BOSTON - MOST EFFICIENT ENERGY ECONOMY

What’s the Most Energy-Efficient City?

September 19

SAN FRANCISCO — If saving energy was a contest among U.S. cities, Boston would reign supreme with San Francisco not far behind.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy this week unveiled its first City Energy Efficiency Scorecard, which ranked 34 of the most populous U.S. cities on their policies and otherenergy-efficiency advancements.

Boston had the highest ranking with 76.75 out of 100 points and scored particularly high in building policies that have adopted stringent building energy codes and requirements. The East Coast city also scored high in transportation policies, including investment in efficient modes of transit and energy-efficient freight transport.

San Francisco ranked third on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s list of most energy-efficient cities.

Portland, Ore., was second, followed by New York City and San Francisco which tied for third with 69.75 points each. Seattle was fifth, followed by Austin, Texas. In PG&E’s territory, Sacramento finished No. 18 and San Jose was tied with Riverside for No. 21 on the list.

San Francisco scored high when it came to energy-efficient transportation but also tied with Boston for being the leading cities on utilities and public-benefit programs. According to the report, the cities have “productive relationships with their utilities on program implementation and access to energy data.”

In fact, PG&E’s use of SmartMeter data provides thousands of customers with Home Energy Reports. The reports are mailed to customers and show energy usage compared with similar-sized homes in their neighborhoods. Each report also includes personalized tips to help customers save energy.

And PG&E’s groundbreaking collaboration with the White House and other California utilities has led to the Green Button, which makes it easier for customers to share their energy data with the app developer community.

PG&E also works closely with businesses to help companies save energy and money.

The highest scores for Sacramento and San Jose, not surprisingly, also were for utility policies and programs.

The purpose behind the scorecard is to provide a kind of roadmap for any local government looking to improve its energy efficiency. And cities like Boston and San Francisco are leading the way.

Saving energy can be hugely beneficial for cities, the report said, by helping residents and businesses save money, creating local jobs, reducing the costs of infrastructure investments and protecting human health by reducing pollutants and greenhouse gases.

“Energy efficiency may be the cheapest, most abundant and most underutilized resource for local economic and community development,” the report said.

Email David Kligman at David.Kligman@pge.com

This story originally appeared on pgecurrents.com.

Record number of nations oppose US embargo of Cuba in UN vote

A session of the General Assembly at the United Nations (AFP Photo / Timothy A. Clary)

In an overwhelming UN vote, 188 countries have called on the US to lift its 53-year trade embargo on Cuba. Havana has slammed the financial sanctions as a flagrant violation of human rights and said they are tantamount to genocide.

The recording-breaking opposition to the embargo saw Israel isolated as the only country to vote in support of the US. Palau, the island nation that got behind the US last year, abstained in the 22nd UN annual vote, along with Micronesia and Marshall Islands. 

Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla conveyed Havana’s disappointment at the Obama administration, stressing that the human cost of the embargo is“incalculable.” Upon assuming the presidency Barack Obama pledged to take steps to improve US-Cuban relations, but Rodriguez said the sanctions had actually tightened under Obama. 

"Our small island poses no threat to the national security of the superpower,"Rodriguez said. "The human damages caused by the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba are incalculable.” 

Rodriguez also stated that the sanctions had been classified as “genocide” under the Geneva Convention of 1948 and the total cost to the Cuban economy was estimated at $1.1 trillion dollars. 

Several other nations spoke out against the US embargo at the UN vote. China’s Deputy UN Ambassador Wang Min urged the US “change its policy toward Cuba” as the “call of the international community is getting louder and louder.” 

Moreover, Bolivia’s UN ambassador Sacha Llorenty Soliz decried the embargo as "sullying the history of mankind" 

In the name of human rights?

The US mounted its defense in the face of overwhelming opposition and a barrage of criticism, claiming the sanctions were in place “urge respect for the civil and human rights." 

Seeking to justify the financial penalties that have been held in place for 53 years, US diplomat Ronald Godard said the US was being used as a “scapegoat”for Cuba’s internal issues. 

"The international community cannot in good conscience ignore the ease and frequency with which the Cuban regime silences critics, disrupts peaceful assembly [and], impedes independent journalism," Godard said to the assembled UN countries. 

Moreover, Godard added that the US had sent $2 billion in remittances to Cuba in 2012 and underlined that the US provides a large portion of the food aid to the island. 

The US began imposing economic penalties on Cuba when Fidel Castro seized power in 1959 and nationalized property owned by American individuals and corporations. The measures were ratcheted up three years later by the US government to a full embargo on Cuba. 

Last year Washington took action to ease travel to and from Cuba, granting 16,767 visas to Cubans in the first half of 2013 - 80 percent more than were issued in the same period in 2012. 

Solar advocates and Xcel spar over the future of rooftop solar power

An attempt to find common ground on state policies for rooftop solar started Tuesday with a sharp exchange between Xcel Energy and solar-energy advocates.

The session ended with Xcel refusing to withdraw its proposal, pending at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, to cut rooftop-solar incentives.

In turn, the representatives from Vote Solar, a solar-energy advocacy group, said they were not sure of the value of continuing the talks.

The session, hosted by the Colorado Energy Office, brought together representatives of utilities, state government and the solar-energy industry.

The aim was to try to balance the interests of utilities and the solar industry "before it degenerates into contention," Jeff Ackermann, director of the energy office, said.

The contention, however, was there for the opening statements.

Xcel's concern is that the credit given to homes and businesses with solar panels that add kilowatt-hours to the grid is too high and burdens other customers, said Frank Prager, an Xcel vice president.

In a PUC filing, Xcel is calling for a cut in the credit— the so-called net-meter charge.

The credit is equal to the price a residential customers pays — 10.5 cents a kilowatt-hour.

If the credit isn't cut, Xcel wants to reduce new solar installations in its Solar Rewards program by 83 percent to 6 megawatts.

"Utilities are working to stop and slow down these innovative technologies," said Rick Gilliam, Vote Solar's director of research.

In turn, Xcel's Prager objected to the proposal that how a utility conducts its business and its planning to accommodate new technology should be part of the discussion.

"This was a missed opportunity," said Edward Stern, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.

"The governor got all the relevant parties to the table, and that was a great step," Stern said. "But Xcel forcing net metering into its renewable-energy-compliance plan makes it hard to have a discussion."

Challenges to Xcel's plan have to be filed with the PUC in two weeks.

"There just isn't enough time to do everything," Stern said.

The energy office is, however, planning another session.

"We are optimistic because we see that people are willing to put forward their points of view," Ackerman said in an e-mail. "The prospects for consensus should not be judged by one meeting."

Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912, mjaffe@denverpost.com or twitter.com/bymarkjaffe