CCEM 101 Question 1

[Carly Johansson]

Within the context of the community you work for or live in, comment on how your community might benefit from a community energy plan.

[Carly Johansson]

An important benefit from community energy planning in my community would be if a higher priority was given to the development of safe bike lanes.

[Carly Johansson]

I agree! It’s really hard to get around on a bike where I live. We also need more sidewalks.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Eleanor,

I totally agree with you. Bike lanes, especially separated bike lanes, bring about a number of benefits. One of the most obvious benefits is increased safety for cyclists. What I’ve learned from the research is that separated bike lanes are perhaps the most effective urban policy for increasing urban cycling trips in a city. An increase in urban cycling has the potential to decrease a significant amount of car trips, which in turn reduces transportation related emissions. In Victoria’s CEEP there is only a brief mention of bike lanes: “Consider ways to make cycling easier throughout the City, including no-car streets, increased bike lanes, designated cycling routes, improved cycling route maintenance”. Fortunately, the City is now moving ahead with identifying select corridors that would be good candidates for a separated bike lane.

As planners and sustainability practitioners, I think we need to really push for, and draw a clearer link between safe bike lanes and reduced carbon emissions.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I like Timothy’s point about linking safe bike lanes with reduced carbon emissions. In my experience “it’s the right thing to do” is often not convincing enough to affect change. If there are reduced emissions or reduced costs associated with an action, I imagine it will have a much better chance of being implemented than if it doesn’t.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

A community energy plan in my community could help prioritize transportation demand management. The community I live in has an egregious traffic congestion problem. The city is built for cars. While Victoria has a relatively good amount of bike lanes and paths, the city’s dominant form of transportation remains the private vehicle. According to the CEEP that was completed for the City of Victoria in 2012, transportation accounted for 43.3% of the city’s total GHG emissions in 2007. This is significant and a CEEP in this case can help residents see the benefits of TDM or cycling infrastructure in helping to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I’ve mentioned this in another post, but Salt Spring Island’s transportation includes ferries. Since Victoria’s economy also relys on ferries, it would be interesting to know that transportation footprint for your community -in hopes that BC Ferries would get proactive about reduction strategies for operations.

[Carly Johansson]

We have already completed a community energy and emissions plan. It provided several useful pieces of information – where our community was using most energy, and what aspects of energy use the municipality had control over (and could influence) – or not. It also helped us to set the targets we put into the OCP. It also identified that as a growing community, reducing community emissions by 33% meant reducing per capita emissions by 50% – the big target got even bigger.

[Carly Johansson]

Judith
Just curious as to how much the Colwood CEEP speaks to working in collaboration with neighbouring municipalities. You mention the CEEP being directed towards energy that the municipality has control over, but it would seem that the municipality could have more influence over other energy aspects if it was clear as to what the neighbouring municipalities were planning. The more I read, the more I am realizing the obvious that if any of the municipalities that share significant urban boundaries with other municipalities do not work collaboratively, then realizing the targets set out in the CEEP becomes harder and harder. As we get closer and closer to initial target dates in CEEPs across the country, I wonder what research would say about the correlation between neighbourly collaboration and achieving targets.

[Carly Johansson]

Geoff – great question about working with others. When we were doing the CEEP we recognised what the municipality itself had control over – like rezoning, as opposed to cleaner tailpipe emissions (really led by California), or BC Transit regional decisions – into which we had inotu but no direct control.

So – it was important that we had input into the regional pedestrian and cycling plan and transit plans as well as our own work. But we also led the way – for example setting higher than building code requirements for energy performance on new buildings – which has helped to raise the bar for other CRD communities.

I guess for me – absolutely yes work with neighbours and don’t be afraid to push the boundaries!

[Carly Johansson]

In my community Victoria, a CEEP was created in 2012. When investigating the section on transportation I was happy to see that the plan does list regional cooperation as key to planning and a possible hinderance to realizing goals. In this case a CEEP is another tool that can help convince the need for stronger regional cooperation and planning between neighbouring ommunities.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

The non-profit organization I work for, Arctic Energy Alliance, undertook a process in 2007-08 that resulted in the creation of Community Energy Plans for all (most) of the 33 communities in the Northwest Territories http://aea.nt.ca/communities .

We are in the process of sorting out details with the Government of the NWT to see if we can undertake a process for AEA to help NWT communities update their CEP’s. Hopefully, the new tools & approaches we cover in this course/certificate can help guide the efforts we are able to facilitate up here.

BENEFITS: Updating the CEP’s and re-engaging the communities in this process will be very important for the benefits of the CEP process to be realized. Unfortunately, the momentum that built up around the time the CEP’s were completed has withered (especially for some of the CEP’s created with a less detailed, template format, while others involved a more dedicated process with the help of a consultant or AEA employee, these were more detailed), so there wasn’t a strong “buy-in” or motivation to continue with the process if new municipal leaders and Band Office staff.

Commitment to the process with an appreciation for the benefits of the CEP and dedicated effort to following up recommendations, etc. will be very important for CEP benefits to be realized.

[Carly Johansson]

Theresa – I realize funding was likely a major contributor to losing momentum on energy planning, but I’m wondering if anything stands out for you with regard to the lull that followed AEA’s 2007-08 work? What could you have done differently? In Yukon we are considering a decentralized approach that will reduce the cost of planning for the communities. In a similar fashion to what is being done in BC, we at YG would work to develop the resources needed for planning, and hopefully empower the communities to do the planning themselves. We anticipate that, by having access to inventories, projections, tools, and maps, the communities could either develop their own energy plans, or incorporate energy planning into their operations via capital plans, OCPs, sustainability plans, or even their asset management programs.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Theresa
I appreciate your comments on the need to renew commitment and connection with communities previousely involved with CEPs. I found even when working with stakeholder groups within the City, the need to facilitiate or provide an opporunity for a community dialogue on community climate action play a positive role in allowing business, residents, and some of our local stakeholders (Health Authority, School District, University) to share what they have accomplished in reducing energy use and finding alternatives ways to get arounf the City. On the building / construction side, the Regional District has spearhearded a Green Building Series, which allows residents to share their experiences in green building construction with other homeowners. But contractors and other professionals also tend to come and also share theur stories and network. These kinds of actions help keep CEEPs in the community’s mind and allows for the opportunity for it to create new partnerships that may not have been foreseen during the planning stage.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

That sounds a little but familiar. My community needs to refocus, but I think we might be getting there.

[Carly Johansson]

Yukon government is working to build a community energy program through which we would offer energy planning expertise to the seven municipalities outside Whitehorse and to all Yukon First Nations. The benefits of the process, given our legislation, state of our infrastructure, the cost of energy, and the realities of community life, would be primarily economic in nature. Put simply, we are trying to increase the ability of community administrations to provide services to their citizens by reducing the amount they spend on energy and infrastructure.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Carly Johansson.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

The City of Nanaimo completed its CEEP in late 2012. During the process to develop the plan, like Colwood, we used the CEEP to help set our GHG emissions reduction target. the process also help us establish connections with other community stakeholder that were responsible for significant energy consumption in the community. Coordinating and sharing our strategies and actions has helped each in moving forward with implamnting actions identified within the CEEP.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

An updated plan might help focus local planners and politicians on progressive GHG reduction strategies and refresh the commitment to sustainable land use decisions. Hopefully, this will help the community be more affordable as the costs of energy rise (potentially).

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Theresa,

That sounds a little but familiar. My community needs to refocus, but I think we might be getting there.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

An Energy and Emissions Plan was developed in 2012 for Canada’s Capital Region, which includes the City of Ottawa and the City of Gatineau (Quebec). I was surprised to learn that a single plan had been developed to include both cities. Although the cities are located really close to each other (10km between the city hall buildings), there are some pretty significant differences between the cities that would impact the viability of projects. For example, the price of electricity in Quebec is lower than in Ontario, and so building retrofits that might be financially attractive in Gatineau might not make sense in Ottawa.

On another note, I was interested to read that one of the strategies in the plan is to “Integrate land use and transportation systems” and that one of the examples of actions to support this strategy would be to “use future energy consumption as a criterion for evaluating land use and transportation plans.” I think the example action should definitely be factored into the decision-making process for land use and transportation planning in the region. I often wonder to what degree the long term energy implications (supply, generation and distribution) are factored into decision-making at the municipal/regional level, and would be interested to see some sort of analysis for projects like new sub-divisions or light rail transit.

[Author]

Posts