Municipalities, many already running unhealthy deficits, are facing a new world of cost issues in the face of increasing fuel prices. Most municipalities use fuel on the large scale, with various administrators, surveyors, building code inspectors and other city officials zipping around the city to conduct their business. As cities are looking for solutions to fuel prices, they could be thinking too small. 

 

Mayors that met at the United States Conference of Mayors discussed the results of a survey of over a hundred municipalities, 90% of which said that they had changed operating procedures to minimize fuel expenditures. The result have been soft measures so far. Mayors have been encouraging their staff to carpool, visit sites that are near each other at the same time, encouraging staff to take public transit and turn off the lights when a room is empty. Budgets for 2008 seem to have been built on $2/gallon gas and soft measures are inadequate unless cities want to go the way of Vallejo (municipal bankruptcy).

As challenging as these problems may be, they also offer an interesting opportunity for municipalities to lead the charge in energy savings and fuel efficiency. Municipalities have access to tax-free bonds that should make it ‘easy’ to invest in sustainable technology that will help them hold their costs down. Cities can usually bond design-build wind or solar projects without much trouble, or can use their collective buying power to force utilities into providing clean power for their residents (more problematic where coal companies provide the tax base). Or, they can educate their residents about opportunities for power purchase agreements in neighborhoods.

Cities could be fuel independent. Cities have the capability to incentivize a biofuels test plant in their city that could supply gas to their fleet at a reduced, or at least, controlled cost (some types of ethanol can use waste to produce fuel for less than $1 per gallon). There seems to be no reason that a city over the size of 50,000 people or so shouldn’t have its own biofuels facility. Municipalities should/could all be driving hybrid, flex fuel or diesel fleets, though many cities still have the policy of buying American cars.

Cities also have the most control over infrastructure; they can do the most of anyone to make cars unnecessary. Cities can zone to create dense downtown corridors, create or block bike lanes, and either stifle or push for public transit expansion. Cities can discourage car use by creating walk-only streets and driving up the cost of parking. Confirming some of Amory Lovin’s famous predictions, Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian Mississippi noted “We have waited until we are at a crisis point to address transportation.”

Cities have control over their building codes. LA and other large cities have integrated LEED standards into law. All cities could do that, as well as plan and zone in a manner that encourages mixed use ecodensity and fosters the ridership for public transit. Cities can also offer microloan or lease-back programs to help citizens front the cash for wind or solar energy for their buildings. There are a range of good ways cities can help their citizens finance energy projects for their buildings.

My ultimate message is this: municipalities have enormous power to change the lives of their residents for the better, climate and energy-wise. I can't think of any reason municipalities should suffer from high energy costs when they have expansive power to control and regulate local price and markets. Municipalities have so much micro-scale control over their cities’ procedures that it is highly effective for peak oil issues to be addressed at this level.  

Photo by Payton Chung

News about the advantages of switching to clean, renewable energy sources is everywhere these days. Reduced pollution, higher quality of life, lowered dependence on foreign sources and less disruption caused by fluctuating prices often top the list. But frequently, the transition from older fossil fuels is seen as a premium paid for the luxuries of cleaner air, and knowing that local energy supply treads as lightly on the Earth as possible. Certainly, given current economic conditions, that makes the changeover far less appealing to many cash-strapped communities.

But the town of Lackawanna, New York, is looking to change all that. Lackawanna was a boom town in the early part of the 20th century, driven by a massive steel industry and fueled by several important railway connections. But as in much of the rest of the Rust Belt, the past few decades have not been kind, with plant closures, recession, and other problems hitting hard. Indeed, until very recently, the Lackawanna was best known as an environmental hazard, rather than an environmental leader.

But the Steel Winds energy project, built on a brownfield once home to the massive Bethlehem Steel plant, may have marked a turning point for the beleaguered city. As Lackawanna mayor Norman Polanski told The New York Times, “It’s changing the image of the city of Lackawanna. We were the old Rust Belt, with all the negatives. Right now, we are progressive and we are leading the way on the waterfront.” The wind farm, the largest ever built in a city, transforms the city’s image from one of decay to one of modernity and efficiency. And as the city tries to redevelop its massive waterfront complex, that’s no small step.

Though Steel Winds will never replace the tax revenue or employment provided by the old steel plant, the project has still been received positively. The turbines deliver 56,000 megawatts of clean, renewable energy to local consumers and utilities, and the existing eight turbines generate at total of $100,000 in yearly revenue for the city. The project has been so successful that at a recent city council meeting, Steel Winds II, with an additional 13 wind turbines, was granted approval.

With so many middle-American cities, from Detroit to Buffalo, suffering from the economic and environmental consequences of a past too deeply rooted in heavy industry, the success or failure of the Steel Winds project is being monitored very closely. Though it’s clear the shores of Lake Erie will still require a significant economic presence outside the green energy industry, wind turbines like those erected in Lackawanna could provide both the power—and the modern edge—to help the Rust Belt shine again.

Related articles:
Texas Builds a Pipeline for Wind Energy
Big Offshore Wind Farm to Power 415,000 Homes
Can Green Collar Jobs Rebuild Middle Class America?
GE's Ecomagination Runs Wild for Wind

Photo by Justin Howard

Box stores have spread across the country with the advance of the mall, offering cities opportunities for income tax and giving consumers more options for ‘one stop shopping’. However as the economy worsens, chains are closing branches, leaving big boxy ghost-buildings behind. Cities are now levying conservation taxes that can be used for demolition as one way to undo big box sprawl.

The trend has started near Milwaukee, where Lowes, Linens 'n’ Things and Walmart have closed branches. Cities there now require retail projects of over 50,000 square feet to pay 20 cents per a foot to a conservation account that can be later spent on demolition. This can add tens of thousands of dollars to project costs, but cities say it is worth it. Many times, Big Box stores are built to the specifications of the business that occupies it. The tax encourages both more careful planning as well as better building design so that the building may be suitable for other businesses should the developing business leave. Cities have also altered contracts to make renting to other businesses easier and requiring developers to finance demolition bonds.

Like a prenuptial agreement, dissenters say the measures deter business. Cities desperate for a tax base are often willing to tforgo the tax, taking more risks to attract biusiness. However the American Planning Association, who encourage the taxes, think that citizens should protect themselves and their economy from planning decisions that only pay off in the short term.

Read more at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Photo by Brave New Films

Although expected to generate approximately 1.18 million tons of carbon, the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing will be "basically" carbon neutral, according to a high-ranking official.

Wan Gang, Science and Technology Minister, cited a number of strategies including tree-planting, and the use of solar power, that are expected to offset between one and 1.29 million tons of carbon.  "China will ensure 'zero emissions' near Olympic venues for the first time in Olympic history," he said. 

The offset calculations, however, include estimates of pollution reduction stemming from enforced control of vehicle use -- a questionable measure to factor into the equation.

Nevertheless, this year's summer games should provide an interesting study of the potential of new technologies and common-sense conservation strategies -- from geothermal power to rainwater collection -- to minimize the environmental impact of large-scale events. "We hope that it will be a model for China when it holds large-scale international events and have a positive effect on climate change," Wan said.

Read more at International Herald Tribune

Photo by PIG Media

Related articles:

Beijing Enlists U.S. Help to Green the 2008 Olympic Games
UNEP and Beijing Sign Pact for Green 2008 Summer Olympics
Beijing Olympic Water Scheme Drains Parched Farmers
China Denies it Manipulated Air Pollution Results for the Olympics