed high-speed rail line over Pacheco Pass, a cheaper and easier option favored by most Bay Area politicians and government agencies, or over the Altamont Pass, an option favored by groups such as the Planning and Conservation League and California Rail Foundation, which are threatening a lawsuit over today's decision. The CHSRA board also voted unanimously today to pursue creation of a separate, regional rail line over Altamont that would connect into the high speed rail system.
Meanwhile, there are battles in Sacramento over Assembly Bill 3034, which would update the language and financial oversight provisions of Proposition 1, the $10 billion high speed rail bond measure on the November ballot, replacing current language that was written six years ago when the measure was first approved for the ballot before it was repeatedly pushed back by the Legislature. That bill, which needs a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, is being heard tomorrow by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Once built, the high speed trains would travel at up to 220 mph and make the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station in about two and a half hours, mostly likely running entirely on renewable energy sources without the huge greenhouse gas output from either driving or flying. For a lengthy discussion of the project, its complicated politics, today's vote, and the dramas surrounding AB 3034 and Senator Leland Yee, read next week's Guardian.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
I couldn't respond to the Clean Energy proposition article in the comments section of this week's Guardian, so I will respond here:
Who would run the SF M.U.D., supposing the Clean Energy proposition passes? The PUC or an elected Board of Directors? Also, I don't think that San Franciscans should rely on the PUC to invent ways of getting SF in the habit of using renewable energy. There should be a mandate that some of the energy sources come directly from city-operated electricity generators.
For example, there should be a mandate that SF own it's own tidal energy program should a competent PUC (i.e. not the current PUC) decide that such an option is viable (which it is). Why should San Franciscans have to rely on some outside renewable energy source (in spite of community choice aggregation) when they could have their own?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a process of transition, rather, I'm saying that people shouldn't be so short-sighted as to assume that SF couldn't go into the business of generating electricity, wholesale, instead of purely the retail sector. And when I say "wholesale", I mean selling it's own electricity to San Franciscans at wholesale prices (or much cheaper) while also selling surrounding cities with electricity at relatively cheap retail prices.
And, furthermore, why the hell are we even debating whether we should have peaker plants or natural gas-producing plants (albeit, city-owned) when it makes so much more sense to create a tidal energy powerplant.
Posted by expatriate | July 10, 2008 05:12 PM
The SF Clean Energy Act is very clear cut.
There will be no M.U.D. The measure will simply direct the SF Public Utilities Commission to both purchase and build infrastructure and renewable energy generation facilities.
The types of renewable facilities are not limited, so if tidal can be a good part of the mix, by all means we will build it.
Indeed, the City couldn't make those high clean energy mandates without building its own renewable generation facilities, and, by the way, widespread efficiency projects. (Efficiency is the least expensive and quickest way to get to cleaner energy use.)
Community Choice - http://communitychoiceenergy.org/ - will serve as the obvious first leg of the process, after which the City will continue to build out on that infrastructure.
San Francisco will be the leader of the world on clean energy when we get this underway, and will set a shining example, which if followed by other cities, will help save the planet from a major climate crisis.
Posted by Eric Brooks | July 11, 2008 01:38 AM