Comments

in: For Members / 14 Comments

Please offer your comment here on whether the AIACC should adopt an Oppose position. Your comment can be a simple “Oppose” or “Don’t Oppose”, or you can offer your opinion on why the AIACC should or should not oppose it.

Thank you

avatar

About AIACC

The AIACC represents the interests of more than 11,000 architects and allied professionals in California. Founded in 1944, The AIACC's mission supports architects in their endeavors to improve the quality of life for all Californians by creating more livable communities, sustainable designs and quality work environments. Today, The AIACC is the largest component of the National AIA organization.

More Posts - Website

Share Share Share Share
 
  1. avatar
    Richard McKenzie

    I support the Governor’s postion and hope he signs it.. I would not like to see the Board take an opposition postion.

  2. avatar
    Stuart Magruder

    I agree with AIA|CC adopting an OPPOSE position on this legislation. The project that the legislation benefits is ill conceived and could start a backlash against large scale renewable projects. A broad consortium of environmental groups – both state and local – oppose the project. Large scale power plant complexes are in use for decades. Let’s make it clear to the State and to power plant developers that projects need to be well conceive in order to be realized.

  3. avatar
    Bruce Monighan

    It is my understanding that this is a plant location and operation previouosly reviewed and approved and an industry change in generation models has opended an opportuntity again question this particular project.

    As I read it, this is a bill to allow for expedited modification of the approval language that was created for plants with existing reviews completed and approvals granted to change from solar thermal to solar. The bill was approved by the Senate in March and passed 56 to 10 in the Assembly. That is a significant majority and distinct bipartisanship on an issue, especially and energy/environmental issue.

    The Sierra Club attempted to have Calico excluded from the bill by filing a petition with the California Supreme Court that challanged the Energy Commission’s approval of the project, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

    So we have the Governor, the Energy Commission the Senate and the Assembly ( by a 56 to 10 margin) for this and the Sierra Club and two Counties against it. Looks like a fight we don’t need to be in.

    Question to me is….do we want to move forward on solar, do we want to create renewable energy sources, or do we want to continue to fight every project with “environmental” concerns. While I have a respect for our environment I have a high degree of skepticisim of the Sierra Club and have many times (most times) have little trust in their motivations.

    I think this has been looked at by a lot of people for a lot of different reasons over a long approval process (the original approval process to construct the plant) and we should not be jumping in at the last minute.

  4. avatar
    Gary L. McGavin, AIA

    I personally am in favor of the Governor signing AB-1073. There is little to nothing to be gained by opposing this legislation and the AIACC could be expending valuable political capital by doing so.

    In my opinion, we could use a bit less in the way of needless governmental restrictions in California for our economic recovery.

    I am against to the AIACC taking an “oppose” position on AB-1073.

  5. avatar
    Katherine Austin

    I believe Bruce Monighan said it very well. I don’t intend to repeat what he said. I believe there is no winning this one and we waste political capital in trying. Let’s save our good reputation for one we can actually influence. I too am against taking an oppose position on AB-1073.

  6. avatar
    John Grounds

    I don’t see where we have a dog in this hunt. The plant has been through the required approval process and it seems that the opposition is trying to use this as an opportunity to re-open a fight that was already lost. Not sure why AIA/CC should oppose changing the focus of thepower plant. If we have a concern about the environmental impact, then we should have been in the fight back when those issues were reviewed – as should have been all of the groups that are currently in opposition.
    I do not oppose AB1073.

  7. avatar
    Michael Bade

    I agree with Bruce Monighan and katherine Austin. We should save our political capital for another fight.

  8. avatar
    Paul Halajian

    It is time for California to realize that the world has changed indellibly in a way that makes choices quite clear – esoteric public policy arguments vs. harsh but inescapable realities of a global economy. We can no longer have an attitude that does not consider the conditions of the world we will leave to future generations.

    AIACC should support this bill to help California remain competitive. Support of this Bill will send a message that California wants clean power and has the courage to pass legislation that assists those in the business of generating it.

  9. avatar
    Michael Waxer, AIA, LEED AP

    I would be quite surprised and disappointed if the AIACC decided to oppose this. Without knowing the full history or other info beyond what was sent, the AIACC has long been a strong supporter of renewable energy. I did find it interesting that this proposal was to change from solar-thermal to solar-pv, because if anything the pv is much more benign. Solar thermal is kind of like a traditional power plant in that you are still heating water and running turbines off of steam. Solar-pv creates direct electricty from the movement of electrons in the silicon (the second most abundant element on the Earth’s crust).

    The cumbersome environmental process is frequently hijacked by interest groups, and I would go so far out on a limb to say that unless we start to fix that process we will find ourselves spending our time and resources on paperwork and lawsuits, rather than actually doing ‘good’… such as gradually replacing our fossil fuel energy plants to non-polluting renewable plants. I believe that the AIACC does support CEQA reform, which could help these environmental laws return to their original purpose of enabling us to make better decisions, rather than as a tool to stop anything and everything.

    (I have shared with some of you the example that the city of Carmel cannot sell a house, which it purchased years ago, due to court interpretations on CEQA. The city has had to go thru 2 EIR’s, and has even taken the issue to its citizens which got overwhelming support to sell the house, but a small group of well funded activists know how to use the court system and to tie it up in meaningless details, wasting the people’s time and money just because they can… not because it is ‘right’ or helping the environment.)

    I would be in favor of the AIACC taking a SUPPORT position, as part of our advocacy for renewable energy. I strongly urge that we NOT oppose this, at a minimum. For background interests, I am a past elected member to the Ventana chapter of the Sierra Club (Monterey/Santa Cruz/San Benito counties).

  10. avatar
    Kari Svanstrom

    I support the bill in general – if a project has gone through the entitlement process in a fair way (which it appears to have done from the info presented), I don’t believe changing the type of (sustainable) energy source should cause the project to backtrack.

    I also don’t like the precedent opposing it sets in terms of encouraging green energy – allowing flexibillty to businesses in terms of what sort of solar projects/green energy makes sense for their business is important. In light of the recent information on how well California is meeting sustainble energy goals, I do not think the AIACC should oppose this legislation.

  11. avatar
    John F. Worthy, AIA LEED GA

    AIACC should adopt a “Don’t Oppose” position. The project received approvals through an arduous process. The project should not have to go through the entire process again due to a change in technology used. The opponents and proponents of the project had their opportunity for input.

    In the future, it would be helpful to know the point of view from the architect of a particular project along with lawmakers and private groups. This would help me to make a decision in line with our vision to advocate for architects and the profession.

  12. avatar
    Gerard Lee, AIA LEED AP

    I’m in agreement with everyone else. The project has gone through the required wringer and been approved. It appears too that the project size was already reduced once to allow for the concerns of the environmental groups. This is not a fight we should be involved in. There are other pressing issues we need to focus on.

  13. avatar
    Mike Malinowski

    Simply put: I agree with the statements made by Bruce Monighan

  14. avatar
    peter w. Hunt

    AIA should adopt a “Don’t Oppose” position.

    I agree with John Worthy’s comment.

14 Responses to Comments

 

Leave a Reply

Join the discussion!