CC 06-21-22 #1 Study Session Draft Climate Action Plan 2.0_Written CommunicationsFrom:Gilee Corral
To:City Clerk
Cc:Andre Duurvoort
Subject:FW: Update to Comments on CAP
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 2:19:30 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image005.png
image008.png
image003.png
image007.png
image004.png
image006.png
image001.png
Update to Comments made on May 15, June 19, 2022.pdf
Hi City Clerk’s Office,
Please see below and attached for written communications from Gary Latshaw for tomorrow’s
Council Study Session on the CAP 2.0.
Thanks,
Gilee
Gilee Corral
Climate and Utilities Analyst
City Manager's Office
GileeC@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1364
From: Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Update to Comments on CAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yes. Thanks, Gary
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:06 AM Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Gary,
Did you want the attached updated comments to be submitted as Written Communications for
the June 21 Council Study Session?
Thanks,
Gilee
Gilee Corral
Climate and Utilities Analyst
City Manager's Office
GileeC@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1364
From: Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:23 AM
To: Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org>; Andre Duurvoort <AndreD@cupertino.org>
Subject: Update to Comments on CAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gilee and Andre - Please find them attached. I will be out of town during the next CAP public
meeting.
For convenience, I have pasted the material here:
In my comments on May 15th, I recommended changing the emission factor for natural gas (NG).
I recommended that the value in the CAP was off by a factor of 2.45, which was based on a NG
system leakage of 4.52%. With the help of Cupertino Staff Gilee Corral, I found the Draft CAP
assumed a leakage rate of 0.3%[i]. This is a very low value.
I recommend, again, using the value I calculated. I also suggest you add a section on the indoor
and outdoor health effects of using natural gas.
Other values in the literature are:
A series of earlier studies coordinated by EDF and hundreds of other researchers indicated that
the U.S. oil and gas system leaked on average 2.3% of all the gas it produced. That’s about 60%
more than the leakage rate reported by EPA, at 1.4%[ii]. These values do not appear to consider
the leakage with the installations in the buildings or local distribution.
Although it is impossible to relate the leakage from specific sites that is given in
cubic feet per unit time, the amounts of the loss are staggering. Also, as a
combustible chemical, NG is associated with substantial loss of life and injury:
Between January 2010 and November 2017, the nation’s natural gas
transportation network leaked a total of 17.55 billion cubic feet of
mostly methane gas. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. Pipeline incidents took nearly 100 lives, injured close
to 500 people and forced the evacuation of thousands during that time,
while costing about $1.1 billion[iii].
In addition to the leakage/emission factor issue, the CAP should discuss the harmful effects of
natural gas on air quality indoor and outdoor. The recent UCLA study shows the combustion of
natural gas contributes to the formation on smog at the same level as the emissions of light duty
vehicles in the LA basin.[iv]
[i] Appendix B, “This methodology assumes a 0.3% natural gas leakage rate, a natural gas energy density of 1028
btu/scf, a natural gas density of 0.8 kg/m3, 93.4% CH4 content in natural gas, and 1% CO2 content in natural
gas.”
[ii] Storrow, Benjamin, Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas, E&E News May 5,
2020,
[iii] Thompson, Jonathan, A map of $1.1billion in natural gas pipeline leaks, High Country News, November
29,2017
[iv] Effects pf Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California,
UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, April 2020
--
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on
foreign oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006
--
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign
oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006
Update to Comments for the Cupertino Draft Climate Action Plan
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
19 June 2020
In my comments on May 15th, I recommended changing the emission factor for natural gas
(NG). I recommended that the value in the CAP was off by a factor of 2.45, which was based on
a NG system leakage of 4.52%. With the help of Cupertino Staff Gilee Corral, I found the Draft
CAP assumed a leakage rate of 0.3%i. This is a very low value.
I recommend, again, using the value I calculated. I also suggest you add a section on the
indoor and outdoor health effects of using natural gas.
Other values in the literature are:
A series of earlier studies coordinated by EDF and hundreds of other researchers indicated that
the U.S. oil and gas system leaked on average 2.3% of all the gas it produced. That’s about 60%
more than the leakage rate reported by EPA, at 1.4%ii. These values do not appear to consider
the leakage with the installations in the buildings or local distribution.
Although it is impossible to relate the leakage from specific sites that is given in cubi c feet per
unit time, the amounts of the loss are staggering. Also, as a combustible chemical, NG is
associated with substantial loss of life and injury:
Between January 2010 and November 2017, the nation’s natural gas
transportation network leaked a total of 17.55 billion cubic feet of
mostly methane gas. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. Pipeline incidents took nearly 100 lives, injured close
to 500 people and forced the evacuation of thousands during that time,
while costing about $1.1 billioniii.
In addition to the leakage/emission factor issue, the CAP should discuss the harmful effects of
natural gas on air quality indoor and outdoor. The recent UCLA study shows the combustion of
natural gas contributes to the formation on smog at the same level as the emissions of light
duty vehicles in the LA basin.iv
i Appendix B, “This methodology assumes a 0.3% natural gas leakage rate, a natural gas energy density of 1028
btu/scf, a natural gas density of 0.8 kg/m3, 93.4% CH4 content in natural gas, and 1% CO2 content in natural gas.”
ii Storrow, Benjamin, Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas , E&E News May 5, 2020,
iii Thompson, Jonathan, A map of $1.1billion in natural gas pipeline leaks, High Country News, November 29,2017
iv Effects pf Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California , UCLA
Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, April 2020