Green Revolution or Green Rebellion?

There have always been a few --- well more than a few --- people interested in being greener. My working definition of "green" is living, working and playing in ways that have less environmental impact. These days, most of the green attention is going to energy. Alternative, renewable, clean, sustainable: choose your adjective.

The attenion is understandable given the amount of air time climate change has received in the past few years. And while the focus on green energy may have pushed other important environmental issues into the shadows (water being one...), some analysts suggest we're missing the main point behind green energy of late. Some suggest we are moving from green revolution to green rebellion.

When it comes to electricity, there have always been some (at least in rural Ontario) that have chosen to get "off the grid" either because the cost of getting a "hydro" line in to a property has been prohibitive, or because they simply chose not to be at the whim of public but not very local electricity generating and distribution systems. It would be an understatement to say that some of us are a bit rebellious! After the '98 ice storm, more people added generators or alternative energy systems to avoid being left in the lurch as power lines fell like dominos and hundreds of thousands waited in the cold and dark for power restoration. The August blackout a few years later was more bearable because it took place in summer and was of much shorter duration. But the same message was delivered. It can be risky to trust centralized electricity generation.

Not long after September 11 (you don't really need me to remind you of the year do you?) I recall reading security analyst comments indicating the vulnerability of large power plants... taking one "out" would disable a significant share of the population and the businesses relying on that plant and maybe even create mayhem in the surrounding area. These analysts were pointing out the risk management advantages of a decentralized energy system (many smaller generating facilities rather than just a few biggies).

Lately I've been reading about individual communities feeling that the monolithic electricity production --- and to some extent distribution --- organizations have let them down, unable to provide secure supply or reasonable pricing. California is a recent example... and of course, California has long been considered a harbinger of things to come elsewhere. Some communities say they are planning to take their energy (electricity) future into their own hands, building their own generating facilities and presumably distributing with their own portion of the electricity grid. It's interesting to me that this should be happening in California, long considered one of the United States' most environmentally-conscious jurisdictions. That communities should think of "disconnecting" from this system suggests the story isn't all about degrees of green-ness. Something else is at play here.

Is it really as much about control as it is green values? There are many ways to get to a decentralized energy system --- by incrementalism, revolution or outright rebellion. Only time will tell which path Califorians will follow but in some communities at least, the trajectory is looking like --- and is being called --- "green rebellion".

It's taken quite a while for Ontario to "smell the coffee" but the Green Energy Act suggests that we are now coming to understand the value of a distributed energy system --- and it goes beyond increased production of alternative energy. It is (hopefully) also about the Province's recognition that many of its citizens want to be a part of the "generation generation".... people and organizations that generate a larger share of their electricity (and to some extent thermal energy) themselves. This is a change in mindset for many of our fellow citizens who used to be quite happy to flip the switch and never give electricity another thought. Apparently that approach is no longer wise!

Several years ago, I spoke to the Economic Development Council of Ontario on energy as a potential competitive advantage for Ontario communities. At that time, I referred to a phenomenon I was observing at that time of businesses of all sizes giving serious consideraton to becoming generators of their own electricity --- albiet "reluctant generators". They don't really WANT to get into the electricity generation business --- that's not what they do best ---- but the cost of all too frequent "brownouts" is causing too much pain on the bottom line. And if they can green their businesses at the same time, so much the better. So disconnecting from the centralized system --- or least having your own backup system as an ace-in-the-hole is increasingly being seen as a good idea.

How many of our business and community leaders are secretly thinking the same thing? Have we moved from green revolution to green rebellion?

Net, Net, What's It Going to Cost (Or Save) You?

Just looking at the latest newsletter from Hydro One (the publicly-owned corporation responsible for Ontario's electricity grid). Rural "hydro" customers like me get their electricity directly from Hydro One rather than through a Local Distribution Company (read: your local town/city utility).

This newsletter tells us about the upcoming switch to Time-of-Use pricing for electricity. TOU pricing means that the price you pay for electricity varies depending on the time of day it is used. Ontario can only move to this type of pricing because it has spent several years installing "smart meters" that track useage by time. The idea is that by shifting elecricity use to so-called off-peak hours (overnight), we can all smooth out the demand for electricity which is intended to make the life of the generators, transmission and distribution companies easier. To make this happen, we consumers need to adjust our patterns of electricity use (if we can) and hopefully either save a bit of money or keep our electricity bills about the same. We're about to find out if practice supports the theory.

On the front page of the newsletter, my eye went immediately to the pie chart showing the different prices for electricity at different times of the day (and across summer, winter, and weekends and statutory holidays). Given that we're in winter right now, I'll just take a peek at those numbers:

On-Peak Hours (7 to 11 am and 5 to 9 pm): electricity used in that timeframe will cost me 9.3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Mid-Peak Hours (11 am to 5 pm): electricity used in that timeframe will cost me 8.0 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Off-Peak Hours (9 pm to 7 am): electricity used in that timeframe will cost me 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

My latest Hydro One bill says I'm currently paying 5.8 cents a kilowatt hour regardless of time of day. In winter, my off-peak electricity use is mostly for 24/7 appliances and space heating; it accounts for about a quarter of total electricity use. That means that 75 per cent is in the on-peak and mid-peak hours. When I crunch the numbers for a typical winter month, I find that my cost of electricity ("electrons only") will be going up by about 22 per cent (from 5.8 to 7.1 the latter being a weighted average). In my case, that'll be about $15.00 a month more for the same amount of electricity. And that's based on the 8.0 cents/kWh for daytime use, which is clearly low.

Naturally, one's mind turns to saving electricity and shifting time of use. After all, the second issue is the one of greatest concern to the Province right? So what can I do? Given that I run a business out of my home, I've got both the standard household uses of electricity and office uses. Most of these uses are packed into that 7 am to 9 pm timeframe (on-peak and mid-peak). And I'm not sure how much of those uses I can actually move to off-peak hours. Sure, I can do laundry then and I guess I could wait until the National is on to do the dishes. I doubt that my employees want to work "midnights" although I guess I could ask. I'm quickly starting to realize that I'm not going to be able to make much of a contribution to the Province's TOU gameplan. Pretty much caught in the crosshairs.... just like most other homes and businesses will be. I've long since implemented a whole raft of conservation measures; the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Hopefully others have more options than I do. Otherwise, I can hear it now: "Quick Billy, let's get your breakfast in you... it's almost 7 am. And by the way, you'll be having your shower at 3 am. It won't cost as much to heat the water or to have the light on in the bathroom. How would you feel about this miner's light in case you have to get up in the night? Just think: you can wear it when you're doing your homework. How cool will that be?"

Net, net, it's going to be tough to even hold the line on electricity costs, even if I am able to timeshift a bit. So what are the options? I'm probably better off than most. I just happen to have some solar panels, a wind turbine and an EnerWorks hot water heater that captures most of the required energy from the sun rather than needing electricity or oil for heating purposes. So in my case, it's really a question of reducing/conserving and shifting use of electricity by capturing and storing it in a battery system. But what options do others have? Not many I suspect. In my view, conservation is always the best place to start. After that, it'll be a "load" by "load" analysis that will help you identify any ways to timeshift. If you feel as though you're standing on a railway track with the TOU Train hurtling toward you... you're probably right!

On the Other Hand...

I'm only part way through reading David Wolfe's latest work "21st Century Cities in Canada: The Geography of Innovation" (recently released and available as a free download from the Conference Board of Canada). Yet already I have been struck by the number of countervailing arguments to what we have long accepted as true in the contemporary world of economic development. There's a lot of "on one hand... on the other hand..." Personally I find this quite refreshing because the report acknowledges that in Canada "one size does not fit all" and those concerned about cities and innovation would be wise to tailor their strategies to fit the particular circumstances of that particular city. Despite the fact that this study is explicitly focused on cities --- especially large cities --- it does acknowledge that smaller communities also have aspirations and prospects. It may be a tough sledding for those smaller communities but it won't get easier by trying to mimic our biggest cities.

For instance, we have long thought (or been told) that bigger is better. A city that wants to "make it" globally or even domestically needs to grow to the point where it can offer the specialized infrastructure on which innovative firms depend, the breadth and depth of employment opportunities, and the socio-cultural attributes so attractive to highly-qualified personnel. Now we learn that there is another school of thought: a city can actually get "too large" to be able to retain these characteristics. At some point, the creative atmosphere found in an innovative city apparently begins to break down. Living in that city becomes too expensive, it's increasingly difficult to maintain everyday contact with like-minded (innovative) people. The social diversity begins to settle out into polarized socioeconomic classes. Mind you, with the "too large" threshold set at about 6 million residents, few Canadian cities --- save Toronto --- need to worry about that right now. But it does merit monitoring. Apparently we can be victims of our own success.

We have long thought that concentration of employment in one or two sectors (across multiple firms) is a good thing. We've referred to this as a cluster and considered the development of the clusters to be a key strategy in encouraging the development of a more innovative economy. Like-minded people can interact easily and move among firms to pursue career advancement. An outstanding corps of people in particular fields can crank up the innovative juice to produce outstanding results. Now we learn that there is another school of thought: diversity across multiple sectors can lead to innovation as well... ideas which germinated and grew in one sector can be transferred to and applied in another sector, leading to a completely different form of innovation in that setting. Apparently, cross-fertilization across sectors can also be a potent stimulant to innovation.

We have long thought that successful business attraction hinged largely on a community's location (in relation to markets), its transportation systems, access to raw materials, and the availability of a suitably-skilled, competitively-priced labour force. But that's now "old economy thinking". Now we learn that there is another school of thought: successful business attraction now hinges on a community's ability to create a sense of place, especially a place where creative, innovative people will want to live. And that will bring the companies that need those kinds of employees. It's what the employees want and value that will guide the company's locational choice. This is especially relevant for those communities that believe they have the critcal mass to become --- and be known as --- a "green" or "sustainable" community. Community development that aligns with the value set of creative, innovative people might find itself a beacon to the very people that will drive the knowledge-based economy.

I'm going to continue reading this report (it's a couple hundred pages so it'll probably take me a couple of days!) But I already sense that those of us interested in developing innovative economies in communities of all sizes will find some useful nuggets in the pages of Wolfe's report. This should give hope --- not to mention practical advice --- to communities and economic development practitioners who are NOT in Canada's largest cities. These communities may appear to have a natural advantage born primarily of size and the ability to capture a significant share of attention from senior levels of government. That's the one hand... for cities a bit further down the pecking order, there's always the other hand....

Was the Recession Good for the Environment?

I'm curious... about many things actually (just ask the people who work with me) but today I'm curious about one thing in particular. Has the recession been good for the environment. Clearly the recession has been far from good news for companies that have gone under, for those who've lost their jobs and those who are struggling to make mortgage payments. It's been a nightmare for the global economy and for government treasuries at all levels. But what about the environment? For instance, is it possible that the recession actually did more to help us make progress on climate change than Kyoto and Copenhagen? Before dismissing my question as flippant consider that...

Business shut downs -- temporary or permanent --- must surely have driven down demand for all forms of energy and knocked back associated greenhouse gas emissions. And even if energy use climbs again as the world's economies crawl out of recession, we're starting from a lower point on the ladder.

Consumers feeling the pinch have cut back on purchases. Demand for most types of products declined over the past 12-18 months. Does this mean that the mountain of castoff items headed to landfill has decreased? And as the supply of recyclable materials diverted from landfill has increased, there have been reports over the past year suggesting that the price these materials (example: used newsprint) command in the market has dropped sharply. This may only be a temporary phenomenon but it should have been good news for manufacturers of recycled products, who would have seen a sharp drop in their input costs. Municipal governments would have had an opposite reaction as the revenues from recycling operations declined.

It's entirely possible --- some would argue likely ---- that there could be some counterbalancing effects. For instance, perhaps in a recession, people don't maintain their cars as well as they should, so emissions go up. Perhaps consumers coped with the recession by buying cheaper, less environmentally-friendly products because that's all they can afford.

Some of us think that perhaps society has gotten rather carried away with consumerism, that we're infatuated with the idea that if we just have more "stuff" we'll be happier, and maxxed out on our credit cards to live the dream. If we were looking for a way to give consumers an ice-cold shower, this recession sure fit the bill. Not so pleasant for some of us, but perhaps the equivalent of a walk in the park for the environment.

Have we finally had enough?

A recent media report suggested that --- at least in North America --- the number of vehicles on the road actually fell in 2009. In other words, there are fewer vehicles operating today than in 2008.

Analysts suggest that this phenomenon is the result of factors such as high gas prices, the expansion of municipal transit systems (an alternative to driving), and even the use of networking websites among teenagers replacing cars as a way of socializing. Some observers think this is first sign of the end of the "love affair" we've all had with our automobiles. Some people are happy about this apparent development; others not so much! For some, the end of the love affair would appear to signal the possibility of reduced environmental impact from the transportation sector. Does fewer cars on the road mean fewer miles driven? Reduced fuel consumption? Reduced emissions? I wonder....

Clearly, there are ample wheels rolling across Canada and the U.S. South of the border, there are 246 million registered motor vehicles and 209 million licensed drivers--that's roughly 5 vehicles for every 4 drivers. In Canada, the ratio is about 1 to 1. So there's a vehicle for every driver, can we conclude that we have enough vehicles. Surely we've reached a saturation point! Or have we?

Perhaps it's only people like me that have reached the saturation point. Personally I now own two vehicles --- one is my "industrial van" that I use when I am moving big loads (eg. from building materials to thousands of dollars in Christmas gifts for +150 children in Lennox and Addington County) and the other is a Toyota Matrix that gets used for business and personal travel. Total kilometres driven each year has gone down a bit but I sure use a lot less gas now than when I had just one vehicle (the van). Maybe I'm an anomaly... "more cars, less fuel". But two vehicles is definitely enough... especially when you have to pay two insurance premiums! That'll probably be the next big "drag" on automobile purchases... but I digress. The real question is: if households (of whatever size) reduce the number of vehicles they put on the road, will total vehicular travel go down? And will environmental impact follow suit? Or will we travel just as much by car but just do it with fewer vehicles?

I'll wager a guess that automobile ownership is highly segmented and that the total number of vehicles on the road will remain reasonably high. The reason is simple: we think we need them. Households with multiple wageearners will likely still feel the need to have multiple vehicles to get back and forth to work, and to run taxi service for children. And if they have -- and can keep --- their jobs, they'll probably keep multiple vehicles. If the second job disappears, so will the second vehicle. Young people who may have a difficult time finding jobs --- especially good jobs --- may have to forego automobile ownership for a couple more years. Public transit will work for a while... until they want to head to a buddy's cottage outside the city or help a friend move (or move themselves). Anyone whose business is moving "stuff" will likely still want their own vehicle. Tough to deliver a new high-efficiency washing machine by taking the bus! Even those "wired" young people -- at least the ones who are highly social --- may tire of a heavy diet of net traffic and find it wanting... can you REALLY get to know someone with SMS? Or even Skype?

My theory is there is likely a "floor" below which vehicle ownership will not fall because there's more to be done than the oft-cited example of moving urban commuters back and forth. Public transit does make sense in that situation.... if the commuter actually has that option. I don't know what that floor is but I suspect our fellow citizens will tell us with the decisions they make every day....