Loading...
Sep Climate Resilience and Regeneration Plan_Gordon MClimate Resilience and Regeneration Plan City of Northampton Review Comments Gordon Meadows Commissioner Energy and Sustainability Commission In order to address climate change we must be significantly more aggressive with our efforts to reach net zero. 2050 is a target that we will achieve without any significant effort as it is the natural timeframe for market conversion. Current estimates show that if we do not convert to completely renewable energy sources by 2030 our environment will be irreparably harmed and human life on our planet may come to an end. If it is truly our goal to become sustainable, we must push the conversion of our energy infrastructure to one that is completely generated by renewable resources by 2030. This may sound like a stretch, but it is not. In truth, this goal can be achieved 2025 if we fully commit to doing so. The goal of reaching net zero can be met through a coordinated effort to devote city resources to the production of renewable energy in partnership with our utility companies. Right now, the Utility companies are seeking sites to place renewable generation and storage assets, and Energy Service Companies are actively seeking opportunities to put shovels in the ground to make projects come to fruition. Northampton stands as a leader amongst its peers in its efforts to become Sustainable. It is time to push the boundaries of our City’s imagination and show the Nation what is possible. We must examine our assets, and leverage our tax dollars to achieve Net Zero for our community by 2025. This can be accomplished, but will require a significant undertaking. The efficiency of our existing buildings must be addressed, but more importantly, our renewable electricity generation must be increased to cover our entire city’s consumption. In order to do so we must determine the amount of City owned land needed to accomplish this goal, and pass a resolution to dedicate this land to saving our planet. It is my wild, but educated guess, that the City of Northampton owns enough open land to provide enough Solar PV generation assets to provide the entire city with green power. We must dedicate ourselves to doing so. It is not enough to just be Net Zero. Ultimately we must become a Carbon Sink in order to soak up enough CO2 from our atmosphere to have even a chance at sustainability. We must remember, that while we take action, others do not. And so, we must be a demonstration. That not only is sustainability possible, it is profitable, and can be done. Notes on our plan: This plan is not good enough. It sets few if any goals, and has almost no concrete steps to achieving its stated goal of creating a sustainable city that is resilient to the climate change that is already taking place. The following are my notes on specific areas that must be improved. I look forward to working with the City’s Administration to enact a bold and groundbreaking plan that sets us upon a path to a sustainable planet. Section 4: Pathway 3, page 42: This section is weak. Benchmarking is not conservation. It is not action. Don’t call a section “Energy Efficiency and Conservation” and then only talk about benchmarking and disclosure. What is the pathway towards energy conservation? How will we take the benchmark data and then act? Pathway 4, page 42: Net zero for new buildings is not a good enough goal. It must be expanded to all existing buildings as well. Pathway 5, page 43: Electrification is only good if we are procuring energy produced by renewable energy. Pathway 8, page 44: This talks about transportation but does not address the best use of land to decrease carbon emissions, which is the siting of Solar PV combined with battery storage. We must address the use of City land to produce renewable electricity to offset the emissions of our City and its residents. Page 45 Low Case GGE Projection Graph: 1. Renewable electricity: where will we site this? Do we have an inventory of city owned land that could be used to locate renewable power generation and storage? 2. Net zero must be applied to existing buildings as well. Path to climate adaptation and a resilient city: Pathway 4 page 49: “discouraging Solar PV”? absolutely not! “Preserving open space” yes, but not at the price of all of us dying from climate change. A percentage of open space must be dedicated to the production of renewable energy or all of this is for nothing. We must determine the full demand load of the City after converting all buildings and transportation to electricity, and then determine the size of the PV array needed to produce this power, and then dedicate that much of our open space to that production. This is the only way to Net Zero. Pathway 5 page 50: Smith Voc is an absolutely perfect place to site solar PV. Students can be trained in installation, system maintenance, and grid interface. This is an incredible opportunity to change the future. We can train the workers that will be needed for the economy of the next 40 years, which will be based upon converting our energy infrastructure from one that is based in carbon fuels to one that is based in renewable generation, distribution, and storage. This is a perfect opportunity. We must have vision. Page 51: What on earth does anything in this pie chart have to do with resilience? Did we lose track of what we were working on? This needs a complete revision. Section 5: Action Plan: LEED is a brand, we should not be promoting it as a city. Page 56: The framework is not about resilience. We need to re-write this. It talks about “resilience and regeneration goals” but there are none, so that is a real problem that needs to be addressed. The mayors goal of Net Zero 2050 is mentioned. We must work with the Mayor to illustrate to him that 2050 is too late. It must be 2030 or sooner. This is a fully achievable goal. “equity based prioritization”: good goal, I would encourage the city to consider some of the surrounding communities so that we can have a greater impact on communities of color. If we turn Smith Voc into a learning center for the 21st century economy of sustainability, can we offer enrollment to neighboring communities of color? Page 57: Energy 1: Renewable and resilient energy supply: We need to address how we as a city can be the best partner to the community in producing renewable and resilient energy. We must seek a Public/Private/Utility partnership to achieve this goal. The appetite is there for this in both the ESCO and Utility Companies. We must leverage our position as a land holder to achieve Net Zero. This will both achieve our climate goals and produce significant revenue for the City. Second paragraph on left: The point of batteries is not peak shaving (though that is a small aspect of their capability). The point of batteries is to hold power produced during the day by PV so that it can be deployed at night when the sun is not shining. Energy 1B Page 58: While I support the construction of Solar PV, doing so as parking structures is not a good economic decision. We could produce 3 times more energy for the same cost by installing ground mounted systems. The question is: are we doing this for show, or are we trying to become sustainable. Carports are for show. The money should be spent on ground mount instead. Energy 1C page 58: The Microgrid for the hospital and emergency services: Is $3.1M really enough? That sounds like a very low number. We need to be careful that the estimated cost is accurate. Energy 2:2A: 1. SQFT of 50k seems very high. How many buildings do we really have that are this big? How much impact will this have if there are so few buildings above the size limit? 2. Disclosure is not reduction, and reduction only goes so far, so fast. We must move to renewable generation. 3. The energy star portfolio manager is too complicated to mandate and will not achieve anything but benchmarking. The time for measuring is past. It is time for action. 4. Can we offer the job training suggested through Smith Voc? 5. Landlords cannot demand energy consumption data from their tenant’s meters. Asking them to do so is a waste of time. Energy 2B: Only good if the energy comes from renewables. We need to drop the language about ground source heat pumps. They are not economical. Air source is just as good and a fraction of the price. Energy 2D: We will need community solar to do this. Energy 2E: Add: Map all city owned property to identify sites for renewable generation. Work with Utility Companies to develop cooperation and drive towards a partnership projects. Energy 3: 3B: A portion of all open space acquisition should be for the purpose of installing Solar PV and Grid Scale Storage, or offsetting existing open space used for Solar PV and Storage. Expand the first right of refusal to include open space/agricultural to support PV until we hit net neutrality. How can we work together to come up with an agreed upon balance between the need for carbon sink, and the need for renewable generation. If all of our land was kept for carbon sequestration how much could we sequester? Would it be enough for us to be carbon neutral without producing renewable power? If not, is it really enough? How much carbon dioxide does the city produce as a whole? Do we have that number? Until we get the City’s CO2 emissions down to a level that our forests can sequester, we must be committed to reducing emissions. Energy 3C: Are we allowed to mandate Riparian Buffers? If so, I would suggest that we do so. Water: 1: What is the plan for capturing water so that it can be used in periods of drought? This year has been a perfect example of the need to do this. We had tremendous rains in May and a significant drought in June and July. Do we have a plan to store water for times of drought that can be supplied to our farms? Transportation: 1C: are we allowed to mandate that “All” new construction includes EV Charging?