ACE

Category: Local Governance Project

  • Local Governance Project: Wellesley

    Local Governance Project: Wellesley

    Introduction to the Local Governance Project

    The Local Governance Project speaks to one of the most important goals of ACE’s most important goals, engaging citizens in the democratic process. The main goal of the Local Governance Project is to identify the political priorities of a specific community and to use these findings to research and present potential policy solutions. To achieve this goal, the project is broken up into three sections. First, a community need must be identified. To complete this step, the Political Priorities Worksheet must be disseminated throughout the community in which the project will be taking place. The Political Priorities Worksheet allows us to identify the community’s priorities and select one that stands out the most for our focus. In the case of this project in Wellesley, Massachusetts, ‘Environmental Policy’ was by far the most common response when residents were asked what their political priorities were. The next stage of the project takes the results from the Political Priorities Worksheet and uses them to conduct further research on the main priority of the community. In addition to researching and presenting an overview of the issue that the community is focused on, potential local government policy solutions should be determined. The final component of the Local Governance Project is the dissemination of the results. The Local Governance Project allows citizens to become engaged with their local government by thinking through their individual political priorities, then becoming educated on the potential policy solutions for their priorities. 

    The Political Priorities Worksheet

    The Political Priorities Worksheet consists of a series of questions geared at identifying the main priorities of the individual. These main issues are broken up into different groups: threshold, primary, and secondary. 

    1. Threshold: Threshold issues are not the issues where voters want to see immediate policy change, but instead are issues where they want their elected representatives to align with them. These issues could be values-based, rather than having a direct influence on a voter’s day to day life. For example, many voters want to support candidates who believe in man-made climate change, even if environmental policy is not their first priority.
    2. Primary: Primary issues are the handful of issues where a voter wants to see immediate legislative activity. They are the issues which cause voters to protest, write letters, and closely follow policy developments. For example, during the 2020 presidential election, the Coronavirus pandemic and government response became the primary issue for many voters, whether they supported further lockdowns and a hardline approach or the lifting of restrictions on dining and other in-person activities.
    3. Secondary: Secondary issues are also issues where a voter wants to see concrete similar to primary issues in the sense that they are things you would like to engage with and see progress, but they are not as important as the primary issues. Many voters have a series of policy changes they would like to see, but they are not the main issues which drive them to the poles.

    The Political Priorities Worksheet provides a comprehensive insight into the priorities of the individual, and is an effective tool in identifying what topics the Local Governance Project should focus on.

    The Results of the Political Priorities Worksheet in Wellesley

    The results from the Wellesley community provide interesting insight into the priorities of Wellesley residents, especially their primary issues. A large majority of Wellesley residents indicated that their primary issue of interest is Environmental Policy & Energy—this was the most popular response 58% of the time. The next most common response was Immigration, which was responsible for 31% of responses. The third most common response was Human Rights, which was responsible for 24% of responses. The rest of the top responses consisted of Public Health, Racial Equality, Democratic Reforms, and Criminal Justice, although none of these came close to the high number of responses that indicated Environmental Policy & Energy as the primary issue for Wellesley residents. 

    There was also conclusive data for the question of the secondary issues of Wellesley residents. The most common response, chosen 9 times, was Education. Following this, Economic Policy, Human Rights and Public Health were all chosen 5 times each. After that, the only issues with significant support were Democratic Reforms and Housing Policy. These results were  interesting because while Education was not one of the major issues chosen for the primary issue section, it was significantly ahead of any other issue in the secondary issue section. The rest of the results of the secondary issue section were consistent with the primary issue section because Human Rights, Public Health and Democratic reforms all gained significant support in both sections. Overall, it can be summarized that the most popular primary issue for Wellesley residents is Environmental Policy & Energy, and the most common secondary issue for Wellesley residents is Education. 

    Results for the threshold issues were not as clear and conclusive. The most common threshold issue was Human Rights, which was chosen a total of 8 times. Constitutional rights was close behind, chosen a total of 7 times. Not far behind is Criminal Justice, which was chosen a total of 6 times. Following these top 3 threshold issues were Human Rights: Disability Rights, Human Rights: Indigenous Rights, Human Rights: Gender Equality, Human Rights: LGBTQ Equality. Thus, it can be concluded that Wellesley residents feel very strongly about a range of Human Rights issues, as well as constitutional rights and Criminal Justice. What is interesting about these results is that although Environmental Policy & Energy was by far the most common response for Primary Issues, it was not even in the top 15 most common threshold issues. This indicates that while many Wellesley residents want to see lots of change and progress in terms of Environmental Policy & Energy, they would still consider supporting a candidate who has a different perspective from them on this issue.

    Environmental Policy Background

    Due to the high number of Wellesley Residents who indicated that their primary issue is environmental policy, I decided to focus on environmental policy solutions for this paper. Environmental policy is defined as, “any action deliberately taken to manage human activities with a view to prevent, reduce, or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources, and ensuring that man-made changes to the environment do not have harmful effects on humans or the environment.” The scope of the environmental issues that these policies aim to address are broad and could include air quality, water, pollution, waste management, etc. Usually, environmental policy focuses on problems that are caused by human activity and tries to address these problems through a series of policy changes. While governments can be influential in implementing such policies, non-government organizations can also have a huge impact. In the United States, environmental policy began as a non-partisan effort, and its start date is usually defined as the beginning of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. After this, a series of environmental policies were implemented, such as the Clean Air Act. The European Union also set up the Environmental Action Programme in 1973. Environmental policy is important because it can help combat the effects of the climate crisis. Further, environmental policy can help protect natural resources, and can even help regulate the economy.

    Environmental Policies of Wellesley Town, Massachusetts, and the United States

    There have been many successful environmental policy solutions implemented nationally, regionally, and locally. For example, Wellesley has established a Climate Action Committee (CAC) as part of its local government. The goal of the CAC is to develop and implement initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Wellesley’s municipal, residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sectors. The CAC was established in 2010 in response to the town’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 2007 levels by 2013. This goal was achieved and was replaced by a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25% below 2007 levels by 2020. Following this goal, Wellesley has adopted additional greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030, 2040 and 2050. They hope to achieve 50% below the 2007 baseline by 2030, 75% below by 2040, and eventually reach net-zero emissions by 2050. So far, the CAC has been successful in achieving its goals. To achieve these goals, CAC has implemented a series of initiatives and policies to address a broad range of issues in the Wellesley community. These initiatives include the Green Collaborative, which aims to bring together environmentally minded organizations four times a year. The Energy Reduction initiative includes programs such as ‘Shave the Peak”, which helps to reduce peak power demands on days with extreme weather conditions by reminding residents to use electricity during off-peak hours. Furthermore, the CAC has initiatives such as ‘Sustainable Mobility Plan”, the Transportation Working Group, and Waste Wise Wellesley. These initiatives and programs are examples of local environmental policy initiatives that have been implemented by the town of Wellesley’s CAC branch of the local government.

    While there is value in the implementation of local policy solutions, the climate crisis knows no borders and often demands a broader scale solution. To effectively combat the effects of climate change, policies must be implemented on a regional, national, and even global scale, as well as through local governments. Massachusetts has implemented several initiatives and policies to combat climate change. These include the MA Decarbonization Roadmap, which aims to identify cost effective and equitable solutions to help Massachusetts achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Massachusetts has also led the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), which is a regional collaboration that has been in place since 2010 and works with many areas of the northeast and mid-Atlantic to “improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy, and reduce emissions from transportation.” TCI is not the only initiative in which Massachusetts worked with other neighboring states. For example, all six New England states released a vision statement in October 2020 outlining their vision for a “clean, affordable, and reliable 21st century regional electric grid”. Further, Massachusetts is part of an even more broad scale coalition, the United States Climate Alliance, which is a “​​bipartisan coalition of 24 governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement”. Lastly, Massachusetts is part of the Commission on the Future of Transportation, implemented a Comprehensive Energy Plan in 2018, and is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Massachusetts has joined a series of regional and even national initiatives to combat climate change, in addition to implementing initiatives in local and state government.

    Lastly, we will discuss some of the national and global environmental policies that have been implemented in recent years. Nationally, environmental policy began with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was followed by the Clean Cater Act in 1977 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Many laws and regulations were passed in the United States from the 1970s to the 1990s. There was a substantial break in the introduction of new environmental policies until 2013 when President Barack Obama “introduced a new climate change plan that will focus on cutting down carbon pollution, preparing for the impacts of climate change and providing international help”. Following this step, the climate alliance was formed, which was an alliance between 14 states across the United States that aimed at addressing climate change. Although there have been a series of major policy changes over the course of US history, there have not been substantial new laws passed in recent years to address climate change. The most substantial global environmental policy to date occurred at the Paris climate conference in 2015. During this conference, all the participating countries adopted the first ever universal agreement, that was legally binding, to work towards certain climate related goals. This conference was organized by the broader organization United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Introduction/Background on Water Pollution Issue

    While the town of Wellesley and the state of Massachusetts have been working to combat some of the impacts of climate change through environmental policy, it is clear through the results of the Political Priorities Worksheet that Wellesley residents want to see more being done in terms of environmental policy. To speak to this desire, I investigated the most pressing needs of the Wellesley community to come to a hypothesis about what may be motivating the high numbers of people to choose environmental policy as their primary issue of priority. While there are many manifestations of climate change that impact the daily lives of Wellesley residents, one of the most pressing and difficult to ignore has been the water usage restrictions put in place by the Wellesley Department of Public Works (DPW) in June of 2021. The DPW issued a declaration that implemented many rules and restrictions for outdoor water usage. These restrictions include alternating outdoor watering schedules for houses and businesses, a watering ban from 9am to 5pm, and a general request to decrease outdoor watering time by about 20%. The DPW stated that these restrictions are necessary because the town is facing a water supply shortage after one of the towns water treatment plants was taken offline in May when testing showed levels of PFAS6 substances that were too high. The plant that was closed is located at Morses Pond, and supplied over 1 million gallons of water each day to the town’s homes and businesses before it was forced to close. Thus, the closing of this plant has caused a serious shortage in the town’s water supply system and the restrictions put in place by the DPW aim to avoid a total outdoor water ban in the future. PFAS6 are human made chemicals that are used to make non-stick, stain resistant and water resistant products. The contamination of the Morses pond water plant by PFAS6 and the resulting water usage restrictions illustrate a situation in which environmental policy can be used to combat the impacts of human activity on the climate.

    Problem Statement

    PFAS6 is a new drinking water standard that tests for six different PFAS compounds. The Morses pond plant was the only plant in Wellesley town that had levels of PFAS6 that were higher than the allowed amount. PFAS are manmade chemicals that are stable and are capable of repelling both water and oil. Different PFAS have different lengths and properties which can alter how toxic these chemicals are, making some forms of PFAS more toxic than others. The most common forms of PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) which have also been studied the most thoroughly. PFAS do not breakdown easily in the environment and they are water soluble which means that while there are low levels of PFAS in many areas of the environment there can be higher levels in water supplies that are near places that manufacture, dispose of or use PFAS. Other than their use in oil and water resistant products, PFAS are often also used by the military and firefighters, and people can be exposed through water contamination, food, through normal use and through manufacturing. Water contamination of PFAS usually occurs near a facility where PFAS are used or produced or locations where PFAS are used for firefighting.

    There are many risks associated with exposure to PFAS, and human exposure is widespread. The majority of people in the United States and other industrialized nations have measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood. PFAS can accumulate in the body over long periods of exposure and can reach a level in the body that will have adverse health effects. That being said, scientists are still learning about the risks of PFAS in the body. Some of the longer chains of PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, which have been phased out of production in the United States since 2013 and 2002, respectively, can lead to developmental effects in infants, decrease chance of pregnancy, increase blood pressure during pregnancy, lower infant birth weights, interfere with hormones, increase cholesterol levels, impact the immune system and increase the risk of cancer. Once one understands the risks associated with PFAS contamination, it is clear why Wellesley town decided to close the water treatment plant that was contaminated. The pollution of this water treatment plant by man-made chemicals has created a situation in which environmental policy must be implemented to combat the impacts of this human activity on the climate.

    Objective

    The purpose of this research paper is to identify the cause of the water shortage in Wellesley and then to inform the public about why this problem is occurring and what the potential solutions could be. Now that the causes and risks of PFAS contamination in the Morses Pond water plant have been explained, potential policy solutions can be explored. The first potential policy solution is the expansion of the current state-wide testing program. This would include expanding free testing access to 100% of private water supplies. The second potential policy solution would be to lower the combined standard to 2ppt for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxs and 5ppt for GenX. This would allow a lower level of PFAS contamination than what is currently allowed.

    Policy Options

    Expanding Testing: The first policy option that should be explored – expanding the Massachusetts state testing program to test 100% of private water supplies. Currently, MassDEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection) is conducting PFAS testing for a limited number of private wells as they are only focusing on the towns where 60% or more of local residents are served by private wells. MassDEP has chosen 84 towns in Massachusetts to focus on, but they are not providing free testing for all of the private wells in these 84 towns, despite the fact that the majority of the residents of these towns use private wells to access water. Instead, MassDEP is choosing only 40 wells to be selected and tested. They will choose these wells based on “geographic distribution throughout the town, proximity to potential sources of PFAS, and available funding.” This decision by MassDEP leaves many private water wells un-tested, and thus leaves residents ignorant to the contaminants in their water supplies. A policy option to fix this problem of PFAS contamination and insufficient testing would be to implement statewide free testing in all private water wells in all towns to ensure that 100% of residents’ water supplies have been tested for PFAS contamination.

    Lowering Ceiling on Contaminants: The second policy option that should be explored is lowering the levels of PFAS that are deemed safe in the state of Massachusetts. Currently, Massachusetts allows a combined standard of 20ppt for 6PFAS while the US EPA allows up to 70ppt for 2PFAS. While Massachusetts has already lowered the acceptable combined standard concentration when compared to the EPA, organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) suggest that the standard should be lowered even more to establish a combined standard of 2 ppt for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS and 5ppt for GenX. This option would provide a more detailed insight into the levels of PFAS in the state’s drinking water and allow us to ensure that the levels of PFAS present are not so high that they are harmful to the human body.

    Analysis of Options

    To pass either policy requires cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). MassDEP is responsible for initiating the process to develop a new standard for the maximum contaminant level, and to initiate a new statewide testing program. To begin this process, the MassDEP will announce their intention to develop a new standard or testing process. The MassDEP will then propose the revisions in the Massachusetts Register which begins the formal public comment process. Following this, MassDEP will host a public hearing as well as a public meeting to discuss the proposed regulations. The final step of the process includes a series of revisions and public comments which will continue until a final regulation is made.

    This process includes public commentary and discussion about the proposed changes within the community. Thus, these policies will be more successfully passed if the community is aware of the benefits of the policies and how they will positively impact their lives. Both suggested policies will be effective at lowering the levels of PFAS that Wellesley town, and the surrounding towns in the state of Massachusetts, will be consuming unknowingly through public and private water supplies. It is important to reduce the levels of PFAS contamination in public and private water supplies because there are severe health risks that can come from high levels of PFAS consumption. These health risks will be damaging to the lives of Wellesley community members. Further, these policies will save the community money through the reduction of healthcare costs over time. The health risks associated with PFAS contamination are significant and a major reason why these policies may be popular for the public. Further, there are more logistical and practical reasons why the Wellesley community may benefit from these policy changes. These policies would help to avoid water usage regulations similar to what the Wellesley community is experiencing currently. Through the implementation of more routine and preventative testing, there will be less of a need to close water treatment plants last minute. The closing of plants causes a great deal of strain on the Wellesley communities water supply. Increased testing would help to prevent water usage restrictions, which inconvenience the Wellesley community, and cost money to inform the public about.

    While there are many benefits to the implementation of these policies, there are also some potential reasons why the public would be against these policies. First, the implementation of more routine testing will cost money for the state of Massachusetts and the town of Wellesley, especially to provide free testing to all public and private water supplies. To cover these costs, state and town taxes may change or increase, or funding could be taken from other places to implement these policies. Second, the lowering of the maximum contaminant level would mean that more PFAS contamination would be discovered. While this is a good thing in terms of protecting the health of Wellesley residents, it could also mean more frequent closing of water treatment plants. It is likely that many of the water treatment plants in Wellesley and the broader state of Massachusetts have levels of PFAS that would be too high if the suggested maximum contaminant level was implemented. This could be inconvenient for the public because there would be more frequent closings of plants.

    Policy Recommendation

    In order to address the water pollution issue, the options are to expand state sponsored testing to cover 100% of private water supplies, and a combined standard of 2 ppt for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS and 5ppt for GenX. These policy changes would support the overall health and safety of the Wellesley community, as well as ensure that the community is informed and aware of the contaminants in the public and private water supply. These policies would ensure that the water supplies in Wellesley town are safely monitored and do not contain levels of PFAS that could be harmful to the Wellesley community. These policies would save money long term by decreasing related health risks, as well as by preventing an unexpected closure of a water treatment plant which would lead to restrictions and disrupt the lives of the Wellesley community. For these reasons, I recommend that these policies be implemented as soon as possible to protect the health and safety of the Wellesley community as well as of the state of Massachusetts overall.

    Conclusion

    The Local Governance Project has allowed me to discover the priorities of the Wellesley community and use the information to research and brainstorm potential policy solutions that would speak to the priorities of Wellesley residents. The results of the Political Priorities Worksheet indicated that Wellesley residents were most passionate about environmental policy and energy as their main political priority. Once this was observed, I was able to focus on one specific environmental issue that could be impacted by the implementation of a new environmental policy. The most pressing environmental issue facing Wellesley residents was determined to be water usage restrictions because of PFAS contamination. From this information I was able to identify, analyze and then recommend two potential policy solutions to solve PFAS contamination. In conclusion, the local governance project provided valuable insight into the Wellesley communities environmental needs and potential policy pathways to improve the lives of Wellesley residents through the implementation of environmental policies.

  • Local Governance Project: Charlottesville

    Local Governance Project: Charlottesville

    This project was undertaken with the support of the Alliance for Citizen Engagement’s Local Governance Project and the University of Virginia.

    Background

    Fig 1: Global Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels, 1900-2014

    Climate change has become a ubiquitous topic of global political discourse. Global climate change has had visible effects on the world, from shrinking glaciers, to rising sea levels and more intense and frequent weather phenomena such as heat waves and hurricanes. These changes are caused by global warming. Without human interference, energy from the sun is reflected back into space by clouds or ice or is simply released from the atmosphere, allowing the planet to properly cool. Human emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, trap energy within the atmosphere, interfering with the cooling process and causing the planet to warm. Since 1970, carbon emissions have increased by 90% due to industrialization, deforestation, and other impacts of population expansion, thus increasing the amount of heat trapped within Earth’s atmosphere. It’s estimated that Earth’s average temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th century. While that might seem like a small change, it far surpasses temperature changes of past eras.

    The effects of such changes are potentially disastrous. One huge effect can be seen in changing weather patterns. As the earth’s atmosphere heats up, it collects, retains, and drops more water, causing wet areas to become wetter and dry areas to become drier. Higher temperatures increase the frequency and intensify weather disasters, including storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts. The Arctic is heating twice as fast as other regions on the planet. Due to the melting of its ice sheets, the sea level is expected to rise four feet by 2100, which threatens coastal and low-lying areas. Finally, because of how the ocean absorbs industrial emissions, the oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were in preindustrial times. This is bad for most marine ecosystems, but coral reefs are hit the hardest by this type of drastic change. This, paired with increased ocean temperatures, leads to coral bleaching events that threaten not only coral reefs, but the marine life they sustain. 

    The threat of climate change is no longer just a future phenomenon but an active threat in the U.S. that is costing potential billions in infrastructure damages, and the loss of human life. The Fourth National Climate Assessment emphasised that more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems which provide essential benefits to communities. Key events just from this year outline the exact dangers warned about. Take the Texas flash freeze that happened earlier this year, in which Texas’ energy production infrastructure failed under the extreme cold. Wind turbines froze over, as well as important instruments at natural gas, coal, and nuclear facilities. With limited to no power, this caused thousands of Texas residents to fend off the historic cold by themselves. Another example is the heat dome that covered the Pacific Northwest earlier this summer. With record breaking heat in a place whose infrastructure wasn’t built to deal with such extremes, power lines and other essential items began to melt, causing outages and dangerous situations. These events aren’t simply random, but are results of how climate change is beginning to cause situations in which the U.S. is unprepared for. 

    Virginia will not be immune to the impacts of climate change, according to a report by the NRDC. Temperature increases have led to a trend of worse heat related illnesses in city areas such as Richmond and Charlottesville, averaging 3 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than in rural areas. Poorer, urban communities are disproportionately hit due to a lack of airflow, heat sinks, and poor cooling infrastructure. On top of this, coastal regions such as Norfolk are experiencing more flooding, damaging vital infrastructure. The Virginia Clean Economy Act of 2020 was passed, and heralds a progressive policy agenda toward fighting Virginia’s emissions. The main point is that it requires Dominion Energy Virginia (the main energy supplier in VA) to become 100% carbon-free by 2045 and Appalachian Power to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. Along with this the act requires nearly all coal-fired plants to shut down by 2024. 

    Fig 2: Report of Temperature Change due to Climate Change

    On the local level, Charlottesville has its own set of issues when it comes to the effect of climate change. According to the C3 Releases Report on Local Effects of Climate Change, published July 1, 2020, the most pertinent climate hazard for Charlottesville will be precipitation. From the 1890s to the 2010s, the average number of days with extreme rainfall per year has increased by 78%. Precipitation is predicted to become less frequent but more extreme due to rising temperatures. Aside from lost assets and damages caused by climate change-induced extreme weather, flooded buildings could lead to conditions for developing mold and poor air quality, thus imposing further costs on infrastructure and health. Second, according to the report, the average daily maximum temperature in Charlottesville is predicted to increase from 70°F to 78°F in the next 80 years. A major threat in this increase are the days of extreme heat. Historically, Charlottesville has had an average of 1 day per year qualifying as extreme (105 degrees and over), but it is predicted that this number could increase to 47 by the end of the century. Extreme heat is dangerous because it could cause heat exhaustion, stroke, and even death to those in at-risk categories (the young and the elderly, and those below the poverty line). With more negative impacts on biodiversity, the agriculture industry, and energy bills, it is obvious that Charlottesville (as well as the world) can no longer prevent the climate crisis since it has already begun. But, with decisive policy and advocacy action, the damage can potentially be mitigated. 

    Fig 3: Climate Action Plan

    The government of Charlottesville has already begun the fight against climate change and emissions. The City of Charlottesville adopted a greenhouse gas reduction target on July 1, 2019, in which the goal is to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Next, they began the development of a climate action plan for greenhouse gas reductions followed by a climate hazard risk assessment. Community engagement to develop a Climate Action Plan was planned to begin in 2020, but was delayed due to the coronavirus response and is currently being organized (although it is technically in phase 1). In collaboration with C3 and LEAP, the city of Charlottesville rolled out its Voucher Energy Efficiency Pilot program, which incentivizes landlords to accept low-income housing vouchers for energy-efficient upgrades (for example, replacing an HVAC system or new insulation), thus improving the energy efficiency of living spaces. 

    Advocacy groups have been working closely with the local government and businesses to help push for sustainability programs. The Community Climate Collaborative (C3), aside from policy research and its pushing of the Climate Action Incentives, have also put in work in the creation of the Green Business Alliance (GBA) and the Home Energy Challenge. The GBA is an group of 16 mid to large level companies that aim at combatting their emissions and energy efficiencies, with a plan to reduce their collective climate emissions by 45% by 2025. C3 supports the GBA members by tracking their energy use, facilitating solutions as a group, and highlighting success. C3 also promotes the Home Energy Challenge, in which they facilitate and organize neighborhood groups. These groups then choose from an array of climate actions complete those actions within a 6-8 week timeframe, with an ability to see their collective impact to local emissions. C3 helps with encouragement and organization in this program to incentivize community members to create sustainability centered lifestyle changes. This is a particular focus because research has shown that 30% of community-wide emissions in Charlottesville come from familial lifestyle choices, such as energy inefficient appliances, transportation decisions, etc. 

    FOCUS: WATER AND ENERGY USE

     

    In 2019, the City of Charlottesville solidified plans to reduce community CO2 emissions by 45% of 2011 levels by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050. In 2011, the Charlottesville community produced 459,309 metric tons of CO2, meaning emissions must decrease to about 206,689 metric tons of CO2 by 2030 or at a rate of -18,044 MTCO2/year. Since then, the City has reduced its municipal emissions by 37.5% from 2011 to 2020. 

    Policy Proposals – Information Campaign & Online Tool

    81% of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity usage, so reducing overall electricity consumption by improving energy efficiency is the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From 2011 to 2016, community carbon emissions decreased by approximately 21.2%—from 459,309 metric tons CO2 to 362,192 metric tons CO2. In line with the City’s 2019 plans on cutting emissions, Charlottesville needs to reduce emissions by an additional 23.8% of 2011 levels to meet their goal of a 45% decrease in emissions by 2030. This works out to a 11,107.4 metric tons CO2 per year decrease over a 14 year period. 

    Moving forward, the City of Charlottesville can help offset greenhouse gas emissions by reducing overall electricity consumption. In 2016, 29.8% of community-wide CO2 emissions originated from residential energy use, which is the highest segment of emissions in the city. At the current moment, there are 43 incentives available to Charlottesville residents—14 of which are local—to improve the energy and water efficiency of their homes. The bulk of these incentives comes in the form of rebates for installing new, energy efficient systems in residences, like programmable thermostats and HVAC upgrades. 

    While these local climate action incentives provide residents with additional, more affordable options for upgrading their home energy and water systems, these incentives are not adequately advertised to residents by the local government. Besides having a dedicated webpage for all local, governmental rebate programs, the City is lacking in its current outreach to citizens who may be interested in or willing to install new systems due to these government rebates. 

    To increase the number of residents that utilize the incentives available on the local, state, and national level, Charlottesville should invest in an information campaign and an overhauled system for sorting out incentives for which citizens qualify. 

    INFORMATION CAMPAIGN

    The information campaign will ideally be carried out in a universal manner that provides residents with a concise list of available incentives sent out in the mail and advertised on City government social media accounts. Such a program would fall under the jurisdiction of:

    • The City Department of Communications, which would coordinate disseminating information
    • The Environmental Sustainability Division of Public Works, which would compile necessary information on environmental incentives.

    To ensure that the program is effective, all information campaign resources should:

    1. Provide concise information about rebates available to residents 
    2. Be provided in both English and Spanish
    3. Emphasize and/or quantify the material benefits to residents (like estimated savings on energy per year)
    4. Provide helpful resources for how to participate in programs (like phone numbers, websites, and/or email addresses)
    5. Place special consideration on low income households to inform them of low- to no-cost energy and water system upgrades

    With these specifications in mind, the City of Charlottesville could decrease overall CO2 emissions and water usage by making the incentives for residents more apparent, mainstream, and readily available. Additionally, since many of the incentives currently available to Charlottesville residents are targeted towards low income households (12 in total), the City could improve the material conditions of low income residents—while reducing energy and water consumption–by advertising said incentives through the proposed information campaign. 

    WEBPAGE OVERHAUL

    In addition to funding a robust informational campaign about the environmental incentives available to residents, Charlottesville could increase participation in said local, state, and national incentives by creating an online tool that helps residents determine which incentives they qualify for. 

    Ideally, this online tool would be hosted and/or advertised on the Charlottesville City website and in the information campaign resources. The online tool would prompt residents with questions about their income range, their current HVAC, energy, and water systems, and the age of their home. After completing the questions, the online tool would provide citizens with a list of incentives they qualify for along with helpful links to get started. 

    The proposed online tool would be advertised through:

    1. The City of Charlottesville website (especially on the home page)
    2. The proposed information campaign outlined above
    3. City government social media accounts

    In total, this online tool would increase participation in local, state, and national programs to improve the efficiency of homes across Charlottesville by helping residents decide which incentives they qualify for in a simple, easy to understand way. 

    ONLINE TOOL MOCK-UP

     

    • Startup page provides information on how to use the online tool and its purpose
    • FAQ page available in case residents have questions on usage and how their data is used
    • Press ‘Explore’ to begin the online questionnaire

    • Always available help button in bottom right corner
    • Progress shown on left side of page

     

    Focus: Green Infrastructure and Sustainability

     

    Written by: Luke Aminuddin

    Fig. 1: Percent population growth in metropolitan of Virginia between 2010-2020

    A 2020 population study by the Weldon Cooper Center at the University of Virginia identified the city of Charlottesville as the third-largest-growing metropolitan area in Virginia; it experienced a 10.4% population increase between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census estimate (see fig. 1). 

    Charlottesville is developing as a central hub for economic and social opportunities. But this also presents new challenges as more people settle in the city and new developments sprout up. Specifically, the urbanization of Charlottesville over the last decade has raised concerns about environmental health and the need for more sustainable practices. During the last two decades, Charlottesville has made important strides to make the city ‘green’ and adopt more sustainable practices. One important sustainable measure that Charlottesville has prioritized is green infrastructure, a term that originated in 1995 publication with initial practical applications in Florida. Green infrastructure is an ecological perspective that stresses the connectivity and multi-functionality of green spaces with “infrastructure” including both natural and nature-mimicking structures. Some examples of green infrastructure are urban tree canopy coverage and green roofs with benefits including the improvement of water and air quality and the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. While green infrastructure projects can be found around the world, the high costs for installation and maintenance have so far limited their proliferation. 

    Charlottesville offers a green roof building permit fee reduction and has established an initiative to be a “Green City” by 2025. However, there is much more the city of Charlottesville can do to achieve its goal of being a “Green City.” After further outlining green infrastructure, its benefits, and describing past actions on the state and local levels, this policy solution will introduce new incentive measures to further encourage the use of green infrastructure and will provide target areas of need in Charlottesville. 

    Green Infrastructure Defined: the Benefits and Drawbacks 

    According to the EPA, green infrastructure (GI) is a “cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet weather impacts that provides many community benefits.” Furthermore, Section 502 of the Clean Water Act describes green infrastructure as the “the range of measures that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces or substrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce flows to sewer systems or to surface waters.

    GI can be categorized in two main forms. Natural green infrastructure includes trees, shrubs, grass, and soils. Green stormwater infrastructures are engineered systems that mimic natural processes to treat stormwater and also provide habitats, especially as part of the physical infrastructure of a building. A green roof is “a layer of vegetation planted over a waterproofing system that is installed on top of a flat or slightly–sloped roof.” Green roofs are categorized as extensive (lightweight, thin soil, and little-to-no irrigation) or intensive (deep soil, irrigated, and better for plants). Green walls include green façades, where climbing or hanging plants reside on a wall, or living walls, where vegetation is integrated through a wall cladding technique. Living walls are better suited for tall buildings.

    Fig. 2: A living wall system featured at the Caixa Forum in Madrid, Spain

    GI can positively impact the environment, as well as provide social and economic benefits. Most notably, GI systems help manage stormwater by retaining and filtering rainwater, which can reduce runoff by 54-62%. In detail, a UK study conducted by the University of Sheffield and the University of Leeds showed noticeable and quantifiable differences between roofs constructed of vegatitative material and ones made of non-vegetative material. Specifically, for most wet weather events, the vegetative roofs detained up to 60% of runoff compared to 40% for unvegetated roofs. Also, vegetative roofs during large rainfall events retained 5-10mm more water than unvegetated roofs. Furthermore, research conducted in Charlottesville by the Green Infrastructure Center, Inc. (GIC) showed similar results. In more urban parts of the city, high runoff has continuously introduced harmful pollutants to the Rivanna River, an important tributary of the James River. The main solution to this problem is maintaining and increasing the urban tree canopy coverage, which can reduce runoff anywhere between 2-7% (see page 8 of the City GreenPrint 1.0). 

    In some cases, these vegetative infrastructure solutions provide habitats to wildlife. University of Southampton research revealed that green walls have proven benefits for biodiversity by providing a habitat for invertebrates and nesting, food, and sheltering for local birds. Moreover, green walls can support biodiversity in cities by acting as a “corridor” to facilitate movement for local species. Urban noise reduction is also a significant benefit of green  infrastructure systems as green roofs can provide pronounced sound absorption by muffling noise vibrations between 250 Hz and 2000 Hz. Meanwhile, another benefit provided by green roofs is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A Columbia University study comparing green roofs with highly-reflective white roofs and traditional black roofs showed that green roofs performed better at retaining heat and reducing heat dissipation. In the winter, thermal oscillations reached a peak of 10 °C for green roofs compared to peaks of 40 °C and 30 °C for black roofs and white roofs, respectively. Similarly, in the summer, green roofs reduce heat dissipation and guarantee low temperatures with thermal oscillations of less than 20 °C. Although white roofs performed similarly to green roofs in the summer with thermal oscillations of about 30 °C, the daily thermal oscillation for black roofs was recorded around 60 °C. The heat retaining technology and reduced heat dissipation rates in green infrastructure also play a role in reducing energy usage for buildings. Green walls can reduce energy usage by 58.9% and 33.8% energy savings for green façades. 

    Another positive development of green infrastructure is the improvement of air quality in surrounding urban areas. Especially in regards to green walls, GI can improve air quality by increasing air flow rate, which facilitates improved bio-filtration. Specifically, green walls and other GI systems aid in reducing the releasing of volatile organic compounds, inorganic gaseous compounds, and carbon dioxide from buildings. Finally, beyond environmental benefits, there are social and economic benefits of GI as well. Namely, this includes the increase of the economic and aesthetic value of buildings and public spaces. Green infrastructure improvements can provide an escape from the urban jungle while creating opportunities for community cohesion and improvements to health and well-being through the planting of vegetables and fruit trees.

    Many public and private investors are hesitant to install or maintain GI systems. The main hindrance is the high costs involved with installation and maintenance. Depending on the typology, a green roof can cost anywhere between 60-600 $/m­­­­­­2. Meanwhile, green façades can cost 12-940 $/m­­­­­­2 and 350-3290 $/m­­­­­­2 for living walls. Hence, many investors are discouraged because the perceived environmental, social, and economic benefits are outweighed by the high short term implementation costs. In order to encourage the use of green infrastructure, governments around the world have developed incentive policies like financial subsidies, tax and interest rate reductions, reduced cost and timeframe to obtain construction permits, sustainability certifications, and obligations by law.

    Past Actions on the State and Local Levels

    Virginia passed 9VAC25-890-40 to provide permits for towns, cities, universities, and other institutional organizations like the military and federal facilities in order to collect stormwater and ensure improved water quality. VA code § 58.1-3852 defines green roofs and provides counties, cities, and other localities with discretion to grant incentives or provide regulatory flexibility for green roof installations. 

    Charlottesville has established its own green roof building permit fee reduction. This incentive policy applies to commercial/non-residential and residential properties and allows for up to a 50% reduction to the building permit fee if a green roof is constructed. According to Home Advisor, the average national cost for building permit fees is about $1,330 and can run as high as $7,500 in some cities, so a 50% reduction is very sufficient. Moreover, Charlottesville has also established ambitious initiatives and plans to make the city more environmentally sustainable. The Strategic Plan outlines five goals to make Charlottesville, one of which promises to create “A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment.” Additionally, the Charlottesville City Council created a vision statement that promises to make Charlottesville a “Green City” by 2025.

    An important contributor to increased sustainability and the encouragement of green infrastructure in Charlottesville is the Green Infrastructure Center, Inc. (GIC). GIC has expanded GI systems in Charlottesville by mapping urban tree canopies, creating and protecting habitat patches, which provides benefits for ecosystems and wind protection for buildings, maintaining current parks and trails and enhancing micro habitats. But the most important benefit, according to GIC, of establishing green infrastructure in Charlottesville is stormwater management. 

    Policy Solution: New Incentive Policies and Target Areas

    Property tax reduction: Brazil implemented a property tax reduction to incentivize households to adopt green infrastructure. In the “IPTU Verde” program in Salvador, when a green roof is installed, property taxes are reduced by 5-10% for a 3-year period which can be extended. Closer to home, New York City also has a property tax reduction incentive policy to promote green roofs. In this case, an owner can receive a one-year tax abatement, which entails tax relief of $4.50/ft2 of constructed green roofs with a maximum tax abatement of $100,000.

    Mandatory GI regulations: the government could require new commercial, institutional, and residential developments to install green roofs. This is the second most popular policy used to encourage green roofs. The city of Toronto requires green roofs to cover 20-60% of the rooftop area. Meanwhile, despite some backtracking, the state of California became the first U.S. state to require solar roofs for new housing developments. 

    For the city of Charlottesville, it is imperative to consider either or both of these policy types in order to encourage the adoption of new green infrastructure systems. As such, it is recommended that Charlottesville provides a property tax reduction of a minimum of $200 annually and up to $1000 annually for a 2-3 year period for new green roof installations. According to Zillow, the average real estate property price for homes in Charlottesville is about $395,666. Being that the real estate tax for properties in Charlottesville is $0.95 per $100 of value, a minimum of $200 off of property taxes is reasonable. Cases for property tax reductions should be assessed individually based on a number of criteria including the extent of the green roof, the value of the property, and the total price of other expenses involved in green roof installation. Also, it is strongly encouraged that Charlottesville considers adopting and enforcing a green roof mandate for new commercial and residential developments. This policy will be similar to the solar roof mandate established in California. While it is not feasible to expect every building in the city to install green roofs or walls, there are particular neighborhoods that should be considered including Johnson Village, Fry’s Spring, Belmont, Martha Jefferson, Locust Grove, and UVA off-Grounds living near and around Rugby Road. These areas, according to CityGreen maps (see fig. 3), lack green stormwater infrastructure. In order to achieve Charlottesville’s goal of becoming a “Green City” by 2025, these areas should be assessed and considered for new green infrastructure projects.

    Fig. 3: Map of current green infrastructure projects in Charlottesville

    Comparison and Implementation

    All three policy proposals—the Webpage Overhaul, the Information Campaign, and the inclusion of New Incentive Policies to support Green Roofs and Walls—have the potential to mitigate the impacts of climate change in Charlottesville. However, when compared by equity, cost, and effectiveness, the idea for a Webpage Overhaul has the greatest efficacy. 

    The Webpage Overhaul and the Information Campaign are both equitable solutions for the citizens of Charlottesville. They are an extension of preexisting Climate Action Incentives which already gear some of their benefits toward low-income households in order to supply affordable and energy efficient home appliances (many providing free programs, assessments, and installments to families who meet the income requirements). Many of the programs can be accessed despite a low-income status, and are meant to help those who do not have the means to adapt their homes to be more climate conscious. The New Green Infrastructure Incentives would only be affordable to corporations, willing landlords, and the wealthy. As stated, while green infrastructure like green roofs are effective in dampening a slew of environmental negatives, they are also expensive. Even with the proposed incentives of a property tax reduction and regulations, disadvantaged families would be left behind since those incentives might not be enough to breach the gap of what they’re willing (or able) to pay. 

    When considering cost to both the government and citizens, the New Incentives for Green Infrastructure is the most expensive. Any new incentives, be it payouts or tax reductions, are lost revenue sources for the government, and any implementation of green infrastructure would be a financial burden to those citizens who take advantage of it. The other two policy proposals are merely rebrandings of preexisting costs and therefore don’t substantially increase government expenses. A Website Overhaul would be more expensive then an Information Campaign given the technical expertise and programming needed for the website, and so technically the Information Campaign is the cheapest of the three. 

    In terms of immediate effectiveness, the Webpage overhaul beats out even the Information Campaign. While the Campaign might help spread the message, it attempts to make the options more well-known rather than streamline the process of utilizing them. The Webpage Overhaul, on the other hand, takes a potentially confusing process and streamlines it for easy use, resulting in increased utilization of the Climate Action Incentives. However, to be most effective these policies should be used in tandem. The Green Infrastructure could take years to implement, both with the bureaucratic struggle of creating new incentives and the actual implementation of any Green Infrastructure. The benefits of the proposal would also take years to kick in and thus should not be the immediate focus of attention.

     

    While the Webpage Overhaul is low cost, equitable, and effective in the short term, the other two policies should not be dismissed. The Information Campaign should be used together with the Overhaul in order to maximize the usage of the Climate Action Incentives, optimizing those pre-existing policies. At a certain point, the Climate Action Incentives will reach a cap of how effectively they battle emissions, and new policies and ideas will need to be implemented to further combat climate change. This is where an emphasis on Green Infrastructure comes in. The idea has many benefits and should be implemented for the reasons stated in the description of its policy proposal, as it can be more effective in the long term at helping Charlotteville become a green city.