Amidst the dreariness of life under quarantine, San Jose State professor Eugene Cordero has found a silver lining in the Bay Area’s clear blue skies.

Cordero, a professor in San Jose State’s department of meteorology and climate science, has been measuring Bay Area air quality from the roof of the university’s Duncan Hall. His recent findings on the concentrations of black carbon aerosol, a type of emission that comes from cars and factories, offer an encouraging picture of how shelter-in-place has benefited the local environment.

“It’s more than a 50 percent reduction, so that’s pretty significant,” Cordero said.

Granted, Bay Area air quality is often in flux, he added, so such a drastic reduction in particulate matter can also happen when a poor-air-quality day precedes rain. However, in this case, Cordero said he sees a connection between the clearing of the roads and the clearing of the skies. “This is not unprecedented,” he said in a recent interview, “but certainly the reduction in traffic is unprecedented.”

As sheltering in place has forced many regular commuters to work from home, roads and freeways have opened up, drastically reducing traffic even during the Bay Area’s typically congested morning and evening rush hours.

Dr. Thomas Dailey, chief of pulmonary medicine at Kaiser Permanente in Santa Clara, said the dramatically improved air quality has had many positive ramifications for cardiovascular health among his patient population.

“What we’re seeing is far less particulate matter, far less ozone, less nitrogen dioxide, less carbon monoxide, less sulphur dioxide and it appears to have potentially very positive health benefits,” he said.

Dailey also served for nine years as chair of the hearing board for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Air quality in the North Bay tends to be better than the rest of the Bay Area but levels of dangerous fine particulate matter spiked in November 2018 due to the Camp Fire, according to numbers published by BAAQMD.

The most immediate benefits can be seen in people who normally experience pulmonary and cardiovascular symptoms due to preexisting conditions such as asthma and emphysema. Dailey also stated that children—who are normally at higher risk for pulmonary complications when air quality is bad—will also fare better now that the air quality has improved.

“We know when there are air quality problems, when there are fires, when we have ‘Spare-the-Air’ days, there’s increased admissions in hospitals for asthma, there’s increased heart attacks and strokes, increased exacerbations with patients with emphysema and COPD,” Dailey said.

As long as people can maintain social distancing, Dailey said, the cleaner air presents an opportunity for all people, but especially for those with lung conditions. He encourages people to get outside and take advantage of the fresh air, stressing the importance of exercise to pulmonary health. “Exercise is a key component of the management of asthma emphysema, COPD,” he said.

Masks—now required in most Bay Area counties—can also help mitigate the effects of pollen for allergy sufferers who wish to take advantage of the clean air, he added.

Though the newly clear air is a positive side effect of quarantine, when the slowdown is over and traffic gridlock returns, so too will the smog.

“I think a lot of what we’re seeing locally with air quality would have to be due to transportation, to reducing just the miles driven,” said Patrick Brown, a professor in SJSU’s department of meteorology and climate science.

While many would like to think this change in the air quality will also affect our total carbon footprint and our impact on global warming, Brown said that this is a drop in the bucket compared to global carbon emissions.

The improved air quality will not have any lasting impact on global warming or the well-mixed greenhouse gasses that accumulate in the atmosphere, Brown said. But this moment does present an opportunity for the Bay Area to confront the main cause of local pollution and change the way the region commutes.

“That kind of shows us what it would look like if we had a transportation system that was more electric vehicles,” he said. “That would be one takeaway, that if we could change our transportation fleet from internal combustion engine cars that burn gasoline towards electric vehicles then we could have this type of air quality all the time essentially.”

Since the Bay Area’s energy grid uses wind and solar to generate energy, most of the region’s emissions come from transportation. This creates a unique opportunity for the nine-county vicinity.

Unlike areas of the Central Valley where most emissions are due to agricultural practices, the Bay Area has the potential to change transportation, either by improving mass transit or by moving towards electric vehicles, either of which could be fueled by renewable energy.

“This is actually good evidence, showing how we reduce or minimize things that we do daily that make an impact,” said SJSU professor Sen Chiao, who chairs the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science at San Jose State University.

“Everyone understands weather,” he said. “Today’s weather is tomorrow’s climate.”

Chiao’s maxim that “today’s weather is tomorrow’s climate” explains his strategy for analyzing, interpreting and educating about global warming and climate change.

“‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ do not necessarily have a one-to-one relationship,” he explained.

Global warming, while understood to be a scientific descriptor, is something that citizens in general do not often see on a daily basis. Climate change, however, can be seen and measured even on a local scale.

During the first several weeks of shelter-in-place, while Cordero was seeing a drastic reduction in emissions from cars, Chiao saw evidence of a spike in a certain pollutant that is specifically generated by burning wood.

While quarantined at home, though Bay Area citizens were not driving emissions into the atmosphere by commuting, they were using wood-burning fireplaces or fire pits. Wood-burning fires are illegal in several cities and counties in the Bay.

“People just need to buy in,” Chiao said.

Cordero said he has been “exploring education as a mitigation strategy” in terms of carbon emissions. A study Cordero performed years ago involving San Jose State students showed that education can lead to a long-term reduction in carbon emissions.

“When there are big changes in our society, those are times when we are more open to changes,” said Cordero.

He also said he would like to see more funding devoted to transportation and education, as well as increased investment in finding solutions to the livability of Bay Area cities and housing and homelessness.

“I think that mostly, though, we’re going to be focused on trying to grow our economy again,” he said. “But maybe we can grow it with some awareness that just growing the economy is not the only piece we should be focused on.”

On Monday, the California Human Development Corporation (CHDC) started accepting applications for the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants program in Napa and Sonoma counties.

Announced by Gov. Gavin Newsom in mid-April, the $75 million statewide program will provide roughly 150,000 undocumented adults with a one-time payment of $500 per adult or $1,000 per household to help them deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The program is meant to serve as a safety net for some of the state’s estimated 2.8 million undocumented residents who may not qualify for help from the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

The one-time payments will be distributed through 12 regional nonprofits around the state.

In 2013, there were an estimated 54,000 undocumented immigrants in Sonoma and Napa counties, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

To qualify, a person must provide information proving they are undocumented, did not qualify for CARES act funding and have experienced hardship due to Covid-19.

Funds will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.

To apply, call (707) 228-1338 or visit www.californiahumandevelopment.org.

For information about the Covid-19 Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants program visit https://bit.ly/2LDsVIl.

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company faces a crucial deadline: Before June 30, it must get both the state of California and a federal judge to approve its plan for getting out of bankruptcy. If it doesn’t meet the deadline, it won’t be eligible for help from the state Wildfire Fund—help that is needed to make the plan work.

The company entered a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process in January 2019 because it couldn’t pay an estimated $30 billion in legal claims from 2017 and 2018 wildfires, which killed more than 100 people, destroyed tens of thousands of buildings and burned vast areas of forest. In March, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he and the company had agreed on a proposed plan that would mean “the end of business as usual for PG&E.”

The plan outlines complicated financial strategies for “reorganizing” the debt, issuing new debt and stock, and paying specific amounts from shareholders’ dividends and assets. It also would make major changes in PG&E management and give state regulators more “accountability tools,” Newsom said. And the deal provides for a state takeover of the utility if PG&E doesn’t meet its financial, safety and reliability obligations.

Many fire victims, insurers and creditors have signed off on the plan. But at the May 7 meeting of the California Public Utilities Commission, which oversees PG&E, there was “a big show of activists against the deal,” said Mari Rose Taruc of the Reclaim Our Power Utility Justice Campaign, a coalition of many of the states’ major environmental and social-justice organizations.

Critics say the deal shortchanges fire victims, fails to ensure safety, lacks strong enough accountability measures and would result in higher rates for customers. Reclaim Our Power is planning a pandemic-appropriate protest in San Francisco, with a car caravan, street art and more on May 20, the day before the commission is scheduled to vote on the proposal. The commission’s approval is required for the plan to go forward.

Some critics are calling for specific changes in the plan, especially tighter rules for state oversight of financial decisions and safety improvements. Reclaim Our Power wants to take it further.

“PG&E is not going to change to the point where we can be confident that the utility and the government will protect us during the upcoming wildfire season from getting burned up or having our power shut off,” Taruc said.

Her coalition wants the state to transfer control of the utility from PG&E and Wall Street to democratic decision-making by frontline communities and workers.

The proposed settlement would give $13.5 billion to people who lost homes, businesses or loved ones in the 2017–18 fires. By some estimates that’s less than half of what they are due, and half of that amount is to be paid in PG&E stock rather than in cash. But in a vote held May 15, the deal won overwhelming support from fire-victim plaintiffs.

Some fire victims remain critical.

“There should be immediate payment in cash directly to survivors and impacted communities, not a split of stocks and cash,” said Gabriela Orantes of Sonoma County’s North Bay Organizing Project.

Her organization is part of the Justice Recovery Partnership, a group of “grassroots organizations that have been on the ground in communities that have experienced fires and power shutoffs.” They don’t think it’s fair to ask fire victims to share in the risk of PG&E’s volatile stock price, especially when the plan also calls for payment in cash to the other claimants—insurance companies and local governments.

Orantes added that some of the payment won’t come until 2021 or 2022 and is contingent on the success of particular financial maneuvers. A group called Survivors of the PG&E Fires reported that fire victims were subject to a high-pressure campaign to get them to vote “Yes,” including by some of the lawyers representing them.

In addition to the fires, last summer’s power shutoffs created serious problems, especially for people with disabilities.

“They affect us in many ways differently from people without disabilities,” said Jay Shalizar, of the Disability Justice Culture Club. Some people need ventilators and other equipment to survive, or medication that requires refrigeration, she said.

During last year’s power shutoffs, Shalizar asked a friend who uses a ventilator what she would do if she lost electricity.

“She said, ‘Lie here and die,’” Shalizar said. Shalizar said she and others “had to pool resources, get extra batteries for her ventilator and her wheelchair. Then we bought her a generator.”

The group also mobilized to protect people with heart and lung problems and chemical sensitivities from the effects of wildfire smoke.

“People got really sick because of how polluted the air was,” she said. “We ended up going to people’s houses, did DIY air purifying, sealed doors and windows, pooled resources to pay for hotels.”

PG&E has committed to cutting the duration of power shutoffs in half, but Shalizar said the reorganization proposal doesn’t include “anything to help people stay alive” during future power shutoffs. Disability-rights activists have joined in protests against PG&E, including a blockade of its headquarters last December, which also included Reclaim Our Power, youth climate activists and others.

Of course, a main goal of any plan for PG&E is to prevent future wildfires. The proposed deal calls for a Wildfire Mitigation Plan, but the specifics are not yet determined. Governor Newsom’s current proposed budget would add more staff to the Public Utilities Commission’s Wildfire Safety Division, which must approve PG&E’s annual wildfire safety plans. But Taruc said these measures don’t reassure her.

“These plans might be in place,“ she said, “but PG&E is in charge of implementing the plans. That’s a huge oversight issue.”

She is skeptical about whether the Public Utilities Commission has the ability or the will to provide effective oversight. That’s a central issue running through criticisms of the proposed plan. Critics are not convinced that the restructuring and accountability provisions are strong enough to fulfill the plan’s goals.

PG&E has committed to restructuring its management to provide more accountability. Fifty percent of board members will be California residents, with state oversight of board appointments. The board’s Safety and Nuclear Oversight Committee will be appointed in consultation with the state and will get new powers. The company will appoint an “executive-level” Chief Risk Officer and Chief Safety Officer, consulting with the state about who is appointed and spelling out plans for them to report to the board and the Public Utilities Commission. The company also will create an Independent Safety Advisor position and a six-step oversight process that would kick in if there’s another big problem like a major wildfire.

These plans don’t sound strong enough to the plan’s critics.

“Generally, we want enhanced oversight,” said Mindy Spatt, of The Utility Reform Network.

Her organization is calling for some specific changes. Instead of a PG&E safety advisor, they want an Independent Safety Monitor appointed immediately by the Public Utilities Commission. They’re also calling for a more-streamlined process to address safety problems and a mandate for board members to prioritize safety.

A brief filed by three statewide environmental-justice organizations adds that the safety monitor should report to the legislature and the public as well as to the Public Utilities Commission. Spatt commented that her organization has “often had concerns that the CPUC is not hard enough on PG&E. It’s not just a question of whether they have the tools, it’s whether they have the will to get this company under control”

The environmental-justice brief also calls for at least half the board members to be not just California residents, but specifically residents of PG&E’s service area, from communities affected by wildfire, gas pipeline, or other safety issues, or representing utility workers. It calls for more power for PG&E’s Disadvantaged Communities Advisory Group, including their say in key appointments, and for special measures to mitigate the effects of wildfires and power shutoffs in vulnerable communities. And it argues that the proposed plan, while commiting PG&E to continuing current efforts to move toward renewable energy, doesn’t do enough to advance California’s climate and environmental goals. For example, the brief calls for an aggressive plan to close polluting gas-fired power plants in low-income communities.

Critics also charge that the plan, although required by law to be “neutral on average” for ratepayers, will actually result in customers paying for PG&E’s misdeeds. Under the plan, PG&E, which went into bankruptcy with a little more than $22 billion in debt, would exit bankruptcy with a debt of almost $44 billion, according to a letter signed last November by 23 mayors. The plan proposes extremely complex financial maneuvers, such as paying off higher-cost debt with lower-cost debt, raising money by issuing more stock and selling debt to investors who also hold PG&E stock.

“It’s confusing because it’s supposed to be,” said John Geesman, a lawyer who represents the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, as he tried to explain the intricacies of the plan.

“PG&E is expected to pay over a billion dollars to the attorneys and financial analysts who have worked out the complex details of this latest bankruptcy plan,” said Spatt, of The Utility Reform Network. “Those may be hard to follow, but the money isn’t. Wall Street is agog over the plan, which was the whole point all along.”

Geesman said that, despite PG&E’s assurances, customers will end up paying some of the costs of its debts. For example, the PG&E corporate structure has two levels: the utility and a holding company that owns the utility. This structure is a holdover from the 1990s deregulation. The current reorganization plan calls for the holding company to raise money by selling “junk bonds,” for which the utility will not be responsible. But the plan allows charges to pay off the bonds to be added to customers’ bills.

In addition, Spatt said, customers have to pay insurance premiums that are extra costly because of PG&E’s past problems. Environmental organizations worry that some of the cost will also be passed on to community-choice electricity agencies, which pay exit fees to PG&E.

And the state’s new Wildfire Fund, the money PG&E is counting on for its bankruptcy plan, will be funded by contributions from PG&E and the state’s other electricity companies. Each company’s contribution is to come half from shareholders and half from customers.

Taruc, of Reclaim Our Power, said, “This plan is built on such rickety finances that kicking the can down the road will only open everyone up—the state, the fire survivors, the investors—to another possible bankruptcy that we all would end up paying for.”

In addition, according to a recent letter signed by five mayors including Oakland’s Libby Schaaf, PG&E will need to make “tens of billions of dollars” in safety improvements to prevent future wildfires. Spatt said it’s not clear how much of this expense will be passed on to customers. Her organization frequently argues before the Public Utilities Commission about PG&E requests to charge customers for expenditures TURN sees as unjustified or ineffective.

The mayors’ letter rejects the financial plans outlined in PG&E’s proposal, saying, “The sixteen million Californians already imperiled by the company’s serious lack of safety, financial stability and reliability … cannot place their homes, their livelihoods and their futures on the prospects of a company that issues junk bond debt.” The letter said the company should raise more of the money by issuing stock and less by increasing debt.

An earlier letter, signed last November by 22 mayors, initiated by Mayor Sam Liccardi of San Jose and signed by Schaaf, Berkeley’s Jesse Arreguin and Richmond’s Tom Butt, called for the state to take over PG&E and convert it to a “mutual benefit corporation” owned by its customers—a consumer cooperative. It argued that a cooperative could borrow the money needed for safety improvements more easily and at lower rates, would be exempt from federal taxes, and would not have to pay dividends to shareholders. In addition, giving the public a role in decision-making would restore confidence.

The mayors’ May letter stopped short of calling for a public takeover, saying only that if PG&E “cannot emerge as a financially viable, reliable utility, then the Commission should pursue another path.” PG&E and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents 12,000 PG&E employees, both oppose a public takeover.

But the Reclaim Our Power coalition continues to press for replacing PG&E with an electric utility controlled by the public. One of its organizations, the Local Clean Energy Alliance, points to PG&E’s conviction for manslaughter in the 2010 San Bruno fire and guilty pleas in recent wildfire deaths. Although The Utility Reform Network has not called for a public takeover, Spatt agreed that “We basically have a career criminal in charge of our electric system.” Taruc of Reclaim Our Power said California should “use this [crisis] as opportunity to reimagine and rebuild” a clean, decentralized energy system that’s democratically controlled.

A public system taking over from PG&E would still have massive financial burdens: paying off the debt and investing in major safety improvements. But a public entity would have the advantages outlined in the November mayors’ letter, and “there are more equitable ways to spread the costs,” Geesman said.

Michael Wara, a lawyer and expert on climate and energy policy at Stanford Law School, said he shares some concerns about PG&E’s proposal. He said he doesn’t approve of paying wildfire survivors’ claims half in stock while other creditors get cash, and agrees that the survivors are not fully compensated. The proposal is “transferring risk from the company to the fire victims, probably also to the state and ratepayers.”

But Wara favors accepting the deal because it would be “enormously disruptive” if the bankruptcy plan is not completed by the June 30 deadline. Liabilities from the upcoming fire season would throw PG&E’s finances into even worse shape, and fire survivors could end up with a lot less. It’s not justice, he said, but “the bankruptcy process is not designed to produce justice, but to maximize claims of creditors.”

Wara pointed out that Governor Newsom’s preference is for the utility to remain a private company. In addition, he said, there isn’t enough time before the June 30 deadline to create a blueprint for a public takeover, which would be a long and controversial process.

Taruc responded, “There was active discussion of all kinds of restructuring proposals—we analyzed a dozen of them. What shut all that down was Newsom’s cave-in to PG&E’s plan in March. Newsom holds responsibility for this predicament.” She said the state should not be pressured to accept a plan that “looks very much like the same PG&E that caused the wildfires and the shutoffs.” Instead, it should reopen the discussion of alternative proposals, extending the June 30 deadline if necessary, “to give us a chance to open up those other possibilities and have a safe, reliable, climate-resilient, worker- and community-controlled electricity system.”

A shorter version of this article appeared in the May 20 issue.