Planning for Urban Regeneration and Energy Investments: Issues of Conflict and Compatibility - 2 views

• 
  #1 Metropolitan Institute on 04 Jan 12

   

  Abstract: EPA's RE-Powering America initiative, DOE's Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy programs and HUD's Sustainable Communities efforts all are directed toward altering energy usage and/or generation at the local level. EPA's shift toward more area-wide approaches towards brownfield regeneration would appear to have the potential to complement those programs. However, in the absence of systematic community-based local energy plans, conflicts can arise and optimal energy policies may be missed.
  

  For example, vacant lands, whether or not contaminated, might be used for local renewable energy generation directly (solar installations or wind farms), might be "greened" by growing biomass feedstocks and providing green open spaces, might serve as sites for geothermal heating/cooling pipe installation for the surrounding area, or might even serve as sites for small gas-fired electricity generating stations using waste heat for district heating. Existing businesses using heat in processing might be supported to cogenerate electricity. Derelict buildings may be found to be rehabilitated and retrofitted for energy efficiency if local initiatives took total energy consumption into consideration in the planning process, since demolition and new construction involve much more energy than retrofits.
  
  All of these initiatives constitute potential contributions to sustainable communities, but they also could be considered Locally Undesirable Land Uses, depending on their neighborhood settings. That is, a wind farm might be appropriate on an abandoned site in an industrial zone, but a LULU in a residential area, while growing biomass feedstocks in a dense residential area with little greenspace is a positive, but may contribute to higher vehicle miles traveled if it extends distances between places of employment and residences. Providing community access to ground-heated and cooled water with a centralized geothermal system on a vacant site may help lower heating and cooling costs for surrounding residences, but may only serve as an overall positive if it did not contribute to displacement and gentrification of an area or pose excessive negative external effects in its installation.
  
  Such efforts need to be planned. Planned NOT as individual projects, or developments for a single site, but considered as part of a broader planning process that integrates communities, residents, businesses and other stakeholders in the process. All too frequently, that community involvement is missing, causing environmental justice failures and leading to resistance to innovative land uses, causing the NIMBY response to what need not necessarily be LULUs.
  
  This paper will examine the efforts of member localities of the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals that have pursued some energy plans for vacant lands and/or developed local energy plans. Findings on the integration of land use, energy and development planning in that sample will be derived, using survey results from NALGEP, with follow-up interviews. A further perspective on those findings will be drawn from a detailed case study of Kansas City, MO, a recipient of one of the DOE competitive grants under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, an element of the ARRA. Kansas City's program is consciously neighborhood-focused, so it provides an excellent case, and access is facilitated by the author's role as financial management advisor to their planning and implementation efforts.

  
  

  Conclusions will be derived about the extent to which needed community involvement and comprehensive planning efforts are being committed as part of local efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use.
  
  Meyer, Peter. "Planning for Urban Regeneration and Energy Investments: Issues of Conflict and Compatibility." Paper to be presented at the annual conference for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 13-16, 2011.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Abstract: EPA's RE-Powering America initiative, DOE's Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy programs and HUD's Sustainable Communities efforts all are directed toward altering energy usage and/or generation at the local level. EPA's shift toward more area-wide approaches towards brownfield regeneration would appear to have the potential to complement those programs. However, in the absence of systematic community-based local energy plans, conflicts can arise and optimal energy policies may be missed. <br /> <p>For example, vacant lands, whether or not contaminated, might be used for local renewable energy generation directly (solar installations or wind farms), might be "greened" by growing biomass feedstocks and providing green open spaces, might serve as sites for geothermal heating/cooling pipe installation for the surrounding area, or might even serve as sites for small gas-fired electricity generating stations using waste heat for district heating. Existing businesses using heat in processing might be supported to cogenerate electricity. Derelict buildings may be found to be rehabilitated and retrofitted for energy efficiency if local initiatives took total energy consumption into consideration in the planning process, since demolition and new construction involve much more energy than retrofits. <br /> <br /> All of these initiatives constitute potential contributions to sustainable communities, but they also could be considered Locally Undesirable Land Uses, depending on their neighborhood settings. That is, a wind farm might be appropriate on an abandoned site in an industrial zone, but a LULU in a residential area, while growing biomass feedstocks in a dense residential area with little greenspace is a positive, but may contribute to higher vehicle miles traveled if it extends distances between places of employment and residences. Providing community access to ground-heated and cooled water with a centralized geothermal system on a vacant site may help lower heating and cooling costs for surrounding residences, but may only serve as an overall positive if it did not contribute to displacement and gentrification of an area or pose excessive negative external effects in its installation. <br /> <br /> Such efforts need to be planned. Planned NOT as individual projects, or developments for a single site, but considered as part of a broader planning process that integrates communities, residents, businesses and other stakeholders in the process. All too frequently, that community involvement is missing, causing environmental justice failures and leading to resistance to innovative land uses, causing the NIMBY response to what need not necessarily be LULUs. <br /> <br /> This paper will examine the efforts of member localities of the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals that have pursued some energy plans for vacant lands and/or developed local energy plans. Findings on the integration of land use, energy and development planning in that sample will be derived, using survey results from NALGEP, with follow-up interviews. A further perspective on those findings will be drawn from a detailed case study of Kansas City, MO, a recipient of one of the DOE competitive grants under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, an element of the ARRA. Kansas City's program is consciously neighborhood-focused, so it provides an excellent case, and access is facilitated by the author's role as financial management advisor to their planning and implementation efforts.</p> <br /> <p>Conclusions will be derived about the extent to which needed community involvement and comprehensive planning efforts are being committed as part of local efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use. <br /> <br /> Meyer, Peter. "Planning for Urban Regeneration and Energy Investments: Issues of Conflict and Compatibility." Paper to be presented at the annual conference for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 13-16, 2011.</p></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top