Long-term Decisions Every Day

The enduring nature of local government decisions can be seen in the lifespan of the physical elements that make up a community. Some examples of the lifespan of community assets are:

Lifespan of Community Assets

Community Element	Typical Lifespan  (years)
Subdivisions and roads	75-200
Buildings	50-100
Municipal infrastructure	20-100
Landscape	10-100
Systems and equipment	5-20
Vehicles	5-15

Shaping energy decisions

Local governments influence approximately 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in BC.    Elected local government officials, planners, engineers, and developers affect energy through a myriad of long-lived decisions about community and regional growth, urban form, transportation and infrastructure, local energy generation, and building construction and retrofits.
Land use decisions can have wide-ranging implications for energy use and  resulting local government finances, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, community livability, and other local priorities.
Planning with energy in mind can mean substantial economic, environmental, and social benefits for the community

Influence over Energy

Local governments have the means and authority to affect how energy is used in some key sectors:

• Road transportation – a high degree of influence through urban form, growth policies, transportation planning, investment in public transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, municipal vehicle fleets, and other programs (e.g., anti-idling)
• Residential buildings – moderate influence through urban form, growth policies, district heating, renewable energy policies, infrastructure and landscape planning, and support for retrofit programs
• Commercial and institutional buildings – a high degree of influence through building retrofits, green building design, infrastructure and landscape planning, and district energy systems,
  

Land-use, Energy, and Transportation

Land use decisions are energy use decisions.  The findings of two key studies on the topic of land use and energy are summarized below.   

Comparing Neighbourhoods for Sustainable Futures

A study by the http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/buho/sune/index.cfm Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation looks at five Canadian cities and compares different kinds of neighbourhoods within them in terms of some key sustainability features.
For example, if finds that in centrally located neighbourhoods of the GVRD (e.g., Kitsilano, Yaletown):

• Homes are closer to destinations like work, school, and shopping, as well as to public transit, which encourages alternative transportation choices. 
• Residents own fewer cars and drive less for weekday urban trips (accounting for the average number of people and income per household).
• Households produce correspondingly fewer greenhouse gas emissions from weekday urban driving.
   

National Climate Change Process Municipalities Issue Table 

The following table, taken from work by Canada's National Climate Change Process Municipalities Issue Table (and adapted from Allen et al. 1996), shows how various land use changes can affect energy consumption.

Land Use and Energy

Land Use Decision	How it Affects Energy	Energy Implications
Combination of land use factors (shape, size, interspersion, etc.)	Travel requirements (especially trip length and frequency)	Variation of up to 150%
Interspersion of activities	Travel requirements (especially trip length)	Variation of up to 130%
Shape of urban area	Travel requirements	Variation of up to 20%
Density / clustering of trip ends	Facilitates economic public transportation	Variation of up to 20%
Density / mixing of land uses / built form	Facilitates cogeneration of heat and power	Savings up to 15% Efficiency of primary energy use improved up to 30% with district energy
Layout / orientation / design	Passive solar gain	Energy savings of up to 20%
Siting / layout / landscaping materials	Optimize microclimate	Energy savings of at least 5%; more in exposed areas

A New Revenue Source

The sale of community-based energy can provide local governments with an additional source of much-valued revenue.

For instance, the Revelstoke wood waste district energy system yields a guaranteed stream of non-taxable municipal revenue from the energy sales to a local sawmill and downtown buildings

Similarly, the Vancouver Landfill cogeneration (combined heat and power) facility is providing up to $310,000 in annual electricity revenues to the City of Vancouver and up to $110,000 annually in new tax revenue for the Corporation of Delta [link to Showcase].

In Victoria, the Capital Regional District receives a yearly royalty of at $250,000 or more from electricity generated at the Hartland Landfill gas utilization project. (1)

 

 

Note: (1)   CRD (2005), Hartland Landfill Gas Utilization Project: Submission to the 2005 UBCM Community Excellence Awards, http://www.crd.bc.ca/es/sw/publications.htm.

Energy Savings

Energy costs can be important to local governments, especially for smaller communities with more limited resources.

By designing energy efficient communities and supporting local renewable energy development?, a local government can reduce its energy expenditures and become less vulnerable to swings in imported fuel prices.

These savings can then go toward meeting the costs of other local services and help relieve taxpayer burden.

Submissions for the Energy Aware Awards have noted some significant reductions in energy consumption and significant cost savings:

Community Energy Savings

Community Project	Energy Savings
2006 Award Submissions
Kamloops green buildings	2 buildings, $176,000 annual cost savings
Maple Ridge flee vehicles	$1,080 per vehicle annual fuel savings
Surrey building retrofits	Reductions of 44,457 gigajoules annually
Langley green building	$40,000 saved annually
2003-2005 Submissions
North Vancouver lonsdale energy (2005)	Annual savings of 230,000 gigajoules by 2010
Burnaby building retrofits	$500,000 in annual energy savings
Revelstoke biomass energy	~45,000 gigajoules displaced annually
White Rock operations building (2003)	60% better than Model National Energy Code

Job Creation and Economic Spin-offs

Community energy has been shown to create more jobs per dollar invested than developing conventional energy supplies. Moreover, these jobs tend to be local, higher value, and longer lasting.

Examples from several studies demonstrate the dramatic economic development potential of local sustainable energy.

• The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development has reported that, "for every million dollars invested, an average 36.3 jobs are created in the energy efficiency sector, 12.2 jobs in the renewable energy sector, and only 7.3 jobs in the development of conventional energy." (1)
• The borough of Merton in the UK passed a resolution (PE13) stating ""The Council will expect all new building development to incorporate renewable energy equipment to cut CO2 emissions by at least 10%." This is also known as the "Merton Rule". This requirement is being adopted across the 425 local governments in England and generating a 1.725 billion pound industry. (2)
• Research included in the CEA Toolkit V1 states that most expenditures on fuels and electricity leave the community. Relieving this outflow, through investment in energy efficiency or local supply options, stimulates the local economy. An energy efficiency investment, for example, can recirculate one-third to two-thirds more money locally than a comparable expenditure on energy supply.(3)
• Province-wide, the BC Sustainable Energy Association estimates that energy efficiency and renewable energy could create 400,000 jobs over the next 30 years. Sectors with exceptionally high jobs potential include efficiency retrofits and solar energy. (4) 

  

 

 

 

(1)   Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development (1997), Comparative Analysis of Employment from Air Emission Reduction Measures, Report Prepared for Environment Canada. See estimates cited at http://www.pembina.org/media/media-release.php?id=1030

(2)   Presentation by Adrian Hewitt, Climate Change Leader, London Borough of Merton at "Empowering the Community" workshop held in Vancouver, BC on April 25, 2007, co-hosted by Community Energy Association.

(3)   CEA Toolkit, Volume 1.

(4)        BCSEA [write out full name here] (2005), Sustainable Energy Solutions for BC, Prepared for the Alternative Energy & Power Technology Task Force, http://www.bcsea.org/policy/taskforcereport.asp

Savings in non-energy costs

Reductions in non-energy capital and operating expenditures can be a bigger incentive for community energy investment than energy savings alone.

For example, the installation of low-flow showerheads not only lowers customers’ energy and water bills, but also means reduced requirements for new water supply and treatment infrastructure.

Likewise, green buildings are designed to save on building materials (through recycling and reuse), water, waste management, and other costs besides energy, as well as providing benefits such as improved comfort, aesthetics, and indoor air quality.

A study for a new development in Coquitlam found that an energy-efficient community design could deliver 30% less infrastructure capital and operating costs, a 5% reduction in total energy, and a 400% increase in local job opportunities.

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 

Governments at all levels are moving to address emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), in light of scientific evidence on how human activities are affecting the world's climate.  For more information on the science, see http://www.ipcc.ch/.

The Province of British Columbia has committed to actions to reduce GHG emissions by one third across the province by 2020 and adapt to ongoing climate change.  See http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate for further information.

BC communities are among Canada's leaders for taking action on climate change; for example, As of June 2007, BC local governments make up 30% (45 of 148)of the current membership of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities'(FCM) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.  This demonstrates clear climate leadership as FCM has over 1,600 members while BC has only 185 local governments.  Also of note, one quarter of all local governments in BC have signed onto PCP.

The combustion of fossil fuels in road transportation and buildings, together with waste management, are major sources of GHG emissions (45% of the BC total) that fall under local government influence.

Communities can lower emissions by reducing the need for transportation (especially single occupant vehicles), improving energy efficiency of transportation and buildings, using more renewable energy, and avoiding and capturing landfill gas.

Annual submissions to CEA's Energy Aware Awards have identified significant GHG reductions for a range of actions, including:

Community Project	Greenhouse Gas Reduction
2006 Award Submissions
Maple Ridge fleet vehicles (hybrid purchases)	2 tonnes CO2 per vehicle replaced, 24 tonnes annual total
Surrey building retrofits	Planned GHG reduction of 3,308 tons annually
Langley Township green building	66% annual GHG reduction
2005 Award Submissions
North Vancouver energy and greenhouse gas action plan management plan	Annual municipal GHG emissions down 20% by 2010, community-wide emissions down 6%
Burnaby building retrofits	27% reduction in GHG emissions
Burnaby/New Westminster/ Vancouver greenway	Planned long-term annual reductions of 6,000 to 7,000 tonnes CO2
Earlier Submissions
Revelstoke biomass district energy (2004)	3,700 tonnes annual GHG emissions reduction
Delta/Vancouver landfill gas cogeneration (2002)	30,000 tonnes CO2e annual reduction

Improve Air Quality

Energy use is a major contributor to local air pollution. Most community energy planning options that reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions also result in improved air quality.  As communities move toward energy efficiency, and non-polluting renewable energy sources like solar, ground-source, and wind, and modern technology for burning biomass, air quality will improve.

Even at low levels, pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) and ground-level ozone can affect human health, the environment, and the economy.  Province-wide, transportation accounts for the majority of nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions, a key component in ozone. Industrial wood burning and residential wood stoves are significant sources of fine particulate emissions (PM_2.5).

Local governments are implementing a variety of approaches. Some have comprehensive airshed management plans; and some are integrating energy, greenhouse gas, and air quality planning.

For example, Revelstoke's community energy planning process was largely driven by poor air quality and the need to divert wood residue from the local silo burner.Now 10% of the wood waste is burned in a clean burning boiler, which provides heat for the mill’s steam kilns and a district heating system for buildings in Revelstoke’s downtown core.

With more than 90 per cent of its air pollution energy-related, Whistler is regarded as a leader in the development of an integrated energy, air quality, and greenhouse gas management plan.²

  

Notes:

1. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (2005), 2000 British Columbia Emissions Inventory of Criteria Air Contaminants: Result Highlights,http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/airquality/#inventories;
2. Municipality of Whistler (2004), Integrated Energy, Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, http://www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca/files/Office_Documents/Action_plan.pdf.

Preserve Important Ecosystems

Focussing development in compact communities and avoiding sprawl can help preserve agricultural land and important ecosystems.

Natural features such as streams, lakes, wetlands, and forests provide vital "ecosystem services." These include fish and wildlife habitat, community water supply, filtering of air pollution, waste treatment, climate control, recreation and tourism, and cultural heritage.

In the Lower Fraser Valley, for example, it is estimated that every hectare of preserved wetland may be worth almost $23,000 annually for its filtering, flood control, and other benefits.¹

Note:

(1)   N. Olewiler (2004), The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada, Published by Ducks Unlimited Canada the Nature Conservancy of Canada, http://www.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/2004/041115.html.

Complete Communities

Denser, compact communities are generally more liveable than sprawling suburban areas. Higher densities improve the viability of walking, biking, public transit, and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. They also tend to better support social and cultural centres.¹

Mixed-use development that brings together residential and commercial land uses allows people to live closer to work and amenities. Complete communities have a feeling of liveliness and energy about them. There are more people on the streets and greater opportunities for social interaction.

Victoria's Dockside Green development is meant to be a model complete community, with a mix of higher-density land uses, walking spaces,  and various public amenities - for example, a dock and boat launch, amphitheatre, sustainability centre, and access to the Galloping Goose cycling and walking trail.  For more information, see  http://www.docksidegreen.ca/.²

 

 

Notes:

(1)   Smart Growth BC (2001), The Smart Growth Toolkit, http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383.

(2)   Dockside Green, Vancity, and Windmill (2006), Dockside Green Annual Sustainable Report, http://www.docksidegreen.ca/.

Better Health

Local air pollution is most harmful to the elderly, the young, and people with existing respiratory and cardiac problems. Improving air quality results in fewer deaths and hospital visits, lower health care costs, reduced losses in wages and productivity, and less personal trauma.

The British Columbia Provincial Health Officer reports that air pollution may account for up to 250 premature deaths, 2,700 emergency room visits, and 2,000 hospital admissions annually in BC.¹ According to a study for the BC Lung Association, a 10% improvement in fine particulate (PM_2.5) emissions in the Western Lower Fraser Valley alone could yield benefits in the order of $1.19 billion.²

Notes:

(1)   BC Provincial Health Officer (2003), Every Breath You Take...Provincial Health Officer's Annual Report 2003, http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/pho.

(2)   RWDI Air, Marbek Resource Consultants, UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, and UBC Department of Health Care and Epidemiology (2005), Health and Air Quality 2005 - Phase 2: Valuation of Health Impacts from Air Quality in the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed: Final Report, http://www.bc.lung.ca/airquality/airquality_publications.html.

Greenways

Greenways are corridors that link parks, agricultural land, forested land, and other greenspace, allowing the movement of animals and people.¹ The establishment of greenways helps to preserve greenspace, shelter wildlife, and create recreational opportunities such as walking, hiking, biking, and roller-blading.

Greenways work best when they are included in the initial planning of a community. Retrofits into existing communities are more difficult because of land ownership, land use, and rights-of-way issues.

The Cities of Burnaby, New Westminster, and Vancouver are completing a Central Valley Greenway to support the growing network of greenways and urban trails throughout the GVRD.  The City of Victoria Greenways Plan provides a policy framework and a series of strategies to establish a Greenway system throughout the City over the next 50 years.  The Westhills project in the City of Langford has incorporated greenways, for ecological preservation and movement of wildlife.

 

Note:

(1)        Smart Growth BC (2001), The Smart Growth Toolkit, http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383.

Improved Indoor Working Conditions

Green building design and energy-efficient technologies can significantly improve the comfort and aesthetics of work environments - including lighting, ventilation, temperature, and air quality. These improvements translate into fewer sick days, higher employee satisfaction and morale, increased productivity, and a better performance and public image for the employer.

According to a 2004 survey of the green building industry, greater occupant health and wellbeing and higher worker productivity ranked among the top three social benefits of green buildings that were cited by respondents.²

The US Green Building Council has reported that green office buildings can realize a 2-16% increase in productivity, and that a 1% productivity increase alone can yield savings larger than a facility's entire energy bill.²

 

 

Notes:

(2)   Turner Construction 2004 Green Building Survey, cited in R. Davies (ed.) (2005), Green Value: Green Buildings, Growing Assets, Published by the Royal Institute of Surveyors, http://www.rics.org/greenvalue.

(2)   US Green Building Council, Green Building 101 Presentation, and USGBC  (2002), Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings, http://www.usgbc.org/.