Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 21, 2010 6:00am-6:30am PST

7:00 am
california, or gone , colorado, each of us pledge a hundred thousand dollars to this public outreach to educate people about how climate change leafy fekt one of our most precious resources, drinking water. and how it will effect waist water. real life things to educate people. i think all other major agencies - the larger agencies should pledge a hundred thousand dollars. i know everybody likes to think of themselves as the big kids but smaller agencies can pledge 50 thousand. then what would be great, lester , is for the state,dwr, is match the collection of the
7:01 am
different agencies. [applause] we are willing to volunteer. we are willing to volunteer our staff of the san francisco, puc, is willing to be the group that convenes the different communications heads. all of you have public relations people or head of external affairs, and we'd be willing to pull together that committee of different communication heads of different agencys to see about getting and energy gaming public outreach. any of us going to do heavy lifting with planning, legislation, we have to get the public to buy in and say, that's right way to spend our money, and yes, i will make that tough decision about conservation. i'll get off my soap box now
7:02 am
but i hope you join me and e-mail and say, we're in. >> susan, i urge you to say what they can do about it's a well. not just how serious it is people are looking for that. and i'm sure you meant that but i wanted to add that. >> we have one response here and then we'll go to the floor. >> i just wanted to follow the very important point about educating the public. two of the questions inevitably come up, is what is the scale of the problem we face, and what might be done about it. and i was taken with peters point which was very important is testing on our existing systems and what that might be with their performance and with
7:03 am
new circumstances and even if we only do, a pilot or demonstration area, we would at least begin to have a handle on what this means and trying to quantify the scale of the problem, because it's hugely important in engaging with the public that we're able to give them those answers and to give them that we need to collect those facts. >> i'm joel smith and i want to pick up on peters comments. i'm very impressed by this workshop on assessing the climate change and it begs the question, should all utilities or those officer time size be required to look at implications of climate changes over 30 or 50 - whatever the
7:04 am
planning verizon is, the things peter is talking about. in britain and correct me if i'm wrong, their required to look at the long-term plan and suggest if their robust against a long term plan. i think it's making water managers look very seriously at this. i throw that out as a possibility. >> i'm at,mwah. they have asked me to lead our climate change commitment and people ask the same thing. what do we do? what are we doing? is this real? to synthesize and follow up, i like peters comments. one of this things we do when we talk to more and more people is seeing a transition from a world we were focused on and meeting a regulatory world and
7:05 am
now we're being asked to look external and further from the small boundaries of our communities and where do we sit. some of the ways we're helping and thinking of how to move forward is here is a set of what we have to do to meet the current set. how do we understand it's pervasive and crosses the miles of federal organizations. how do we use this world today in our,cip, planning to create platforms to leverage the real actions in the years and legacies we're putting together? >> thank you. >> one of the things we've noticeed our community climate development plan is greenhouse
7:06 am
gases reduction metric, is pretty key integrator for integrating a lot of different activities so we've kind of adopted this approach of, an adopt the,un,fc. what needs to be done in order to do this we have to look forward 50 years ahead and we have to say, okay over the next 50 years we're going to have to stop using fossil fuels and this is a transition we're involved in. as a planning tool this is a mote or motivator and we'll
7:07 am
have to stop to experience that and reduce those. >> thank you. >> i'm with the, hetch heatchy water and power. one was the comment that with a plan to contact people and reach out - we've got a new opportunity. people are tired of hearing about energy and water sufficiency. we've all been doing that's an agencies distributed water for a long time. global warming and climate change, as it now reaches out to people. it's a new way to remind people when they save water their saving energy and all kinds of things to reassure their future. so the global warming way is a good way to get at a lot of
7:08 am
themes we talked about for years. it's a huge opportunity. the second thing, we have a disparity yesterday and today. we heard what shouldn't be done is base decisions on the past. that's not quite right. dan showed a wonderful plot of global warming and co2, with and without global warming. we have to have the past as part of our story to show how the change occurs. as a hydrologist we can't do the studies without the past. what we really need to say is include the effect of global warming and not ignore the changes in the future but the past has to be there to provide
7:09 am
the background that we build and design and project. >> lester , i think you talked a little about that. maybe you'd like to clarify that a little bit. >> well, let me start in a slightly different way. but i think it's how we get to integrating these. we have to have integrating for that there's too many silos. one sore point is getting land agencies to integrate flood issues. the concern i have of where we're trying to go is we do not have adequate tools out there. we don't have uniform assessment meants, or carbon footprints and make sure your not comparing apples to oranges so i as lot more complex than you
7:10 am
see on the surface. in my opinion, we have these climate models and you have to bring it down to operations model. exactly what's going to happen in the stream system and we have still to do that. we don't have those standardized methods. i think the key, while you get those, you don't have a single plot, you actually develop several alternatives of what you can expect from climate change. that's one of the things from communication strategy, you show them a spaghetti strategy and their flipg the channel. you tell them your spending a billion dollars because of this squiggle line.
7:11 am
i think poling and focus groups to find out what phrases people work with. maybe they flip the channel when you say global warming, then don't say it again if this is a campaign to achieve something then don't worry about throwing away your favorite phrase or way of talking about this. we want to be effective we have to do it like a campaign. >> responding to one thing i heard. one challenge we face is level of uncertainty in knowledge and how we do accordingly. one thing our agency started doing three years back is building in what we call a buffer. we're doing ten percent extra in conservation and recycling and all of that. we build into it a planning buffer for project uncertainty.
7:12 am
very often projects don't come on-line at the pace you want. we understand this is an added cost to our rate payers but we believe we need that buffer and that fits here because we're not sure how it will play out in terms of water supply. we do know it's likely to be negative and that helps us get to where we need to be in 2030 and so forth. i have 37 board members and he gave me a thumbs up for the offer to give. so you have one vote. >> as a quick thing, do you identify that to the public. >> yes we do. we have a chart that shows demand, need, cost and a basically broadens the band
7:13 am
we're working on. >> peter? >> i want to say something. not everything is equally uncertain. in addition me, you, all of us spend money in the face of uncertainty. i'm a customer of the east bay utilities district which has just spent 2 hundred to 3 hundred million dollars - a huge amount of money on earthquake retro fit. we don't know how big it's going to be or when it's going to be even in the life-span of structure. but utility decided it was vulnerable enough to be willing to spend real money and explain it to the customers. not only do they have a pretty
7:14 am
good campaign explaining why they're doing it but on my bill i have an explicit retro fit seismic charge. so they can do this and be very good at it. >> and i'm happy to pay that fee. >> yes, all right. from the floor? >> i'm from san francisco public utilities commission. building on the comments i think we need more knowledge and utilities can learn from each other not only how to adopt to global warming but what our alternatives are for minimizing our contribution to it. two examples is city of,cataloma, looking at their ecological, and fuel and
7:15 am
chemical cost to treat that water and your valley in australia did extensive analysis and evaluation where they evaluated in terms of the possible greenhouse emissions effect associated with the actual creation of the building materials that they will later be putting in the ground. so i think ÷ >> i've been part of climate studies for ten or fifteen
7:16 am
years now and, our understanding of what in the future regardless of all these outcomes that dan showed yesterday, we're going to see high flows much higher than before what we called the future dry pool, relatively cool scenarios and warmer wet scenario. these things going to occur much higher than now. as far as droughts go and less tear does not know this. we're working with the high ydraulics and the california central models to do all kinds of draught scenarios hound to switch our water from ground water flow and how this is going to drop and how wells require much more electricity and things going to shift if we don't take these things in to
7:17 am
account. we live in a slightly weather regime and we've had these long mega droughts in the past and there's reason to think it won't occur again. there's a lot more i can say but i'll leave it to the technical part. >> it's now break time and we'll have about twelve minutes and we'll come back and move on to the technical and engineering and there will be time to revisit all of the topics and thoughts that you'd like to pursue so please be back in twelve minutes. thank you.
7:18 am
>> a participant in the panel. if you see a panelist, take that person by the arm please and escort him in this direction. i would like to say for what we've been talking about in terms of being clear about what you need, four very nice people brought me chocolate muffins, so there's a lot to be said for being clear and i'm going to try and do it more frequently in my life in the future. also now we're going to talk about technical and engineering
7:19 am
issues. what are specific tings people have tried and then we'll open it up more broadly. obviously all of these categories are somewhat artificial. we tried give them focus but they touch on each other in many many ways and in some ways that's richest part of the conversation. so we'll spend probably 20 minutes on the technical and engineering and go to this broader discussion. i'll start off by asking david to make some comments about some technical strategies and engineering strategies that he's familiar within the, uk. >> thank you, emily. if we start with the actual issue of climate change i think
7:20 am
it's been great to see all the extensive work to help us get a better look at the impacts. it does have a down side. all the agencies working on this will produce different views of what will look like in the future. there's uncertain si. it's not help full to interpret practical solutions on a day-to-day basis. one things i hope for is to try and get some consensus for the various agencies in our sector as to what climate change might look like and what the boundaries might be. because unless we have a
7:21 am
consensus view it's to easier to criticize the argument so i would like to see some action that addresses the issue of bringing together all the relevant views and put it into something useful for utilities and other stake holders to work with. that would be my first point. nigh second point, really, is to talk a little bit about developing solutions and scenarios of uncertainty. one of the points i picked up from the various documents around the last few days is concept of no regrets. that's certainly something we've used in the, uk. i know it's been used here is a well. this is taking an incremental approach. not starting with the solution today to address all the
7:22 am
problems but what can we do now to take it in the right direction in the next 20 years so we won't have to stand up in 20 years and say we should not have done that or even worse, i wish we'd done something 20 years back. i believe peter said, maybe some of us think if we acted in 1997 some of the problems might not be so challenging in 07'. an incremental no regrets approach might be something to think about as a strategy for going forward. we talked about from the third perspective, stake holder perspective and it takes time to bring them to the table. it's different techniques that it takes to reconcile differences and manager conflict and move forward. we do have to find the time in
7:23 am
the planning process to bring those different agencies closer and that needs to be structured in our processes. we need that time and investment needed to do that - needs to be in place and i was delighted to hear susan talk about investing in that this morning. for the fourth point, when you start to get agencies around the table to look at the challenges we have to face and to think about how to take things forward, there's a great opportunity to think more lot rally about how we deal with our solutions in the future. how we might taken to issues of our common footprints of sustainable solutions of how we can maximize things in place. what's the ways to deal with
7:24 am
emissions. it's to use maximum assets to not have to build new ones. that's nontraditional solutions. one of the problems with engineers is we take pride in building large things. we ought to show our kids, i designed that. i built that. maybe, we need to in the future be proud of what we didn't build. so, i'll leave it there. >> thank you. comments from the floor about the technical engineering, if there are those and if not we'll go to the more general discussion. yes? one in the back? >> thank you i'm with sea well
7:25 am
global. i'm in a private sector and one of the things about private sectors if you turn this room into the private sector s you would have billions of dollars sitting in this room. as captains of industry, if i recognize the problem which we have all recognized, it's going to get warmer and there's going to be an effect, that would then be a goal that i would task a group of captains that have a tremendous amount of assets to their disposal to solve that problem or at least come up with recommendations to address that goal. i see in this room, individualthis municipalities
7:26 am
working together for a common goal. if you put a task force together, in my opinion, to deal with this common goal and brought it back to your individual municipalities you would solve one of the issues earlier, which is speaking in one voice - speaking as a group of people. all of you are aware of one of the organizations that has tremendous lobbying power in washington and that's american water works association. that's essentially one source of you people in your materials and engineering and design. i propose putting some sort of task force like that and utilizing the tremendous amount of capability i see in this room to address this goal and come back to this forum and
7:27 am
instead of attacking it's an individual utilities, trying to address it's a one recognized group with a leader. we need leadership with this and i think the only way to accomplish that is with a task force with the direction where all this information can be a simulated in one spot and recommendations can be brought back to this group, the public, legislatures, as combined efforts through a recognized entity, or group. if this task was given to the private sector, they are in the business of making money so they would come up with a solution and as david said, it may not be the mer fekt solution, but it would be a
7:28 am
solution and a direction or path which you could move forward to solve this problem on a regional basis and global basis. >> thank you. that's an interesting way to go about this, to consider. thanks. >> hello. i come from san diego, the hydraulic center is nonprofit training operation. most recently we're involved north california trying to increase water efficiency on the largest reservoirs there. out of this project which is a legislation project. i think there are lessons that might be relevant for what we're talking about here and i'd like to make three points. the first point pertains to
7:29 am
issue of uncertainty. there are two issues there. characterizing uncertainty. that means uncertainty in our large scale models and down scaling, but also in demand, population growth, and other areas. the second issue with uncertainty is communication. i think that should not be underestimated because i think that will make for an effective public engagement and effective regulatory engagement in others. now, there is a need for improvement in our tools in this area and i wanted to bring that up in the sense that there is some research and further development that needs to be done in engaging the