Posts Tagged ‘standards’

Coming & Going at Crowded SFO – Yeah, We Could Separate the Runways to Meet Current Standards, But We Don’t Wanna

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

Click to expand

SFO experiences delays (known as flow control) in overcast weather when only two of the airport’s four runways can be used at a time because the centerlines of the parallel runways are only 750 feet (230 m) apart. Airport planners have floated proposals to extend the airport’s runways into San Francisco Bay to accommodate arrivals and departures during low visibility. To expand into the bay the airport would be required by law to restore bay land elsewhere in the Bay Area to offset the fill. Such proposals have met resistance from environmental groups, fearing damage to the habitat of animals near the airport, recreational degradation (such as windsurfing) and bay water quality. Such delays (among other reasons) caused some airlines, especially low-cost carriers, to shift service to Oakland and San Jose

The Feds are in Town Today, for the Big 54.5 MPG Fuel Standard Meeting Up in Fishermans Wharf – Plus, Point Counterpoint

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Get all the deets about the Feds’ big meeting after the jump.

Now, here it is, “Support 54.5 mpg auto fuel standard”

Fresh from the latest Washington debate on giving middle-class families a much-needed tax cut, here’s one burden off your future paychecks that you can count on – a $4,400 savings on gasoline.

Uh no, Gentle Reader. Don’t “count on” that.

Just weeks ago, President Obama proposed strengthening fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for passenger cars and light trucks to require that they get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That means the average California family buying a car in 2025 will save up to $4,400 on gas over the car’s lifetime, even after paying for fuel-saving technology.

Well, gee, won’t “the average California family buying a car in 2025″ be able to get a car that gets 54.5 mpg anyway? I think so. Actually, I know so. And gee, isn’t the average California family buying a car in 2012 able to get a ride that gets 54.5 mpg right now? I think so. Actually, I know so.

Additionally, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. These standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.5 million barrels per day, the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year. That’s a big deal.

Uh let’s see here, the lion’s share of oil that America uses comes from just three countries – can we list them now? I’ll give a hint, they’re all in North America. They are America, Canada, and Mexico. How much do we import from Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Not a whole bunch. It’s not a big deal.

Instead of draining our economy by sending nearly $1 billion a day overseas for oil, we can use the savings from new clean car rules to invest in businesses in California that will drive American innovation and industry. Indeed, California is a recognized leader in the United States in innovation and investment in energy-efficient cars.

People can buy more fuel-efficient cars right now, can’t they?

These standards enjoy the support of three-quarters of all Americans and 13 major auto manufacturers, including Detroit’s “Big Three,” which have signed letters of commitment supporting strong standards. It’s not hard to see why fuel-efficient cars are so popular. These proposed policies will drive demand for fuel-saving technology and put money back in Americans’ pockets, which will create 484,000 jobs economy-wide by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto industry.

Three-quarters of all Americans don’t support this standard. Not really. Detroit’s “Big Three” doesn’t support this standard. Not really. Fuel-efficient cars aren’t “so popular in America.” Not really. This standard won’t create half a million jobs. Not really.

We need to recognize that these standards are not partisan or controversial. Saving the average American family thousands of dollars on gas, cutting pollution, decreasing the costly negative health impacts from this pollution, combatting climate disruption, creating jobs and revitalizing the American auto industry as an engine of economic growth are benefits we can all get behind. Equally important, we would be cutting carbon pollution in 2030 by an amount equal to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.

This standard is partisan and controversial. Oh, hey, why don’t we just tax the hell out of gasoline? I’d support that. And it would accomplish all your goals, right?

This is the biggest single step that a U.S. president has taken to break America’s addiction to oil. President Obama should keep doing the right thing and finalize these strong standards this summer so that American families get a “tax cut” on gas for decades at the same time we decrease our reliance on foreign oil. It’s critical to stand up to the current efforts trying to oppose or weaken these standards.

Raising the standard for mpg is not a “tax cut.” Raising the standard for mpg is not a “tax cut.” Raising the standard for mpg is not a “tax cut.”

Join the Sierra Club and hundreds of other at a public hearing Jan. 24 in San Francisco, one of the three cities in the United States where hearings are being held, and the only one on the West Coast. Urge Obama administration officials to keep these proposed standards strong so that we don’t need to fight future wars to secure oil supplies. Help American move beyond oil.

Of course, “Help American move beyond oil.”

Linda Weiner is a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Group. For hearing details, go to http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/

Thanks, Linda. You know, you’re not supposed to just make up stuff when you argue.

Even when you know you’re correct.

You understand that, right, Linda?

I mean, are there any consequences to your proposed course?

Yes there are.

But you don’t want to talk about that, do you?

OK fine.

(more…)

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Acts to Sue CPUC and Feds Over Failure to Enforce Gas Pipeline Safety Standards

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

City Attorney Dennis Herrera is all over last year’s gas transmission explosion in San Bruno.

All the deets.

The first of a series of photos of the San Bruno aftermath from photographer David Yu

Just released:

Herrera moves to sue CPUC, feds for failing to enforce gas pipeline safety standards

Revelations from San Bruno tragedy lead San Francisco to seek federal court order compelling regulators to strictly enforce U.S. safety standards

SAN FRANCISCO (July 14, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has taken the first step toward suing the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulators for their failure to reasonably enforce federal gas pipeline safety standards as required by the Pipeline Safety Act. The notice of intent to sue Herrera delivered late today is a legally-required precursor to civil litigation by San Francisco, which will seek a federal court order to compel the CPUC and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to enforce federal pipeline safety standards in an effective manner.

Herrera’s move comes in the wake of increasingly troubling revelations in news accounts and last month’s sharply critical report by an independent review panel investigating the deadly explosion of a PG&E gas transmission line in San Bruno, Calif. on Sept. 9, 2010, which resulted in the loss of eight lives and the destruction of 38 homes. That investigation report concluded that CPUC’s “culture serves as an impediment to effective regulation,” and went on to fault regulators who “did not have the resources to monitor PG&E’s performance in pipeline integrity management adequately or the organizational focus that would have elevated concerns about PG&E’s performance in a meaningful way.” The City Attorney’s Office will file its comments on that investigation report with the CPUC tomorrow.

Continued after the jump

(more…)