After Mayor Leffingwell's introductions, including the statement,
"All of us on Council believe that global climate change is the issue of our time..."
Dr. Lynne Carter, of http://southernclimate.org/ , and Mr. Karl Rabago, VP of Distributed Energy Services for Austin Energy and "boss" of the Austin Climate Protection Program (ACPP) http://coolaustin.org/ spoke at length. (More on those presentations, next post.)
The group's first major task was to come up with a big picture goal for Austin's climate protection, by the year 2050. . . That gives 40 years to work with; safe distance and inspiring when you think back to Austin life in 1970. Collectively, we came up with:
"In the year 2050 Austin has achieved net zero greenhouse gas emissions by creating an integrated, locally-sourced, green lifestyle that is affordable and accessible to all."
Like it. Note, however, that during the process Karl's team made a pretty big edit. Those present voted for the mission statement that Austin would become a net "carbon sink" -- meaning our community would absorb more carbon than it produces, by the year 2050. Maybe that's unrealistic? I'm not sure (things like cell phones and ubiquitous connectivity sounded crazy 10 years ago...). Eitherway, in the spirit of collaboration no one objected to the ACPP's rewording.
Note also that everyone present agreed "carbon" is an acceptable metaphor for broader idea of "greenhouse gasses."
For the rest of the charrette's day and half, we broke into small groups and set to work on better-defining goals in six, predetermined focus areas. Below are each of those focus areas and some of the goals voiced, via this citizen-driven process:
I. LAND Primary Goal > Coordinate all efforts to create a comprehensive network of engagement groups that can focus on land development in relation to climate change
Highlights · preserve riparian areas, critical habitat, and recharge areas
· combine land goals with mass transit goals
· create network of urban & regional gardens and farms, resulting in sustainable local food production and related jobs
· develop policies, incentives, and guidelines for land conservation, restoration, and development
· prevent sprawl via a regional design approach that emphasizes high quality of life and staying within natural resource limitations
II. ELECTRICITY Primary Goal > Achieve net zero carbon emissions related to electricity use in Cen Tx, by 2050
Highlights · provide affordable green energy for as many households as possible
· institute k-12 and community energy education programs
· replace coal with non-carbon emitting resources
· use expanded life cycle cost analysis in energy purchasing decisions
· heavily incentivize community efforts for carbon reduction
III. TRANSPORTATION Primary Goal > Achieve net zero carbon emissions related to transportation in Cen Tx, by 2050.
Highlights · increase use of alternative fuels
· increase availability of carbon neutral transportation options
· develop "right-sized" neighborhoods to reduce vehicle miles traveled (i.e. walkable neighborhoods)
· heavily incentivize no/low-carbon transportation options
IV. WATER Primary Goal > Reduce peak demand in water use over the next 40 years at a rate that is better than the average of "dry states." (Conserve to stay below system capacity.)
Highlights · preserve wildlife and ecosystems
· improve efficiency of pumping and treatment systems
· increase education by reaching deeper into the Austin and central TX communities with strong branding, communication, and implementation strategies
· preserve and restore natural drainage infrastructures for wetland creation and carbon sequestration
· use less treated water, via utilization of on-site capture and reuse technologies, such as rainwater, grey water, and condensate.
V. MATERIALS Primary Goal > Achieve net zero carbon emissions related to waste disposal in Cen Tx by 2050, or sooner.
Highlights · achieve Zero Waste by reducing and reusing as much was as possible; make recyling and composting easy/accessible/cost-effective/mandatory
· leverage a Values Shift by implementing a campaign to educate companies, citizens, and consumers about the economic value of their choice
· develop the Green Economy by prioritizing local production of renewable materials
· expand Green Purchasing practices
VI. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Primary Goal > To make the community sustainable, even in the event of climate change shocks, such as extensive drought, heavy storms, heavy influx of climate refugees, shut-down of food supplies from various parts of the world.
Highlights · engage disaster management community; have groups develop disaster management plans based on climate projections
· ensure local food security to meet needs under disaster conditions
· address climate change refugees' needs; increase capacity local support can manage
· encourage each community group and individual person to create their own climate preparedness plan
"Charrette" -- any collaborative session in which a group of designers drafts a solution to a design problem. While the structure of a charrette varies, charrettes often take place in multiple sessions in which the group divides into sub-groups. Each sub-group then presents its work to the full group as material for future dialogue. Such charrettes serve as a way of quickly generating a design solution while integrating the aptitudes and interests of a diverse group of people. -- Wikipedia, 3/8/10
And so it was. Mayor Leffingwell revived the "Community Plan" portion of Austin's 2007 Climate Protection Plan by sponsoring a day and half charrette at City Hall, March 4 & 5. The meetings, which were led by partnership between the Mayor's and Climate Protection staffs, involved more than 60 local community leaders gathered at City Hall. Professionals, city employees and grassrootsers (like me) from diverse backgrounds (transit, water, real estate, big biz, commerce, low income, UT, etc.) got together to first define a common goal, then branch off to lay out objectives and metrics for guiding and measuring future progress.
I felt this was a very productive way to "get the ball rolling" on a community-defined climate protection plan.
Stakeholder-driven, government-supported, community-voiced. Am I dreaming? More of this, please. Let it be known, Austinites are fortunate to have people working at City Hall and within the city's utility and service departments who consider themselves voters, too. The purpose of the grand event seemed to be to engage the democratic ideal: citizens working together to tell their government what they want from their government.
Note that I believe in "fighting" climate change through innovative, affordable and mutually beneficial economic development strategies. If you don't, or if you think it's all a hoax, you may not feel engaged yet -- but take some comfort in knowing the primary points of Austin's first, local climate protection charrette emerged around investing in: cleaner air, more locally-produced electricity and transit fuels, more energy and auto efficiency, better management of local resources (i.e. water), and improving quality of life for all.
re: The Mayor's forum on Austin's Electricity Plan, 2010-2021.
At the end of the evening last night, Roger Duncan said it best: having public input in the planning process for Austin's citizen-owned utility really does bring out the finest result.
BOR readers may need to suspend their disbelief for just a moment about local politics, but c'mon - let's gather round. Austinites are fortunate to have leaders such Roger. Big admiration to those folks in City government "showing up" and doing their best to deliver the best result for the rest of us.
##
Town Hall Report Last night's Forum was well attended (300+ people), putting Austinites on a good path towards future engagement, wherein we communicate more and better about local electricity issues.
Moderator Jim Walker did a great job of asking meaningful questions, keeping the input moving across the expert panel, and maintaining focus and good humor. Rather than sparring, the panelists took careful steps to clarify their likes and dislikes about the Plan (more http://burntorangereport.com/d... which I think I can distill:
Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club (eco) Wants to get moving on the plan as some of its goals (esp. saving Austinites money through energy efficiency, see below) are ambitious. Cyrus also wants to enhance public input in the coming decade, create an affordability metric for lowest income customers, and set Austin on the greenest most productive path possible.
Carol B, Texas Rose (low income) Wants Austin Energy to do a better job of monitoring how electricity bill increases are affecting Austin's lowest income customers, and wait to begin work on achieving environmental goals until after an affordability metric for lowest income customers has been established.
Roger Wood, Freescale (industrial) Wants to delay the total plan until he and others in the "biggest employer community" have a clearer understanding of the plan's financial impacts. Roger says his group http://www.ccarenergy.org/ needs better data than they were given during the scenario review process to arrive at a proper analysis. Roger believes Austin Energy should get moving on the things that benefit the community most, but hold off on instituting a total plan that may not be well-enough informed yet, financially.
Philip Schmandt, business lawyer (citizen leader) Believes the goal of the plan should be three fold: i) to establish a vision for Austin Energy that meets City Council's goals, ii) to design that vision according to what makes AE and its business model most competitive now and in future decades, iii) to design a plan that is realistically feasible and continues AE's mission of providing affordable/reliable, clean electricity and excellent customer service. He feels confident the current plan meets these criteria.
Joe Beal, frmr General Manager @ the LCRA (energy consultant) Believes AE is well-positioned to lead on green, but should move carefully in regards to energy planning and changing market conditions.
Michael Cration, Smarte Building (energy efficiency consultant) Seconded the idea that AE might be able to make its best energy efficiency gains by creating programs to improve building performance in apartment complexes, and generally supports all the views above.
##
Things I Liked 1) Citizen Input.
Citizens present were invited to input questions to the panel via file card, text, or email. (Unfortunately we ran out of time and only got to a few of the 117 questions submitted!) The event will be rebroadcast will be several times later this week, schedule here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cha...
2) Leadership Ethic.
AE General Manager Roger Duncan kicked-off the evening by citing the Austin Climate Protection Plan's commitment to make "Austin Energy the leading utility in the nation for greenhouse gas reductions." http://www.austinchronicle.com... (1)
##
Things I Learned 1) Philip's perspective.
Philip Schmandt points out AE's future viability, in terms of its business model, is a critical concern -- and that the current plan to further diversify AE's electricity generation portfolio this decade will move AE toward solving its business model problems.
2) The Mayor hires well.
While I sense reluctance on his part to get "too involved" in this process, Mayor Leffingwell did very well by Amy Everhart and crew for this event, facilitating some very good and very open community dialogue.
##
What was Missing > I wish this question had been asked --- "More $$ than what?"
For some reason the Austin American Statesman continues to report Austin Energy's green plan "costs 20% more" than a "do nothing" option... Isn't this a gross mischaracterization? I spent some time trying to highlight this last week. (Help!) Here's three reasons why I think the Statesman's off-base on this one:
1. AE is currently spending more $$ than it's making. Roger D said clearly last night, "Costs are exceeding revenue." That trend will continue for at least the next few years and unless AE raises bills, the utility will go under. There are no future scenarios where bills do not go up. Perhaps I'm confused, or perhaps staff at the Statesman is confused -- but my understanding is the only way for bills to "remain flat" as the Statesman says, is for AE to go out of business... There's a lot of data here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Pollution will almost inevitably become more expensive by 2021. AE's current plan is in large part about trying to prevent future cost shocks related to its use of heavy-polluting electricity generation resources (i.e. our coal plant). As community costs linked to NOx, heavy metals, and CO2 pollution are added into electricity prices, via health and environmental regulations, Austin will have to adjust. Keep in mind, Austin is particularly vulnerable as our coal plant is one of the worst polluters in the entire state, sorry world (more here and here and here on that). In other words, it's a reasonable assumption that bills will go up (in the pollution costs category), esp. for Austin, as long as we continue relying on coal for baseload. The new plan aims to begin transistion away from coal in a manner that's commensurate with industry expectations about future pollution costs.
3. So yes - bills will go up no matter what, but here's another thing the Statesman keeps leaving out. AE's strategy (as a green leader) is to add A LOT more energy efficiency. In fact, AE plans on having one of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs yet seen in the world. As such, Austinites will have more opportunities to reduce total electricity usage this decade. Keep in mind, it's not uncommon for customers to reduce total usage by 30%, and some are getting 50+% bill reductions http://eewaitsfornoman.blogspo... with smart energy efficiency investments. How 'bout some reporting on that, Statesman? In what ways would AE's green plan benefit consumer bills if it reaches its energy efficiency goals?
Our citizen petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com... is growing. Just reached 300 signatures. Please check this out and consider supporting City Council in taking bold steps to "lead the nation in climate protection."
