Supervisor proposes lights-out for downtown

[stephanie]

enjoy those freedoms while you still can...:cheers2:

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.

But this time, there is no statewide emergency. Under the proposal, energy-wasting scofflaws would face fines for each floor where lights are on, with $50 for the first infraction, $100 for the second and $250 for any subsequent violation.

The proposal would also require businesses undergoing major renovations to install devices that would automatically turn off lights when nobody is in a room.

read the rest and LOTS of comments..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/26/MNR6VQBQI.DTL

[manu1959]

enjoy those freedoms while you still can...:cheers2:

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.

But this time, there is no statewide emergency. Under the proposal, energy-wasting scofflaws would face fines for each floor where lights are on, with $50 for the first infraction, $100 for the second and $250 for any subsequent violation.

The proposal would also require businesses undergoing major renovations to install devices that would automatically turn off lights when nobody is in a room.

read the rest and LOTS of comments..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/26/MNR6VQBQI.DTL

california state ttitle 24 energy codes already require timers and motion detectors.....but the corrupt building department does not enforce it....

[Mr. P]

Actually, I think it's damn stupid to leave lights on in unoccupied buildings.

I'd love to see all lights out in unoccupied buildings all over the Country, not just San Fran.
Big energy savings and much less light pollution...equals more star gazing and romance!

[avatar4321]

it be interesting to see them pass the law. because the first second a plane crashes in the middle of the city, they will be screaming to turn the lights back on.

[Kathianne]

This has been a discussion regarding Chicago for a long time. The whole damn city is lit 24/7, why? As Avatar said, I can see beacons on John Hancock, Sear's Tower, etc, but why offices? The skyline is beautiful, buildings and all, but timer's at 12 or 1 am make sense.

[Dilloduck]

it be interesting to see them pass the law. because the first second a plane crashes in the middle of the city, they will be screaming to turn the lights back on.

I wanna see the look on their faces when all these buildings power up at the same time in the morning !

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, I think it's damn stupid to leave lights on in unoccupied buildings.

I'd love to see all lights out in unoccupied buildings all over the Country, not just San Fran.
Big energy savings and much less light pollution...equals more star gazing and romance!

I totally agree, Mr. P. When you stand on the roof of our local Observatory, the lights downtown create a huge glow that ruins the mood. And the view of the stars to some extent.

[Mr. P]

it be interesting to see them pass the law. because the first second a plane crashes in the middle of the city, they will be screaming to turn the lights back on.

Office lights are different than FAA mandated obstruction lights...sorry AV..no sale.

[JohnDoe]

Actually, I think it's damn stupid to leave lights on in unoccupied buildings.

I'd love to see all lights out in unoccupied buildings all over the Country, not just San Fran.
Big energy savings and much less light pollution...equals more star gazing and romance!

Sooo, is legislating this a NANNY STATE? :poke:

jd :D

[Nukeman]

Sooo, is legislating this a NANNY STATE? :poke:

jd :DAt 100.00 plus dollars a barrel for oil and no one wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard than I would say, NO! not a nanny state but a step in the right direction for CONSERVATION and to help *gasp* "global warming" by reducing the mount of energy that is wasted for no other reason than someone is too lazy to turn a freaking light off.

If this was mandatory in ALL cities and states we could cut or energy consumption by quite a bit.... Dontcha think?????????

[Immanuel]

At 100.00 plus dollars a barrel for oil and no one wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard than I would say, NO! not a nanny state but a step in the right direction for CONSERVATION and to help *gasp* "global warming" by reducing the mount of energy that is wasted for no other reason than someone is too lazy to turn a freaking light off.

If this was mandatory in ALL cities and states we could cut or energy consumption by quite a bit.... Dontcha think?????????

I would have to say that it IS still a nanny state, but not all regulations are useless. One must wonder how much energy is wasted by this.

Also, how much will my electric bill go up if this regulation were enacted country wide? You realize that the electric companies are not going to take this loss of revenue too kindly don't you?

I wonder if there will be "exceptions" to this. Several years ago when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, they ordered certain companies in the skyscrappers to leave their lights on and others to turn them off. Will SF do the same thing?

I don't have a problem with this legislation although it seems kind of silly. How much energy will this really save?

Immie

[JohnDoe]

At 100.00 plus dollars a barrel for oil and no one wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard than I would say, NO! not a nanny state but a step in the right direction for CONSERVATION and to help *gasp* "global warming" by reducing the mount of energy that is wasted for no other reason than someone is too lazy to turn a freaking light off.

If this was mandatory in ALL cities and states we could cut or energy consumption by quite a bit.... Dontcha think?????????


hahahahahaha!

Sorry Nuke.... I was just "playing around" with Mr. P....he had called legislating "toy -lighter" control in maine as a NANNY STATE so I was just teasing him about him wanting the gvt to legislate this....

You would think in a free capitalistic society that the owners of these highrises and payers of the electric bills, that they would have instituted their own measures to make sure the lights go out after a certain hour in their office buildings in order to have a more profitable bottom line...

If you believe in the free market and not a NANNY STATE, one would object to this proposal....bulloney.

I happen to agree with you that this is a good measure. And not that I want the gvt to regulate such, but that we NEED the gvt to regulate such because the free market did not work in this case...lights are still left on in the buildings, even with the added cost to the businesses that hits their bottom line negatively....

jd

[Mr. P]

Sooo, is legislating this a NANNY STATE? :poke:

jd :D

Don't think so. This doesn't seem to fall into any definition of Nanny State I've read.

[JohnDoe]

Don't think so. This doesn't seem to fall into any definition of Nanny State I've read.
your telling/regulating people to turn the lights out....like they can't figure this out on their own....? that would fall in to Nanny State measures in my opinion....

not that the regs to do such aren't needed, because they are needed....to put it in your words.... people are "idiots" and don't even think to turn the lights out when they leave....

moreso of idiots imo than the mother that WAS WATCHING her kid look at/fiddle with a baseball bat toy there in the convenient store... PROBLEM IS, there was NO WAY to know that this was a lighter with a torch, in her kids hands....

seems to me that the people that can't flip a damn light switch on their way out are even more mentally challenged...more so idiots than the mother and child that thought the baseball bat toy was a toy, and not a lighter in disguise! :D

Regardless....I think it is a good measure, all around, legislating the shutting down of lights in our high rises if no one is in them that needs the lights. Certainly government buildings too! I would have liked to have seen the free market work, and businesses make it mandatory for employees to shut down the lights when they leave, so that the business can save on their own energy costs, but apparently not all businesses are business savvy and cross their T's or dot their I's when it comes to their bottom line!

And though I would have liked to have seen regulation to control/make safer the toylike lighters, I can accept the legislation that maine put thru in the meantime.... until the lighters are regulated better for child safety by the Consumer Product Safety commission who, if doing their job....governs this stuff federally.


jd

[Hobbit]

I very much see this as a nanny state issue. What if somebody needs to pull an all-nighter in the office? Oh, sorry, we just assumed nobody had that much work ethic, so your lights are out. If the issue's that the lights 'ruin the mood,' move away from the damn city. The office lights are candles compared to the street lights that, oh, prevent highway fatalities at night. If the issue is energy and the new environmental boogeyman, running the light in an office for 12 hours probably gives off less emissions than starting a car. Get over it. The company is paying its electric bill. What it wants to do with that electricity is the business of that company and that company alone, so long as it is not otherwise illegal.

[Hagbard Celine]

it be interesting to see them pass the law. because the first second a plane crashes in the middle of the city, they will be screaming to turn the lights back on.

Abolutely ridiculous. Pilots are trained to fly using only their instruments. Combine that with their visual, it's basically impossible for a plane to fly into a building unless the pilot is being stupid or it's a terrorist who is purposefully flying the plane into a building. It's like a one in a million chance of a pilot accidentally flying into a building--during the day--with all lights. Turning off non-essential lights to conserve energy is a great idea.
I also don't know what turning lights out has to do with "freedoms" as stated in the OP. I think it may have more to do with the presence of drama queens and SanFranHaters than anything else.

[Hagbard Celine]

At 100.00 plus dollars a barrel for oil and no one wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard than I would say, NO! not a nanny state but a step in the right direction for CONSERVATION and to help *gasp* "global warming" by reducing the mount of energy that is wasted for no other reason than someone is too lazy to turn a freaking light off.

If this was mandatory in ALL cities and states we could cut or energy consumption by quite a bit.... Dontcha think?????????

If it works I'm sure it'll catch on in other cities. I predict the South will be the last to adopt the policy as usual.

[DragonStryk72]

it be interesting to see them pass the law. because the first second a plane crashes in the middle of the city, they will be screaming to turn the lights back on.

Which would happen, yeah, except for those emergency lights that are on every single scraper in the city, which are not a part of the cutback, and were specifically laid out in the article as being a part of it.

[DragonStryk72]

I would have to say that it IS still a nanny state, but not all regulations are useless. One must wonder how much energy is wasted by this.

Also, how much will my electric bill go up if this regulation were enacted country wide? You realize that the electric companies are not going to take this loss of revenue too kindly don't you?

I wonder if there will be "exceptions" to this. Several years ago when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, they ordered certain companies in the skyscrappers to leave their lights on and others to turn them off. Will SF do the same thing?

I don't have a problem with this legislation although it seems kind of silly. How much energy will this really save?

Immie

let's say each light uses even 15 watts of power (normal is 45-60, per bulb, with 3 bulbs per light) if there is a million of these lights in the city that's 15,000,000 watts of power over an 8-10 hour of upkeep. If we increase that amount to the 45-60 range, and put it closer to the 5 million point (still a low-ball estimate) then we are looking at 225,000,000-300,000,000 watts per hour, for 8-10 hours, that's more than a billion each night just on the lighting. If it is cut back, then California residents will likely see a drop in overall prices for their electricity.

I most definitely support this conservative measure to keep energy use down. It will help at least a little bit in getting us off of foreign oil, and hopefully, get others to do the same.

[Mr. P]

I very much see this as a nanny state issue. What if somebody needs to pull an all-nighter in the office? Oh, sorry, we just assumed nobody had that much work ethic, so your lights are out. If the issue's that the lights 'ruin the mood,' move away from the damn city. The office lights are candles compared to the street lights that, oh, prevent highway fatalities at night. If the issue is energy and the new environmental boogeyman, running the light in an office for 12 hours probably gives off less emissions than starting a car. Get over it. The company is paying its electric bill. What it wants to do with that electricity is the business of that company and that company alone, so long as it is not otherwise illegal.

It's for unoccupied buildings/offices. What's it hurt? I really don't see any negative, just positive in this. Now, if they wanted to dictate during business hours I'd feel different. In this case I think the Gov is only pushing for common sense in an attempt to conserve energy, not to dictate to the citizens for the sake of "we know best for you" which IS what I accept as Nanny State crap.

Oh, the company paying the electric bill is no justification for waste. Look at the water problem we have here now. Would you say because I pay for my water it's OK to run it constantly?

I'd like to see a test of this, 1-2 weeks or 1 month, and then look at the data.

[Immanuel]

let's say each light uses even 15 watts of power (normal is 45-60, per bulb, with 3 bulbs per light) if there is a million of these lights in the city that's 15,000,000 watts of power over an 8-10 hour of upkeep. If we increase that amount to the 45-60 range, and put it closer to the 5 million point (still a low-ball estimate) then we are looking at 225,000,000-300,000,000 watts per hour, for 8-10 hours, that's more than a billion each night just on the lighting. If it is cut back, then California residents will likely see a drop in overall prices for their electricity.

I most definitely support this conservative measure to keep energy use down. It will help at least a little bit in getting us off of foreign oil, and hopefully, get others to do the same.

Yeah, but what does that equate to in energy production costs?

BTW: I support it as well. Every little bit helps. I'm just not certain that this is a significant savings in energy production costs.

As for seeing a drop in overall prices for electricity, don't count on it. As I said, PG&E isn't going to take that kind of a drop in revenue without some kind of compensation. I realize that the electric companies are regulated, but you can bet they will make a deal with the regulating authorities allowing them to increase rates to the private consumers in exchange. Which means if you live in the SF Bay Area your electric bill will be going up.

Immie

[DragonStryk72]

Yeah, but what does that equate to in energy production costs?

BTW: I support it as well. Every little bit helps. I'm just not certain that this is a significant savings in energy production costs.

As for seeing a drop in overall prices for electricity, don't count on it. As I said, PG&E isn't going to take that kind of a drop in revenue without some kind of compensation. I realize that the electric companies are regulated, but you can bet they will make a deal with the regulating authorities allowing them to increase rates to the private consumers in exchange. Which means if you live in the SF Bay Area your electric bill will be going up.

Immie

If it were only one or two buildings, it wouldn't matter, but since it is going through all the downtown businesses, it does have the ability to do some honest good. As far as the prices are concerned, the power company needs to worry about people going over to solar power more frequently in Cali., so it would behoove them business-wise to drop prices. If they don't, then they are helping to set up a more stable ground for their competition.

[Hobbit]

It's for unoccupied buildings/offices. What's it hurt? I really don't see any negative, just positive in this. Now, if they wanted to dictate during business hours I'd feel different. In this case I think the Gov is only pushing for common sense in an attempt to conserve energy, not to dictate to the citizens for the sake of "we know best for you" which IS what I accept as Nanny State crap.

Oh, the company paying the electric bill is no justification for waste. Look at the water problem we have here now. Would you say because I pay for my water it's OK to run it constantly?

I'd like to see a test of this, 1-2 weeks or 1 month, and then look at the data.

I agree with the bolded portion. I see your point, but only because utilities aren't typically subject to the free market. However, I still think it's nanny statism. If I forget something at the office or decide I need to go back and do something after hours, I shouldn't have to call the power company to tell them to turn the grid back on. And what about update servers? Do you think the ISPs are going to be able to handle every business in town downloading the 12 hours of info they weren't allowed to download overnight all at the same time every morning? That's just stupid. If you really, REALLY want to enforce this lights out policy, I say go for fines for running the lights when you aren't there, but don't just cut off the power.

[Abbey Marie]

I very much see this as a nanny state issue. What if somebody needs to pull an all-nighter in the office? Oh, sorry, we just assumed nobody had that much work ethic, so your lights are out. If the issue's that the lights 'ruin the mood,' move away from the damn city. The office lights are candles compared to the street lights that, oh, prevent highway fatalities at night. If the issue is energy and the new environmental boogeyman, running the light in an office for 12 hours probably gives off less emissions than starting a car. Get over it. The company is paying its electric bill. What it wants to do with that electricity is the business of that company and that company alone, so long as it is not otherwise illegal.

I don't live in or right near the "damn city" hobbit. The light is quite visible from a good distance. Sheesh.

[Mr. P]

I agree with the bolded portion. I see your point, but only because utilities aren't typically subject to the free market. However, I still think it's nanny statism. If I forget something at the office or decide I need to go back and do something after hours, I shouldn't have to call the power company to tell them to turn the grid back on. And what about update servers? Do you think the ISPs are going to be able to handle every business in town downloading the 12 hours of info they weren't allowed to download overnight all at the same time every morning? That's just stupid. If you really, REALLY want to enforce this lights out policy, I say go for fines for running the lights when you aren't there, but don't just cut off the power.

I don't think they're talking about cutting power off (Maybe I missed that), just turn the damn lights off at night that aren't needed.

[manu1959]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-006/chapters_4q/5_Indoor_Lighting.pdf


hello ..... it has been law since 78 ......

[Mr. P]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-006/chapters_4q/5_Indoor_Lighting.pdf


hello ..... it has been law since 78 ......

Man, I am not even trying to make my way through all that shit...what law? :slap:

[manu1959]

Man, I am not even trying to make my way through all that shit...what law? :slap:

california state title 24 energy code which has mandatory measures....such as motion detectors and timers......which if sf actually complied with the law they wouldn't have this issue.....morons....

here is the other funny part some of the lights must stay by code to illuminate the exit path.....yes even when no one is there........i love the building and fire codes....

fuckers made me put braille on a drive thru teller once upon a time....

[Mr. P]

california state title 24 energy code which has mandatory measures....such as motion detectors and timers......which if sf actually complied with the law they wouldn't have this issue.....morons....

here is the other funny part some of the lights must stay by code to illuminate the exit path.....yes even when no one is there........i love the building and fire codes....

fuckers made me put braille on a drive thru teller once upon a time....

Thanks! Hey all our drive thru ATM/Tellers have braille, go figure. Gov at it's best! :laugh2: