Dark skyline for San Francisco?

[cboy4]

Supervisor proposes lights-out for downtown





Wyatt Buchanan,Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

San Francisco's picturesque skyline would be dark at night under a first-in-the-nation law proposed Tuesday that would mandate all skyscrapers turn off nonemergency lights after work hours.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin said his measure would reduce the energy wasted in the city's downtown.

"Anyone who has passed through our Financial District after dark knows that many large financial buildings in the downtown keep their lights on throughout the night even when there is not work or janitorial service going on," Peskin said.

The proposed light ban is reminiscent of the so-called "watt cops," the police officers who patrolled some California cities in search of people using unnecessary lights during the state's 2001 energy crisis.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/26/MNR6VQBQI.DTL

[NMDemDist2]

1. hope they do it and they can turn off all the lights along the freeways too

or at least 2 out of 3 of them

[El Pinko]

8. California freeways are not lit.

This came as a shock to me when I first moved there. In many areas it's so dark that it's disconcerting - all you can see are headlights and taillights going at 75 mph.

They do have lights over the on and off-ramps and major overpasses, though. But they are not lit for their full length like freeways in other states around the country.

[mainegreen]

15. They light freeways in places?

Wow.

Did not know that.

Not something we do up here!


Sounds fancy!

[noonwitch]

20. They light them in urban areas in Michigan

But not in rural areas.

[Taverner]

2. As much as I would miss it, its a good idea

Although I think they should make the occasional exception - say around Christmas time for a week

[XemaSab]

3. It would probably come down to a time-of-day thing

After the janitorial staff leaves, the lights go out.

I mean, they're pretty at 8:00, but at 2 AM? That's just a waste of energy and total light pollution.

[mike_c]

4. great idea....

I hope they do it.

[Angela Shelley]

5. I agree with you.

[Xithras]

6. A better solution is progressive billing.

In other words, you calculate the base power requirements to make the building work, run the environmental systems, the elevators, and even the lights during normal business hours. You establish one rate for power consumption at or below that baseline. Power utilization that exceeds the baseline would be billed at a substantially higher rate. This discourages wasteful power use without having to create "light cops", deal with fines, unequal enforcement, etc. It creates a natural incentive to reduce power usage. It also gives the local government the ability to encourage conservation by occasionally lowering the baseline by a percentage or two.

Doing this is as simple as establishing a new usage tax for power over that baseline. It doesn't even require the cooperation of the power company.

[BeFree]

7. Good Idea!

Make people think, because they sure as hell ain't gonna do it on their own, eh?

[Xithras]

9. Yep, the primary argument against progressive billing is a logistical one.

I personally believe that progressive billing should be enabled for all power usage, both commercial and residential. The problem is establishing that initial baseline. Every home is different, and you don't want to be punishing people for normal power usage. Establishing the concept universally means doing a power audit on every home. I did see one proposal a few years ago that would have eased this a bit, by basically establishing a "Standard" baseline and then setting up an appeals process for people who thought their baseline should be higher, but even that process would take considerable time to implement.

It's much easier to implment this for large commercial buildings simply because there are far fewer of them.

[BeFree]

11. That's right

Instead of messing with millions of little folks, hit just a few of the big targets. Big rewards. 'Course the media ain't gonna like us messing with their buds.

[sergeiAK]

14. They already implement this for some customers

Progress Energy and Duke Power do this for the plant I work at, though the baseline is based on an average consumption, and the higher rates are mostly for higher rates of power usage, not necessarily higher usage over an entire month.

They also do this for major commercial users of electricity, such as steel mills and smelting plants.

[BeFree]

16. Wonderful!!

Yes thanks to Duke et al we don't have a problem, do we? That dirty ass coal they burn ain't causing a problem. No matter what Gore says, eh?

[sergeiAK]

18. Nuclear, actually

The plant is ~15mi from the local nuke plant, which is where most of our power comes from.

Still non-optimal, but better than coal.

[BeFree]

19. Duke doesn't burn coal?

And what about when the nukes go down for months at a time?

The problem is some of us think singularly, as you wrote, and that's why the Dukes et all have been able to screw us over. Bad air day, anyone?

[kansasblue]

10. I'm all for it if it save energy.... but some of those building designs

expect the lights to be on to provide low level heat.

I read an article once where a company updated it lights only to find they had to follow up with a new heating system.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. wish they would do it in nyc. such a waste

[marmar]

13. It should probably happen.....

..... but I gotta tell you, the night ferry back from Tiburon toward SF with the Golden Gate off to the side is one of the most spectacular sights this side of the nighttime view of Paris from the Sacre Coeur.

[EFerrari]

17. I used to jog up Kearny to North Beach after teaching at night.

Except I'd go over a block to Montgomery because it was well lit and all the cleaning crews were working. There could be a safety problem for people who work evening shifts if the lights go out.