Natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy demonstrate that climate change will be a very real priority for the next mayor of Boston. We need all Bostonians to be part of the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to a clean energy economy, and prepare for the unavoidable consequences of a warming planet.
The latest scientific evidence underscores the urgency. Measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii taken earlier this year showed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million for the first time in 3 million years. In response to the milestone, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climatologist, best summed it up: “We are a society that has inadvertently chosen the double-black diamond run without having learned to ski first. It will be a bumpy ride.”
In 2009 and 2010, I was proud to serve on the city’s Climate Action Leadership Committee, a panel convened by Mayor Menino to develop strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In our final report in April 2010, we called for citywide reductions in GHG emissions of 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
Boston is already moving forward to reach these goals. In 2010, I led the passage of the “stretch” energy code in the city council, a nation-leading energy efficient building code that can cut energy use by 20 percent compared with the base code. Earlier this year, I supported an ordinance requiring large property owners to track and disclose their buildings’ energy and water usage. I believe both measures will help catalyze market-based efforts to cut energy costs.
With the threat of climate change growing more pronounced, and as our city looks forward to a new mayor, I believe now is the time to set ambitious goals to establish Boston as an unquestioned global leader among cities in responding to climate change. In my campaign for mayor I have already outlined a number of ideas for greening Boston. Today, I am building on those ideas by identifying five new goals that I will take on as mayor:
First, I will commit to honoring the 2010 goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions of 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. These are the overarching goals that will guide our city’s efforts.
Second, let’s commit to a new goal of installing 100 megawatts of solar by 2020. This represents a quadrupling of Boston’s existing solar goal. Massachusetts has one of the best solar markets in the country and Boston should be leading the way. We should look to city-owned properties and iconic buildings like the Convention Center as priorities for solar power installations.
Third, let’s commit to making Boston’s municipal buildings zero net energy by 2025. That means the city will generate or purchase energy from clean renewable resources in a quantity equal to or greater than what city buildings consume. Accomplishing this will require universal energy efficiency retrofits of city operations, maximizing renewable energy installations on city properties, and only buying renewable energy for what we can’t save or generate ourselves. From City Hall to police stations to Boston Public Schools, we can have the greenest city operations in the nation.
Fourth, let’s divert 80 percent of all waste – residential and commercial – from landfills by 2020. That means a dramatic boost to recycling and fostering a whole new industry to take advantage of the energy potential of yard and food waste. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee announced last fall that his city had already reached 80 percent diversion. Boston needs to respond and become the East Coast leader on green waste management, reducing emissions in landfills and through combustion.
Fifth, we need to enable all households in Boston to take responsibility for reducing their energy bills. As mayor, I will use the bully pulpit of the office to seek universal utilization of programs intended to help households audit their energy usage, weatherize their homes, improve energy efficiency, and lower energy bills. We must support all Bostonians in reducing their home energy usage, and particularly low-income families that struggle with utility bills.
While we should never see climate adaptation as an excuse not to be aggressive on mitigation, we do have to fully prepare for climate change’s impacts. That’s why I also propose convening a panel of climate scientists, civil engineers, and other leading experts to do for the Boston area what Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently unveiled for New York City: a sweeping, detailed plan to examine our critical infrastructure and offer concrete recommendations for changes we must make to become more resilient.
According to the Boston Harbor Association, had Superstorm Sandy reached Boston at high tide, 83 million square feet of the city could have flooded, “with floodwaters reaching City Hall.” Improving our resilience will not be cheap, but we’ll be looking at billions in flooding damages if we don’t act.
As we take on these challenges, Boston has a remarkable economic opportunity. For generations, we have been reliant on fuels like petroleum, coal, and natural gas that are not found nearby. In tomorrow’s clean energy economy, the work of insulating homes, putting solar panels on homes and schools, and recycling creates jobs that can’t be outsourced to another state, region or country. I’m committed to boosting employment opportunities, including good green jobs, for all Bostonians.
With innovations like the Hubway bike share program, with leading clean energy companies like Next Step Living, First Wind and EnerNOC, and with environmentally progressive residents, Boston is already rightly considered part of the green vanguard. But there’s even more we can do. With these five goals, combined with other efforts like transit-oriented development; stronger investments in transit, walking, and bicycling infrastructure; expanded urban agriculture; and support for our innovative green companies, we will assure Boston’s position of environmental leadership.
I hope you’ll share your ideas with me in the comments below, or by emailing me at ideas@connollyforboston.com. You can also read more of my platform at ConnollyforBoston.com/ideas.
From now on, every development in Boston should be approaching if not actually reaching zero net energy and 100% renewable energy. Zero net energy for single occupancy buildings is not only feasible but affordable. There is still some work that needs to be done to scale such features up for multi-family and larger buildings but we should be actively pushing in that direction.
Zero net energy and 100% renewable energy – don’t settle for anything less.
First, I appreciate that Mr. Connolly is pushing for good urban environmental policy. It’s important, it’s got many moving pieces, and it’s not necessarily popular. So, thank you.
Now, on the issues themselves:
First: Yes, please do honor the goals. That’s a great start.
Second: 100 MW of solar in Boston is a lot. To give you a sense of how much, it takes up roughly 625,000 square meters == 6.7 million square feet == .25 square miles. To be clear, there is certainly more than enough rooftop in Boston to pull it off, but it’s challenging because you’ll be installing it in small segments. So, go for it! But know that it will require some real effort to get there.
Third: No, no, no. You’ve got this all wrong. What you wrote:
That’s not what net energy zero means. For a building to be zero net energy, that building must give back to the community as much useful energy as it takes from the community. You don’t “aggregate it” over a fleet of buildings and then buy renewable energy to make up the rest. That’s not net zero energy. What it is… is much more sensible than net zero energy. Individual urban buildings ought not be built to be net zero energy. Make them energy efficient, put some renewables (solar, likely) on top, and use cogeneration to make electricity out of waste steam. Do all of that, and maybe the building is a net consumer or supplier, the chip falls where it falls. The sun doesn’t shine any brighter on a tall building than a short one, and cities have tall buildings — with far higher electric bills than short buildings, because, well, they’ve got more people, square feet, lights, computers, etc. in them! Here’s the thing — density has a low carbon footprint. Lower transportation carbon per person, lower heating and cooling carbon per person, lower electricity use per person, even lower embedded energy costs per person. So don’t require that individual buildings be zero net energy (gmoke, looking at you, friend!). Instead, push the energy codes farther, encourage renewables both locally and anywhere else in New England, and that’s the best you’re going to be able to do. You try for zero net energy, and you guarantee a landscape like the suburbs, because you guarantee short buildings with expansive roofs.
As for Boston’s buildings, 2025 is too soon. Instead of trying to get to all the buildings by 2025, I suggest you do something like this:
1. All new construction must be done to the *highest* standards of energy efficiency and renewables. Get the new stuff right.
2. Lay out the capital project schedule for Boston’s buildings between now and 2025. The buildings which are scheduled for extensive overhauls between now and then — make sure that, when they come up, you use the standards of (1) above.
3. Buildings not on the list for (2): go with a less aggressive energy retrofit. Fix the insulation and air sealing, ensure that the energy management systems are configured and operating correctly, upgrade/repair HVAC equipment, and if you install a new roof, put on that PV. But don’t oversell. You don’t have the money to “waste” retrofitting a building in 2024 that had a deep renovation in 2010.
Fourth: You betcha. Boston could do leaps and bounds better in terms of their household trash. Go for it.
Fifth: While you’ll never get universal participation in efficiency programs, go for it. Just understand that low-income energy efficiency programs are far less cost effective than other residential, commercial, or industrial. Doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do it — there are tremendous social benefits to helping those of modest means save on their utility bills — but know that, in terms of carbon saved per dollar spent, low-income is less attractive.
I’d add that you didn’t mention bus, subway, MBTA, or T in your diary. At all. That’s a tremendous oversight. I know that the T is far bigger than Boston, but I also know that it’s Boston — not the T — who can do all sorts of things to improve public transit in Boston, including but not limited to:
* enforcing no parking at bus stops
* expanding the number, length, and usefulness of bus-only or bus/bike/taxi lanes so that buses are faster and more likely to be on time
* enforcing the bus-only and bus/bike/taxi lanes.
* enforcing the don’t-block-the-box restrictions when they effect the E line or key bus routes.
* working more/harder with the T to implement TSP and to revise and refine bus routes so that the stops are in the right places for bus passengers and MBTA operation, not merely the place where there’s a fire hydrant so the amount of “no parking” curb is minimized.
I’d also add that you didn’t mention parking for automobiles. The fact of the matter is, parking remains too easy in Boston. The LMA is a great example of great parking policy in Boston — Boston limits the number of parking spaces the hospitals (et al) are allowed to have, and as a result MASCO works with the employers and the T, and a tremendous number of people walk, bike, carpool, private bus, MBTA bus, and T to work. Expand the success to other parts of the city. I’m not suggesting Boston should be car-free by 2025, but I am suggesting that the fewer the number of parking spaces, the fewer the number of cars jamming up the city streets, the less the emissions, the fewer the number of motor vehicle accidents with each other, peds, and cyclists, and the more frequent the bus service.
I’m excited about your post Mr. Connolly. Politics is the art of the possible, and so I don’t expect all of your proposals to be the most “efficient” use of policy — sometimes you’ve got to take less effective components of the solution now because that’s what is available. Keep working on this, keep banging the drum, and you’ll do the city a tremendous service.
Larry Harmon recently criticized Mr. Connolly saying: “Boston City Councilor John Connolly prides himself on knowing more about public education than any of his 11 opponents seeking the mayor’s office. But what good is such knowledge when Connolly descends into political pandering on school issues, as he did last week last by voting in favor of a $115 million loan order to build a new high school in Mattapan?
Boston already wastes about $8 million annually to maintain 3,000 empty high school seats. ” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/05/connolly-pursuit-voters-leading-him-into-policy-pitfalls/Ecq3XsitSDohkbzhm9EEXK/story.html
And Connolly website touts his “fast-track” development idea saying:
“As part of developing a long-term facilities plan, BPS will use a “triage” system to identify the highest priority projects for the Building Blocks Initiative. Building Blocks projects will be at various price points, including everything from new buildings to science lab renovations, in schools across the city.
When large institutions present initial proposals to the city, they will be assigned a Building Blocks project that fits the scale of their proposal.
The community process and mitigation requirements will still be in place, but the project will be given high-priority in order to move to approval or denial within six months.
This presents the opportunity to build new BPS facilities on the campuses of some of our colleges, universities, health centers, and hospitals.”
Ask any resident involved with an institutional development in and they’ll tell you that the so-called community process is often a farce no matter how many meetings there are, and green space gets built on without a single environmental impact study. And, residents have begged universities to build dorms on their own campuses with no results. I just can’t imagine they’ll build pubic schools on them unless they get city money.
Last, businesses and residents have shouldered an ever-growing portion of funding city operations. The last thing they need is more tax-free property to take care of.
These are green proposals Boston can’t afford.
BU has built both StuVi and TwoVi. Berklee is building a dorm at 168 Mass Ave.
Also have a look at the BRA list of dormitory development projects for projects not yet built.
Yes, BU has done a good job building on it’s own campus and also pays the highest and most appropriate Payment in Lieu of Taxes to Boston.
But if you look at the building at 168 Mass Ave on which Berklee is building you’ll see that it was a tax-paying commercial building until 2010 when it was assessed at $1.2 million http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0401311000 Its approx $200k in taxes is lost forever to Boston.
The BRA list only looks good without that step of looking at the properties.
Emerson’s project at 1-6 Boylston St means taking four commercial properties off the tax roles. Emerson has been buying properties overlooking the Commons for years and pays a pittance PILOT to the city. Boston asked Emerson for a PILOT of $217,497 for the 1st half of FY13 but Emerson paid just 70,795.
These two examples out of many show the unsustainable trend of revenue loss for Boston. I have yet to hear a candidate for mayor or city council address this directly.
The Boston area universities are rarely surrounded by non-tax-paying-properties, and rarely have a whole bunch of their own undeveloped land. If you want them to build housing for students, they will necessarily buy tax-paying-land to do it.
Griping that the unis don’t build enough dorms, and then griping when they build them seems a tad silly.
P.S. We don’t all agree on “appropriate” level of PILOTs. Personally, I think that, in general, the appropriate PILOT is $0.00.
P.P.S. In Cambridge, MIT and Harvard are the two largest land owners, and yet Cambridge’s finances are in such good shape that they’re below the Prop 2.5 limit. Merely having non-profits in one’s community isn’t a recipe for “the unsustainable trend of revenue loss”.
1. Fast-tracking of any development, especially on green space or previously taxable property, holds many pitfalls in a city where relationships often matter more than merit. See the Herald’s series of articles on a fast-track project in Southie (this is the latest but tracking back is intructive): http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/07/zoning_board_oks_fast_tracked_southie_project
2. Although I didn’t mention Harvard, which owns more land in Boston than it does in Cambridge, ask the residents of Barry’s Corner in Allston what life has been like since Harvard decided to expand and build it Science Center. Ask if they feel their wishes have been respected.
3. BC, which does have land and which neighbors have begged to replace small dorms on its own campus, got a unanimous green light from the BRA to build two stadiums and a 65,000 sq. ft athletic facility on what was the greenspace of the Boston Archdiocese in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Needless to say, BC is as plugged-in as they come.
So, development in Boston is a contact sport. The wealthy and connected get more so and the tax-paying residents have to shut up and put up. I think the whole idea is an election year carrot to developers and wealthy universities and hospitals. In that it is a green idea. Green as in money.
Boston is not wasting $8M on 3,000 empty high school seats. I’ve yet to see anyone step-up and take responsibility for the math on that one! I commented on this issue in the Harmon post and here on BMG.
Connolly “fast-track” development idea reeks of New Market Tax Credit investors charterizing our public schools instead of investing in affordable housing, business, and job development. Those investments carry more risk, and is not as easy an investment vehicle to sell as “charters for the children.” Looking into my crystal ball, I can see all those non-profits “stepping-up” and providing windowless cellar space to small “boutique charter schools” bearing their name but having separate exits.
Massachusetts has $130,000,000 in NMTC and Boston share should be investing in uplifting the quality of life for the people and families who actually live in the city. Not giving it to education privateers looking for an easy 39% tax credit.
Mixed-use development that puts residences within walking distance of shops and offices should be part of any green municipal portfolio.
Done right (and to the right scale) this creates a vibrant, livable urban space with a small energy footprint and many opportunities for energy efficiencies.
All well and good. Laudable even. However, the uni-directional, and pseudo-oligarchical, grid that we have now is not going to cut it. We need more than a smart grid. We need a smart mesh and we will need to work out the regulations that will come with it. This is truly disruptive technology. You will have to go toe to toe with the principle rent-seekers in the city to make this happen: developers, grid operators, builders. If you are willing, i’m right there with you.
Also, I would not characterize such things as ‘goals’: they are imperatives.
Boston is in no position to do take any action on any of the buzzwords in your paragraph. Those regulations come from the FERC and the state.
The grid that we have now — particularly in a dense area like Boston — can almost certainly handle 100 MW of PV with negligible infrastructure upgrades to the local distribution system.
The infrastructure is more than capable of absorbing another 100MW from a point source. That’s the design of the grid: purpose built to aggregate production and send that off to the users.
It is not, however, capable of handling an aggregate 100 MW from more than three or four point sources… and here we are talking about hundreds. One 100 MW point source is not the same as one hundred 1 MW point sources… at least from the point of view of the grid which is a complex mixture of inverters, transformers, transistors and which must constantly push energy along, preferably in a pre-determined direction. There is a HUGE cost to reversing the flow of energy on the circuit… and if that reversal is not handled properly things blow up.
For instance, if you install a solar panel on your roof and make plans to sell the extra power back to the utilities, the utility has to not only configure your local inverter (meter) but also the transformer(s) servicing your area, and set up failsafes for the safety and continued performance of the grid. Things blow up if the energy passing through them is not handed off properly. After that, they then have lower their energy production by the amount that you are feeding back to the system If everybody on your block did the same thing, assuming sufficient density of persons on your block, they would likely have to scrap the single transformer altogether and build miniaturized transfer stations; that is to say, put entirely new equipment to handle the n-directional transfers in place of the unidirectional transformer that was there prior to everybody having the ability to shove energy back at the system.
Now, you’re saying we should do the very same thing, but anywhere and everywhere. OK. I’m with you on that. However, there are implications for regulations (building codes which are most certainly the purview of Boston), builders and developers. For instance, you can have failsafe shutdowns, which will be electrical, or you can buffer with large, industrial sized batteries. Each of these strategies will need upgraded code neede. And you are ALSO telling the grid companies that they will have to reduce their production (and thus their profits) by 100 MW Let’s not fool ourselves: a game changer is a game changer.
Customer-side (small) solar, MW-ac installed annually (not cumulative) in tUSA:
2010: 454 MW
2011: 906 MW
2012: 1,151 MW
Source: Public Utilities Fortnightly, June 2013.
Germany, the world leader. Percent of MW, not percent of installs:
18%: Residential homes, 1-10kW
59%: Multi family houses, farms, schools, commercial buildings 10-100kW
Source: http://www.ilsr.org/over-80-percent-german-pv-installed-rooftops/
I didn’t write “we should do the same thing, but eanywhere and everywhere”. I wrote that Boston could almost certainly handle 100 MW of PV on the local distribution system.
And finally, the “grid companies” — NSTAR and National Grid and Unitil, for example — don’t produce electricity. They deliver it. Their generation assets were sold to merchants years ago, and those merchants operate in a free(ish) market operated by ISO New England — those merchants aren’t guaranteed profits.
Net metering, while non-trivial, isn’t particularly costly and it helps bring down the locational marginal price during peak hours, and it helps diminish load pockets, thereby saving ratepayers (you and me!) on both their cost of energy and their cost of distribution. These realities are precisely why the limits on net metering are being reduced in state after state across the country.
Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the constructive ideas and feedback. You all have given me a lot to think about here – as always happens on Blue Mass Group!
One thing I want to make clear is that I proposed these five goals to build on my broader platform on environmental issues. If you want to learn more about my other ideas on climate change and the environment, please visit http://www.connollyforboston.com/ideas
When I announced my platform here on Blue Mass Group I hoped to start a conversation about all of our ideas for Boston’s future, which I am very glad to see continue. Please continue to let me know your thoughts here or at ideas@connollyforboston.com.