Cities – Strategic [Urban] Ecologies, Engineering, and Decision-Making

Will electric cars transform the grid? #TWIST 15 August 2017

seedAugust 15, 2017Leave a comment

The Economist issue for 12-18 August 2017 has the electrification of personal transformation on its cover. Several articles take an interesting perspective on this profound and imminent shift.

This past week, I have been noticing so many interesting articles on the possible transition from the internal combustion automobile to the all-electric vehicle. Again, as I posted here last week, Europe is committing to eliminating gasoline powered cars for public health reasons, and American and Chinese automakers are in good position to profit from the shift. This week's issue of the Economist, titled "Roadkill," discusses the imminent shift from internal combustion to electric powered automobiles on a massive scale. I want to take this week's #TWIST post to point your attention to these short articles, "Roadkill," "Electrifying everything," and "Putting to sea."

In Roadkill, the editors of the Economist lead with "The internal combustion engine had a good run. But the end is in sight for the machine that changed the world." For many of us, especially here in the USA, the end is most certainly not in sight. Only 1% of new car sales were all-electric vehicles, and hybrid vehicles certainly still lag far behind the sales of all-gas. However, the lead describes important changes in battery technology and cost, and perhaps more importantly, describes the ability of many automakers to produce electric vehicles on the same production lines as gas powered vehicles. Perhaps the only thing left to address is the profitability of electric vehicles. As of now, producers still lose money on each electric vehicle produced, while gas powered vehicles are still, generally, profitable. Nonetheless, we must reckon with this eventuality sooner rather than later, because the shift away from gasoline will bring with it immense social and geopolitical challenges as the labor markets change in response to reductions in production labor needs at the same time as traditional oil producing economies absorb the shocks.
In Electrifying Everything, the briefing indicates "If the timing of [electric vehicles'] take-off has proved uncertain, the belief that electric vehicles are going to be a big business very soon is ever more widely held." Electric vehicles now have comparable ranges between charges to cars' fillup range, and electric vehicles today can be made on the same production lines. Oil producers such as OPEC include large numbers of electric vehicles in their forecasts, and governments such as France, UK, and Sweden, are taking aim at the internal combustion engine for public health reasons.
The shift to all-electric, or even majority electric, cars will require a tremendous infrastructure shift. Our current power systems infrastructure is not capable of supporting hundreds of millions of electric cars without massive increases in storage, shifting from fueling to charging stations, and massive increases in the use of natural gas peak generators. At the same time, countries concerned about public health will want to ensure that troublesome emissions are not shifted to the electric power generators. In Putting to Sea, the Economist includes an interesting possibility for meeting this increased electricity demand cleanly by using naval nuclear stations. While this idea is mostly speculative, in my opinion, it is indicative of the imminent challenges we have in shifting most of our energy storage for transportation from petrol and diesel to natural gas or other electricity generation fuel.

What do you think? In what ways do you envision infrastructure shifting to accommodate massive increases in electric cars?

Private Involvement in Public Water

seedJuly 17, 2017July 17, 2017Leave a comment

Should we encourage more private involvement in public water systems? Is it just a wealth transfer to corporations, or an innovative approach to finance and management of public infrastructure? Folks are all across the map on this and what it boils down to is answering the question, "Can, and should, infrastructure be democratically owned and operated?". That question is really two questions in one, and both questions have been answered differently across the United States over the last 200 years, at least.

For now, if we extend the discussion to all infrastructure systems, everything starts out as privately owned in the US. Roads, bridges, water, canals, aqueducts, communications--everything! These private lifeline networks facilitate local economic and social activities, achieving technological momentum, and requiring harmonization of standards and access within and between these localities. These localities then become connected across regional boundaries, and once this happens the economies of scale require a transition from predominantly private ownership to public ownership. Many of these systems however, such as oil/gas, communications, and electric power systems, do not make the full transition to public ownership. Instead, public involvement takes the form of regulation and oversight (e.g., public utility commissions, antitrust laws, etc.) while the infrastructure remains in private hands. Public investment in these private systems intensifies if that are substantial disparities in access that can not be solved within these regulated markets (e.g., rural electrification). So the first point that I want to make is that critical infrastructure ownership and investment trends are dynamic!

Second, for whatever reason water went from being almost exclusively privately owned everywhere, to being mostly publicly owned. The quality of service was good initially, then declined until public ownership in the large cities which restored the reliability and quality of service. In fact, while many industrialists promote private ownership as the impetus for innovation, advances in materials science, pumping technologies, and population growth required much greater levels of public investment and ownership in water systems. Now, as federal, state, and municipal budgets are strained at the same time as renewal, rehabilitation, and public health concerns converge, some public water systems are comparing the risks of continued public ownership and management against the risks of private water involvement (or at least external ownership/involvement; see here for an example). Water is one of the few lifeline infrastructures that is dominated by public ownership (if we look at this on a population served basis; see this and this), so it is unique in that regard. There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of ownership, and I am not going to settle this debate today. It is interesting, though, to revisit this debate periodically to hear what folks are saying.

Here are a few pieces that reflect current perspectives in my opinion (click on the bold title to link to the underlying article/resource):

There's a secret war being waged over your drinking water. Huffington Post. Actually, the war is not so secret. States are making private involvement in water systems easier because, while in some cases it can be slightly more expensive, it can be easier for private groups to access the necessary capital to revive, operate, and manage these systems. This article sets the view of two leaders from Corporate Accountability International-who believe water privatization is a way to circumvent democratic processes in water governance-against the view of the executive director of the National Association of Water companies-who argues that private water involvement be considered as an effective alternative to be used to provide efficient water service in the face of increasing investment requirements.
Ownership and Financing of Infrastructure: Historical Perspectives. World Bank Policy Working Papers. While this paper encompasses all infrastructure systems, I think this quote says it all: "The range of choices that has historically been made with respect to the ownership, financing, and operation of different infrastructures has been far too varied to be encompassed by simple distinctions between public and private." In fact, I am using the term private water involvement precisely because there is no clean distinction. Most of the opposition to private water involvement (it is, in fact, mostly opposition) is due to the perception that private corporations would enrich themselves at the expense of ratepayers. However, one might argue this is already true, given that most of the design, construction, and a large part of operations work at publicly owned utilities is already delivered by private companies.
Are We Better Off Privatizing Water? Wall Street Journal. While this article is a bit older, it effectively and succinctly gives the most accurate account of the tensions in this debate--fiscal responsibility vs. affordability. On the one hand, private water involvement is needed because under public ownership [we have had] "artificially low rates the public utilities have charged for years. These rates, kept low for political purposes, don't come close to supporting the long-range capital investment we would expect of any well-run business... With privatized water, there is a new emphasis on fiscal responsibility—and measurable efficiency gains." On the other hand, private water involvement should be opposed because of the Averch-Johnson effect which states that private water utilities face "pressure to deliver high rates of return for shareholders drives them to cut corners when they are operating under contracts, and to drive up costs when they are operating as regulated utilities. ...[Moreover,] elected leaders should absolutely respond to public concern about the affordability of their water service. The provision of water service is a natural monopoly, and the public can exercise choice only at the ballot box through the election of the officials who oversee the service. How government-run utilities decide to allocate costs among different users is a local decision that should be made in an open and democratic manner."

What do you think? Does private involvement in public water constitute a transfer of wealth to corporate stakeholders, or can it be an effective solution to municipal budget problems and water quality challenges?

#TWIST 7 July 2017: Electric power and climate change; The Importance of bridging capital

seedJuly 7, 2017Leave a comment

This week in infrastructure systems: a family fight over how best to address climate change in the electric power sector, and a discussion of the importance of bridging social capital.

Grist has announced a series of upcoming articles investigating the best path forward to wean the nation's power supply off fossil fuels. As an initial step along the way, they cover a debate between two groups of scientists with some disagreement about the optimal approach. On the one side, a group of researchers from Stanford University and Berkeley University argue that the nation's power grid can reliably transition to 100% wind, water, and solar power between 2050 and 2055. On the other side, a larger group of scientists, reflecting the findings of a number of groups including IPCC, NREL, NOAA, etc., that the nation would need to transition much more slowly and use a more diverse group of generation technologies. This is important because, as the second group cautions, "Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power."
Infrastructure supports strong communities by fostering a diverse number and type of community dimensions or functions. According to NIST, (see NIST GCR 16-001 for more details) this includes community culture and identity, and belonging and relationships. An article by Eric Liu of CityLab titled "The Strange Power of Weak Ties" suggests that we need to learn more about how our various lifeline technologies influence the strength of these community dimensions. While Liu does not directly explore the role of infrastructure in cultivating these dimensions, he does argue that our communities lack bridging capital, the ability to generate trust among unlike groups. Are there ways that our lifeline systems can help to develop bridging social capital?

GW Food Policy Leadership Institute Launch, Fall 2017!

seedJuly 6, 2017Leave a comment

Dr. Kathleen Merrigan, the Executive Director of Sustainability at George Washington, has announced the new GW Food Policy Leadership Institute! Click here to apply and learn more.

GW Food Institute Program Basics. Click here to apply.

Full text of her email blast is reproduced below:

Dear friends,

I have spent many years mentoring promising young people in the fields of sustainability and farm and food policy. Watching them ascend to top positions in government, business and the nonprofit sector and become agents of change has been one of the most fulfilling aspects of my career.

The moment has come to supercharge this work. We know there is a booming interest in agriculture among young people; there are also the complex challenges of climate change, persistent inequities in the food system, and so many others. They require creative solutions, and government must play a role. It is time to throw our collective weight behind building a bench of diverse new leaders who can carry the work, and the world, forward.

I’m excited to announce the launch of a new Food Policy Leadership Institutethat will do just that. Drawing on a dream-team faculty with more than two centuries of practical policy experience between them, the Institute will transfer their collective knowledge to the next generation of food policy leaders, help those up-and-coming leaders understand the current policy landscape and how it came to be, and cultivate the skills needed to affect real policy change. The mentoring relationships and networks that participants will build will serve them throughout their careers.

Program recruits will be passionate and diverse individuals from communities large and small, both rural and urban. They will be practitioners in local, state or federal government; emerging leaders in business, philanthropy or nonprofits; or graduate students looking for deep and practical training in food policy. The curriculum will be rigorous and skills-based. Upon completion, participants will have gained not just a better understanding of the food policy landscape and the tools to impact it, but, I hope, a renewed sense of the value of civic engagement. That’s something we need now more than ever.

The first class will be admitted for this September. Please help me get the word out and find young leaders ready for this challenge.

Best,

Kathleen Merrigan, Ph.D.
Director, GW Food Institute

#TWIST, 30 June 2017, Concentrating on Cities

seedJune 30, 2017June 30, 2017Leave a comment

This Week in Infrastructure Systems (#TWIST), I'm not writing about infrastructure systems, per se, but about the unique spaces they enable--the city! This week we highlight the New York Times' cautionary tale about Hong Kong, Strong Towns' challenge to the wisdom of strip malls, and Politico's assertion that cities can independently assert their own agendas.

Hong Kong Skyline. Source: publicdomainpictures.net

Hong Kong: A City In Trouble? I'm not so sure about that, as Hong Kong is one of the most unique and beautiful cities I've had the opportunity to visit in the past 5 years. However, as Hong Kong and China begin to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the city's return to Chinese rule it faces a number of challenges that it must reckon with. The New York Times argues that political tensions between Beijing and local opposition have made it increasingly difficult to address housing, cultural, and education challenges facing Hong Kong.

An empty mall in Ohio. Source: Strong Towns.

Strip malls are a blight on the American landscape, and these--sometimes misguided--projects are going to suffer increasingly more as the American retail sector declines. The challenge is that many cities don't have the option to re-purpose strip malls as mixed use development projects because of local laws or regulations. Strong Towns cites Forbes' Scott Beyer arguing in the past that these projects constrain some cities and towns to low-density development due to single-use zoning, minimum parking requirements, setback requirements, and density limits. While walkable urbanism seems to be the future of American development, strip malls threaten to keep too many communities locked in the past.
Finally, the decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Paris climate accord has been disappointing to many. Nonetheless, many cities, including the city of Baltimore where I reside, have decided to maintain independent commitments to the Paris accords. This is reflective of a much larger issue--the fact that the urban/everywhere else divide in American life is so stark that it will be very difficult for any coherent urban policy to emerge from the federal level. Richard Florida's "A Declaration of Urban Independence," in Politico this week is a thought provoking exploration of the governance challenges facing our nation due to the urban/everwhere else split (and the creative class/everyone else split).