Roosevelt 2009

ideas
10 for
energy
&
environment
 10 Ideas for Energy and Environment
Summer 2009

National Director
Hilary Doe

Chair of the Editorial Board

Gracye Cheng

Director of Center for Energy and Environment

Riley Wyman

Alumni Advisor and Contributing Editor

AJ Singletary

Senior Fellows
Dan Blue
Cory Connolly

National Editorial Board

Clayton Ferrara
Frank Lin
Fay Pappas
Melanie Wright
Yunwen Zhang

The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network

A division of the Roosevelt Institute
2100 M St NW
Suite 610
Washington, DC 20037

Copyright 2009 by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

All rights reserved.
The opinions and statements expressed herein are the sole view of the authors and do
not reflect the views of the national organization, its chapters, or affiliates.
 ideas
10
for

energy
and
environment
This series was made possible
by the generosity of
Mr. Stephan Loewentheil.
 P
Table of Contents
Using Anaerobic Digestors to Meet Rural Renewable Standards 8
James Hobbs

Incentivizing Alternatives to Chemical Fertilizer 10

Alex Greenspan

Moving Waste Management to the Future 12

Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis

Endowment Investment in Energy-Saving Retrofits 14

Paul Burger

Revolving Loan Funds for Campus Sustainability Projects 16

Alex Wall and Naomi Harris

Weatherizing Rental Properties 18

John Deisinger, Abigail Homans, Erin Kilburn, Dia Kirby,
Adam Marshall, Anne McShane, Emily Rhodes, and Will Skora

Utilizing Renewable Energy through a Community-Based Model 20

Cory Connolly, Olivia Cohn, Daniel Blue

Expanding the Weatherization Assistance Program 22

Sarah Collins and Valerie Bieberich

Proactive Conservation Policy for Offshore Wind Projects 24

Daniel Blue

Disposable Shopping Bag Tax 26

Elizabeth Miller

The Next Big Thing: Water Crisis 28

Riley Wyman
p Letter from the Editor
E arlier this year, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network adopted Think Impact, a
model that re-emphasized our organization’s founding goals of looking to young people
for ideas and action, twin forces necessary in the pursuit of change.

The ideas you will read about in this year’s first 10 Ideas series are the result of the ad-
mirable creativity, hard work, and scholarship of Roosevelters. These publications—on
Defense and Diplomacy, Economic Development, Education, Energy & the Environment,
Equal Justice, and Health—are also a testament to these authors’ engagement with the
world. In environments that can be insular, Roosevelters show a willingness to look out-
wards, to think critically about problems on a local, state, and national level.

But, to this end, these publications should only serve as a starting point of a greater
process. Roosevelters must be willing to act in the communities where these ideas can
most effect positive change. For concepts that you find inspiring, we hope that you are
motivated to leverage them for the benefit of your own campus, city or state, and that
you seek out channels and movements through which to bring these ideas to fruition.
And, in instances where you disagree, we hope that you are challenged to see how you
might improve on or adapt an idea.

Gracye Cheng
Chair of the National Editorial Board
 Strategist’s Note P
E nergy and the environment are in vogue. Polar bears pull at heart strings and hybrid
cars inundate the streets of LA. But beneath marketing tactics lays a budding movement
of innovative ideas transforming the face of America’s landscape and economy.

Many of the challenges facing the energy and environmental movement are not unique—
limited funds, vocal opposition, and fragmented messaging all pose obstacles. The eco-
nomic downturn hits this field particularly hard, even though environmental and eco-
nomic concerns are hardly mutually exclusive. They are codependent solutions.

While energy and environmental policy face the same obstacles as many other fields, the
unique nature of potential policy mechanisms provides its own set of challenges. National
climate change legislation has passed, but much of the needed policy must occur at more
local levels. Questions of authority continue to plague policymakers, as university, city,
state, regional, and federal interests rarely align in easily definable ways. Moreover, be-
cause so much technology is still missing, policy must both create solutions and develop
infrastructure. In a field requiring significant technological and scientific background, it is
difficult for policy to maintain a realistic and functional scope.

Many of these authors have done more than put pen to paper — they are bringing their
ideas to fruition. Alex Wall and Naomi Harris from Northwestern have worked with their
school to create a revolving loan fund (RLF) on their campus, while simultaneously work-
ing with students from other schools to provide models and suggestions for further de-
velopment. Cory Connolly and Dan Blue, Senior Fellows, have worked with Van Jones,
national “Green Jobs Czar” in the Obama Administration, on developing feed-in-tariffs
and wind energy in Michigan. These are just two examples of how students are partaking
in a new kind of student activism — identifying problems, conducting research, and then
engaging the policy process with pragmatic and innovative solutions.

With the goal of developing both functional, progressive policy and innovative, thought-
ful leaders, the Energy and Environment Center has had a fantastic level of success this
year. With events in Chicago, Washington D.C, and East Lansing, with three journals—The
Catalyst, Growing a Green Midwestern Economy, and 10 Ideas for Change—and with
growing membership and participation, the students in this Center have brought passion
to paper and to the doors of policymakers. This is the generation that will inherit today’s
challenges. An empowered group of creative and inspired youth, these students are the
next generation of public leaders.

Riley Wyman
Lead Strategist for Energy and the Environment
Using Anaerobic Digestors
to Meet Rural Renewable Standards
James Hobbs, Colorado College

States with high potential for anaerobic digestion should tailor their Renewable
Portfolio Standards to benefit rural communities, reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions, and create stable diversified sources of renewable energy.

In an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility, organic waste is processed to produce methane

and carbon dioxide biogas which can be burned to generate heat or electrical energy.
Livestock manure is an input fuel, but it remains underutilized in current manure man-
agement systems. In fact, the same biochemical processes which could produce biogas
instead release methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 25 times more potent than carbon
dioxide. Nationwide, AD could prevent the release of 96 billion ft3/year, while generating
6.3 million MWh/year.

The environmental and ecological Key Facts
benefits of AD are widely accepted.
• AD technology prevented the release of
Methane emissions are mitigated,
over 700,000 metric tons of CO2 equiva-
odors are reduced, and reliable re-
lent in 2008 and the EPA estimates it
newable energy is produced. Rural
could eventually prevent over fifty times
and agricultural states should recog-
this amount.
nize the potential energy which is lan-
• In Iowa and North Carolina alone, AD
guishing on their farms and mandate
could produce 1.4 million Megawatt hours
the development of this resource
per year.
through strong and specific Renew-
able Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Current support for AD is patchwork at best. The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) AgSTAR initiative, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Environ-
mental Quality Incentives Program, and various state programs have not created broad
implementation.

States should turn to one of their new tools in climate change legislation, the RPS. Legis-
lation mandating that state utilities generate a percentage of their electricity from renew-
able sources exists in twenty-nine states, and five others have voluntary goals. States that
have high AD potential such as Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, and California, should
tailor their RPS and require a small percentage of electricity in the state to be generated
at these facilities. Modest numbers, based on the EPA’s estimates for individual state
potential could be used to set realistic goals.

The specific tailoring of state RPS is already in use. Nevada and Colorado have tailored
their RPS to require utilities to use solar energy to meet 5% and 4% of their demand re-
spectively. States are not alike and they should implement policies which encourage the
development of their own abundant resources. This legislation will ensure a diversified
energy portfolio while benefitting the rural communities of individual states.
Analysis
The goal of this policy is to reduce the release of destructive methane, generate renew-
able electricity, and boost rural economies. The EPA estimates that over 6000 livestock
facilities in the United States could run a digester profitably, but the EPA identifies less
than 150 such digesters which were in operation in February, 2009.

Mandating the use of this technology through RPS would provide a policy force, but it
would not independently meet the economic costs of digesters. At Gordondale Farms
in Nelsonville, Wisconsin capital expenditures were $748,000, but the facility recouped
those costs in roughly 6 years, a period of time which is fairly consistent in AD literature.
For a small farm, the cost and risk of this investment are high. This would not be that
case for a large public utility, where the break-even point would come much sooner than
investment in a coal or nuclear plant. RPS mandates effectively shift the original capital
costs to utility companies. However, the gross capital investment is relatively small for
large corporations, and these investments have been shown to operate profitably.

Opportunities
This policy has the ability to create
Talking Points
a new and lasting coalition in a new
• AD can reduce potent greenhouse gas energy economy. AD will not create
emissions while creating renewable en- an immense source of energy, but it
ergy and boosting rural economies. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• States should recognize their unique re- while providing growth and stable in-
newable strengths, and utilize their RPS come to rural areas. Certain changes
to develop the energy sources which are to RPS law could make this more pal-
most prevalent and which will most ben- atable for utilities as well. Any power
efit their citizens. generated by a digester, but used on
the farm or used to power the digester
itself, should be counted towards the
overall percentage of renewable energy that the utility must provide. Even though this
power never reaches the grid, it reduces demand and cuts methane emissions.

Next Steps
This policy should move through state legislatures, hopefully with bipartisan sponsorship.
It will be expedient to focus on amending and modifying these relatively new laws as they
are debated and developed so that specific, state energy sources can be utilized without
stand-alone legislation.

Sources
“Annual Emission Reductions: CO2 Equivalent,” chart, The EPA AgSTAR program, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/
accomplish.html (accessed April 10, 2009).
EPA. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Identifying Candidates for On-Farm and
Centralized Systems. http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/biogas%20 recovery%20systemsscreenres.pdf (ac
cessed April 10, 2009).
Martin, John H., Jr. An Evaluation of a Mesophilic, Modified Plug Flow Anaerobic Digester for Dairy Cattle
Manure. http://www.focusonenergy.com/data/common/ dmsFiles/ W_RW_REFR_GordondaleFeasReport.
pdf (accessed April 10, 2009).
“Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS),” map, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://www.pewclimate.
org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm (accessed April 10, 2009).

9
Incentivizing Alternatives
to Chemical Fertilizer
Alex Greenspan, University of Colorado - Boulder

Agricultural reliance on chemical nitrogen fertilizer is environmentally damag-

ing and increases crop price volatility. The USDA can encourage adoption of
organic alternatives to chemical fertilizer through expansion of the Conservation
Stewardship Program.

The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provides technical and financial assistance
to farmers for eligible conservation practices (Lehrer, 2008). The CSP was created in the
2008 Farm Bill from the previous Conservation Security Program, established in 2002.
Within its first six years, development of the program re-mained limited by budget caps
and appropriations delays. As of 2008, approximately 2.1 millions acres of farmland across
the United States have contracts with the CSP. However, the 2008 Farm Bill authorizes
funds for the expan-
sion of the program Key Facts
by 12 million acres per
• Chemical nitrogen fertilizer production is responsible for
year over the next
1 to 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (Jens-
three years, at an es-
en and Hauggard-Nielsen, 2004).
timated cost of 18 dol-
• From 2000 to 2006, a 17 percent reduction in natural gas
lars per acre (Lehrer,
supplies doubled fertilizer prices (Huang, 2007).
2008). All contracts
• 24-32 percent of all nitrogen fertilizer applied in the USA
from CSP’s predeces-
is unnecessary (Trachtenberg and Ogg, 1994).
sor have been trans-
• Manure can provide 7.5 percent of the United State’s
ferred to the new
nitrogen requirements Economic Research Service,
program, but because
2005).
this is the new CSP’s
• Nitrogen fixing cover crops can provide 72-158 pounds of
first year in existence,
nitrogen per acre at 32 to 51 dollars per acre, compared
the program has not
with 138 pounds of nitrogen at 36 dollars per acre of corn
started enrolling new
(Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2007).
land.
• Cover crops reduce nitrogen runoff by 15 to 30 percent
(Jensen and Hauggaard-Nielsen, 2004).
The agricultural ap-
• Cover crops reduce a farm’s total energy requirements
plication of chemical
by as much as 20 percent (Jensen and Hauggaard-Niels-
fertilizer constitutes
en, 2004).
the single largest con-
tribution to watershed
pollution in the United
States (Booth and Campbell, 2007). Nitrogen runoff from the Mississippi River Delta
causes the annual formation of the 15,000 km2 Gulf of Mexico “dead zone” incapable of
supporting marine life. Additionally, the production of chemical fertilizer is dependent on
natural gas consumption, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and crop-price vola-
tility. Furthermore, American farmers, on average, apply between 24 and 32 percent more
fertilizer than what is needed for maximum crop yields (Trachtenberg and Ogg, 1994).
The CSP provides financial and technical assistance to farmers for management prac-
tices that replace chemical fertilizer with environmentally safe alternatives and minimize
nitrogen runoff. Such practices include conservative applications of chemical fertilizer,
the use of manure as a nitrogen source, and use of nitrogen fixing cover crops (Lehrer,
2008).

The two main criticisms against U.S. agricultural subsidies is that they give competitive
economic advantage to American farmers over those in developing countries and en-
courage environ-mentally reckless crop production. CSP payments avoid these stake-
holder concerns by providing financial support compensating farmers for the costs of
environmentally conservative management practices rather than for the amount of a
commodity produced.

Next Steps
The Conservation Stewardship Program is the USDA organization best established to
address chemical fertilizer dependency in the status quo. However, the CSP currently
provides financial assistance to farm-
ers for conservation activities in eight
Talking Points different categories of “Enhancement
• Runoff from nitrogen fertilizer is the single activity.” Fertilizer use is included di-
largest contributor to watershed contami- rectly or indirectly in the categories
nation in the United States. of Soil Quality and Water Quality.
• Production of nitrogen fertilizer contrib- In order to more effectively address
utes more to greenhouse gas emissions fertilizer use, the CSP should cre-
than any other agricultural source. ate a ninth category solely and spe-
• Reliance on chemical fertilizer increases cifically tailored to reduce the use
crop price volatility. of chemical fertilizers. Fur-thermore,
• Current nitrogen fertilizer application is future legislation could mandate that
largely unnecessary. a minimum percentage of CSP con-
• Organic alternatives to chemical fertilizer tracts fall under this new “fertilizer
can reduce costs without impacting crop enhancement.”
yields.

Sources
Booth, Mary. and Campbell, Chris. 2007. Spring Nitrate Flux in the Mississippi River Basin: A Landscape Model with Conservation Applications.
Environmental Science and Technology. 41(15): 5410 -5418.
Economic Research Service(US). Nitrogen used on corn, rate per fertilized acre receiving nitrogen, selected states [Internet]. US Fertilizer Use and
Price Data Set: United States Department of Ag-riculture; 2007, Oct. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/
Economic Research Service (US). Population, income, education, and employment [Internet]. United States Department of Agriculture; 2009, May.
Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm
Huang, Wen-yuan. 2007. Economic Research Service (US). Impact of rising natural gas price on U.S. ammonia supply. United States Department of
Agriculture. Outlook report no. WRS 0702. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS0702/
Jensen, Erik. and Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik. 2004. How can increased use of biological N2 fixa-tion in agriculture benefit the environment? Plant
and Soil. 252(1): 177-186.
Lehrer, Nadine. 2008. Negotiating a political path to agroforestry through the Conservation Secutiry Program. Agroforest Systems: 73:103-116.
Managing Cover Crops Profitably (3rd ed.). 2007. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network.
Sheriff, Glen. 2005. Efficient waste? Why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design. Review of Agricultural Economics
27(4): 542-557.
Trachtenberg, Eric. and Ogg, Clayton. 1994. Potential for reducing nitrogen pollution through im-proved agronomic practices. Journal of the Ameri
can Water Resources Association. 30(6): 1109-1118.

11
Moving Waste Management to the Future:
Implementing a Facultative Bioreactor
Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis, The University of Georgia

The installation of a faculative bioreactor in Athens-Clarke County will provide

an efficient waste management method and will generate renewable and envi-
ronmentally sustainable energy for the University of Georgia.

Bioreactors are a type of waste treatment facility. They differ from traditional dry-tomb
landfills in that leachate, moisture generated within the landfill, and sometimes oxygen
are circulated through the landfill in an effort to break down waste more efficiently. As or-
ganic waste breaks down, methane gas is released, which can then be captured and used
for energy. The increased rate of biodegration increases the vertical space of a landfill in
a shorter timespan, creating more room as waste breaks down.

Currently, Athens-Clarke County (ACC)

has a permitted Subtitle D landfill that will Key Facts
reach capacity within the next 5 years.
• Landfill gas emissions account for a
The Waste Reduction Committee, chaired
total of 34% of US methane emission
by Commissioners Kelly Girtz and Doug
into the earth’s atmosphere.
Lowry, will determine the best course of
• Bioreactors can increase vertical
action for future waste disposal. In July
space of a landfill by 15-30% within
2008, ACC purchased 79 acres adjoining
5-10 years
the current landfill site. If this land is ap-
• Methane is 21 times more persistant
proved, it could be used as a site for a
in the atmosphere and has a greater
new landfill or bioreactor.
radiative force than carbon dioxide.
The University of Georgia generates the
majority of its energy from burning coal,
but supplements this source with natural gas and biodiesel. In five years, the University
of Georgia will have to reapply for a permit for the coal-fired boiler that was installed
in 1965. With the current tightening of environmental regulations, it is unlikely that the
outdated boiler will be approved for use, therefore the university will have to turn to
an alternative source of energy. Biodiesel is not cost-effective at this time, and if it be-
comes cost-effective in the future, this will not devalue the use of gas. Natural gas is not
a reliable source of energy because Georgia Natural Gas reallocates the resource when
necessary.

Costs and Benefits

It has been observed that due to its increased capability to trap heat in the atmosphere,
methane gas is 20 times more detrimental compared to carbon dioxide. According to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), landfills are one of the largest sources of
anthropogenic methane emission in the US. They account for a total of 34% of US meth-
ane emissions into the earth’s atmosphere, which in 2007 was 6,327 Gg. The next two
anthropogenic sources, natural gas systems and coal mining emissions, which in 2007
were 4,985 and 2,744 Gg respectively, do not come close to landfill emissions. Within the
next decade, ACC LFG emissions will be too high to allow it to be released freely into
the atmosphere, as it will reach the EPA designated limit of 50 Mg/year.

Stakeholders
When the landfill gas is sold, ACC waste ratepayers will benefit financially as sale of the
gas will prevent tipping fees from rising. Alternatively, the revenue could finance other
waste-reduction efforts. The operational and long-term landfill maintenance costs will be
reduced, eventually decreasing the cost of curbside pick-up. The lifespan of the landfill
will be extended, and the new program will create jobs that will boost the local economy.
By tapping the gas that will otherwise be released into the atmosphere, the program
will improve air quality in the sur-
rounding area.
Talking Points
• The Athens-Clarke County landfill will reach
Next Steps
capacity within 5 years.
• The University of Georgia will have to replace With the support and sponsor-
their coal boiler within the next 5 years. ship of Commissioner Kelly Girtz,
• UGA consumes approximately 10-15 million this proposal will be brought
pounds of coal per year, producing approxi- before the Waste Reduction
mately 44lbs of oxide emissions per ton of Committee. This committee was
coal burned. According to EPA regulations, it commissioned by Mayor Heidi
isn’t required to measure methane emissions Davison in February of 2009 to
at this time. evaluate the best avenues to
• A bioreactor could potentially solve the take concerning Athens-Clarke
waste-disposal problem while providing a re- County’s waste disposal. If ac-
newable source of energy for UGA. cepted by the Waste Reduction
Committee as a feasible course
of action to increase the lifespan
of the new cell, they will make a formal recommendation to the full body Mayor and
Commission. At the same time, the University-County Relations Committee, the commu-
nication body between the University of Georgia and ACC, will also deliberate the fea-
sibility of this proposal and make their formal recommendations to their respective full
bodies. Finally, they would draft a formal agreement, and the policy would be enacted.

Sources
Bioreactor.org, “Florida Bioreactor Landfill Demonstration Project-Executive Summary,” Hinkley Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, http://www.bioreactor.org/publications.htm (accessed 13 Novem
ber 2008).
Bioreactor.org, “Information,” Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, http://www.biore
actor.org/info.htm (accessed 13 November 2008).
Corley, Jim. Interviewed by Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis. Athens, Georgia, 17 February 2009.
Crowe, Ken. Interviewed by Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis. Athens, Georgia, 1 March 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, “2009 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report,” US
EPA, http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (accessed 13 March 2009).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Fact Sheet: Final Air Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills,” US EPA,http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/landfill/mswfact.pdf (accessed 11 December 2008).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Methane,” US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/methane/ (accessed
11 December 2008).
13
Endowment Investment
in Energy-Saving Retrofits
Paul Burger, Michigan State University

Publicly funded universities should allocate a percentage of their total unrestrict-

ed endowment funds to green retrofitting projects for campus buildings.

Climate change is upon us, and it threatens our future. Many broad spectrum techno-
logical solutions are not feasible at this time, yet we must take immediate action to slow
the environmental degradation that is occurring. Our current economic situation neces-
sitates sustainability solutions that are financially feasible; one such option is to retrofit
our buildings with energy efficient technologies. Green retrofitting is simply the exchange
of existing technology for more energy-efficient options within a building. It can come in
the form of improved building insulation, more efficient climate control systems, low-flow
showerheads, motion-sensor lighting, or any other alternative technology that performs
the same function as do current methods at a fraction of the energy use.

Many universities around the country have already implemented energy-saving retrofit-
ting programs on their campuses with much success:

• Stanford University’s Energy Retrofit Program (ERP) invested more than $10M
over 15 years. Stanford expects to save $4.2M per year.
• The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign invested a total of $4.2M on a
lighting retrofit initiative, and expects to save $900,000 per year.
• The University at Buffalo Invested $11M on a campus-wide retrofit program and
expects to save $1.2M per year.

Retrofitting for energy efficiency is es-

sentially an investment with a slow, albeit Key Facts
nearly guaranteed return. If sufficient • Buildings consume 70 percent of the
time is allowed for the energy savings electricity load in the U.S.
to recover the initial capital and main- • In 2007, 90 percent of electricity in
tenance costs, barring any unforeseen the U.S. was generated using non-re-
externalities, the investment will pay for newable sources.
itself and continue to accrue savings in • Enrollment in degree-granting insti-
the long run. The only variable is the rate tutions increased by 23 percent be-
of return, which depends on specific ret- tween 1995 and 2005.
rofitting strategies as well as energy price • Ten of eleven Big 10 universities held
fluctuations. over $1 billion in total endowments in
2007.
Universities provide an ideal economic
setting for green retrofitting to take place.
As nonprofits with stable financial models, degree-granting institutions have the ability to
recover over longer periods of time, and do not run a high risk of bankruptcy. Further-
more, they are prime targets for retrofitting because they often rely primarily on non-
renewable, high-pollution energy.
Stakeholders
Many public universities have large endowment funds fed by private donations. These
funds are invested in diversified holdings with an aim towards long-term gains. While
some of these funds are restricted for use in scholarships or other programs, millions of
dollars are left to endowment managers to invest in anything from private equity to com-
modity futures at their discretion.

Publicly funded universities should allocate a percentage of their total unrestricted en-
dowment funds to green retrofitting projects for campus buildings. By shifting these en-
dowment funds into retrofitting initiatives, universities can guarantee capital gains, while
directly benefiting the campus atmosphere and the environment as a whole. Using these
funds for retrofitting programs will help solve many of the common problems that uni-
versities face regarding their endowment funds. With our current market conditions, the
return-rate on most investments options is low or negative. Retrofitting return rates, on
the other hand, are based upon energy prices and energy savings, creating a low-risk in-
vestment with a return rate likely to improve. Also, universities commonly face pressure
to invest in socially responsible ways, often leading to non-transparency regarding these
investments to avoid public outcry. Retrofitting is not only socially responsible, but it can
be marketed to benefit the university’s reputation in the eyes of stakeholders.

Not only would a retrofitting program help the institution reduce its energy costs, it would
also create social benefits on both local and global levels. For example, retrofitting pro-
grams will require planning, construction and maintenance professionals to ensure prop-
er functioning, thus creating jobs, a trained workforce and boosting the local economy.
By investing these funds locally, a portion of each dollar spent will be ‘injected’ into the
local economy as a whole, resulting in some level of social improvement.

Next Steps
The benefits of building efficiency retrofits will surely outweigh the costs in the long run.
The current economic situation provides a unique opportunity for technological invest-
ments, and universities are in a position to successfully take advantage. Given careful
planning and ample recovery time, energy-saving retrofits will reap monetary as well as
environmental benefits for universities for years to come.

Sources
U.S. Green Building Council. “Press Releases.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=3124
Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Annual - Summary Statistics for the United States.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html#_ftn3
U.S. Department of Education - Institute of Education Sciences. “Fast Facts.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/dis
play.asp?id=98
NACUBO. “2007 NACUBO Endowment Study.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20
Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf
Stanford University. “Sustainable Stanford - Energy Initiatives.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://sustainablestanford.stanford.edu/energy_
initiatives
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2008, December 2). “Campus Lighting Retrofits.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from www.istc.illinois.
edu/about/SeminarPresentations/2008-12-02-Sweeney.ppt
UB News Center. “As Energy Costs Soar, UB Takes Steps to Save.” Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.
cgi/article-page.html?article=75990009

15
Revolving Loan Funds
for Campus Sustainability Projects
Alex Wall and Naomi Harris, Northwestern University

Colleges and universities should establish revolving loan funds as a way to fi-
nance projects that increase campus sustainability. Revolving loan funds provide
schools with an opportunity to promote sustainability, reduce energy and re-
source consumption, limit project-inhibiting up-front costs, and encourage stu-
dent entrepreneurship and innovation.

In light of the current economic recession, colleges and universities have become in-
creasingly limited in the amount of capital they can devote to projects that retrofit cam-
pus infrastructure and increase sustainability. Since the middle of last year, many colleges
and universities in the Midwest have seen their endowments shrink considerably. Be-
tween June and December of 2008, the University of Michigan estimates it lost 20-30%
of its endowment, while Northwestern University’s endowment has taken a 20 to 25%
hit since last August. Yet, by establishing revolving loan funds (RLFs) these schools can
contineu to invest in sustainability projects without facing significant project-inhibiting
up-front costs.

Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) grant

small loans to members of the campus
community whose proposals for spe-
cific sustainability projects on campus
have been approved by a managing
board. The fund will be financed by
grants, alumni and corporate dona-
tions, campus fundraising efforts, and
student fees. The savings generated
by energy efficiency are paid back into
the fund over time until the project
is paid for, thus providing a revolving
source of capital. RLFs can set up a
payback system that allows for growth
by setting a target payback percent-
age greater than the original loan.
Key Facts
• Harsh economic conditions and depre-
ciating endowments make it difficult for
colleges and universities to invest in
campus sustainability projects.
• Revolving loan funds are proven mecha-
nisms that allow academic institutions to
finance sustainability projects while lim-
iting up-front costs.
• Projects financed by Harvard Univer-
sity’s Green Loan Fund reduced campus
emissions by 33,227 metric tons of CO2
and saved 15.5 million gallons of water
between 2001 and 2007.

By establishing RLFs, Midwestern colleges and universities can simultaneously practice

environmental and fiscal responsibility, while providing vital educational opportunities
for students. Furthermore, RLFs will foster a stronger sense of campus community if
students, faculty, staff, and administrators are all represented on the fund’s board.

Costs and Benefits

A few schools have already established RLFs and achieved tremendous benefits. Be-
tween 2001 and 2007, Harvard University’s Green Loan Fund financed 147 projects that
reduced emissions by 33,227 metric tons of CO2 and saved 15.5 million gallons of water.
Its projected annual savings of over $3 million and an average project return on invest-
ment of 26% for 2007, demonstrate its outstanding economic viability. Former Harvard
President and U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers went so far as to claim that
“the best investment in the University is not the endowment, but the Green Loan Fund.”
Student initiated funds with smaller budgets, such as the Macalester College Clean En-
ergy Revolving Fund (CERF), are also capable of making vital contributions to campus
sustainability. Macalester’s CERF has received over $97,000 in grants since its establish-
ment in 2006, and is large enough to finance projects that retrofit inefficient buildings on
a smaller scale.

Critics might argue that potential grant money for an RLF could directly fund a project.
However, RLFs offer significant benefits that isolated projects are unlikely to provide. The
establishment of an RLF will attract donations specifically geared toward environmental
issues. Additionally, the RLF board will ensure greater project visibility by marketing to
potential donors and project applicants.

Next Steps
Talking Points A working group composed of stu-
• Despite current financial limitations, col- dents, faculty, staff, and administra-
leges can use Revolving Loan Funds to tors must create a charter that de-
invest in sustainability projects without termines how the fund will operate
facing project-inhibiting up-front costs. within the university structure. The
charter should establish a board to
operate the fund, requirements for
project proposals, and guidelines for loan disbursement and payback. Once the charter
is created, the working group should seek approval from the administration. In order
for an RLF to succeed, the university must give it the authority to evaluate and approve
sustainability projects.

Teams in charge of RLFs must obtain upfront capital to establish the fund. If the fund is
set up to be cost-neutral for the university, board members must solicit funding from out-
side sources such as grants, student fees, and donations from alumni and corporations.
Additionally, the board should seek university funding from academic departments and
university grants. University money will have a greater impact through an RLF, because it
will cycle through multiple projects rather than fund single initiatives.

Sources
The Michigan Daily, http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-12-08/%E2%80%98u%E2%80%99-
estimates-endowment-losses-20-30-percent-end-june, and The Daily Northwestern, http://media.www.
dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2009/01/21/Campus/Endowment.Losing.Value.
In.Markets-3591041.shtml.
Green Campus Loan Fund: Harvard Office of Sustainability, http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/gclf/
achievements.php.
Green Campus Loan Fund: Harvard Office of Sustainability, http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/gclf/.Macal
ester College Clean Energy Revolving Fund, http://www.macalester.edu/cerf/financing.htm.
http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/gclf/documents/gclf_case_study_100-05_hbs-shad_lighting.pdf

17
Weatherizing Rental Properties
in Kalamazoo, Michigan
John Deisinger, Abigail Homans, Erin Kilburn, Dia Kirby, Adam Marshall, Anne
McShane, Emily Rhodes, and Will Skora, Kalamazoo College

Create a monetary incentive for rental households to decrease environmental

impact of their carbon emissions and to improve the standard of living in the
City of Kalamazoo.

Households make up about 22% of energy consumption in the United States. Proper and
effective weatherization can decrease carbon emissions per household up to 20,074 lb.
CO2 annually. Household utility use and payments provides the best measuring device
for an individual household’s carbon emissions. Currently, low-income households pay
a disproportionate amount of their income toward utility bills due to poorly weatherized
units. The U.S. Department of Energy states, “Low-income households typically spend
16% of their total annual income on residential energy costs, compared with 5% for medi-
an-income households.”

In order to first help those with the Key Facts

greatest needs, rental properties
should be prioritized for residential
weatherization incentives. Tax incen-
tives, housing grants, and abatements
will entice landlords to weatherize,
update, and improve rental proper-
ties, while also contributing to local
efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
• The average utility cost for a home in Ka-
lamazoo is $1406, per home, annually.
• For every $1,000,000 invested, weather-
ization is said to create 52 direct jobs and
23 indirect jobs.
• 70% of America’s 7 million lowest-income
renters put more than half their incomes
toward housing.

Economic Impact
The weatherization of a low-income house represents a long term investment. A 2002
weatherization study analyzed the cost of specific measures and their effects on CO2
emissions and energy costs. The report found that the several measures that can be
taken to reduce both energy costs and CO2—including air sealing, wrapping water heat-
ers, installing programmable thermostats, insulating attics and walls, installing low-flow
showerheads, and switching to compact-fluorescent bulbs—cost, for a low-income house
(including overhead) approximately $2,388. Furthermore, not all of the measures need
be implemented concurrently. According to the report, the most effective measures to
save energy and reduce fuel costs are air sealing (save $119/yr), attic insulation ($55), and
wall insulation ($171). These three measures (including overhead costs) would cost ap-
proximately $2,112 dollars, saving the house $345/year in energy costs.

Environmental Impact
As part of the national and global effort to reduce carbon emissions, low-income housing
weatherization can substantially reduce carbon output by using less energy. The 2002
DOE study concluded that, after implementing the $2,388 weatherization program, a typ-
ical Midwest house could reduce emissions by almost 8,000 lbs of carbon dioxide per
year. Among the possible measures, the most effective were increasing wall-insulation
(saving 3,110 pounds/yr), air sealing (2170 pounds/yr), and increasing attic insulation (1010
pounds/yr). By simply applying these three measures to all rental units (approximately
32,000 in Kalamazoo as of 2000), the city could reduce its carbon output by more than
100,000 tons per year.

Social Justice Impact

For many low-income families, renting is the only housing option. Within the Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek area, 25.2% of renter households live below the poverty level; many of these
renters experience difficulty paying for basic living expenses. A government survey of
low-income residents in Kalamazoo concluded that nearly four in ten could not pay rent
at least once during the last year, and 36% had their utilities shut off.

Next Steps
Talking Points Renters are characterized by higher levels of
• The weatherization of a low-in- poverty than homeowners, and thus have less
come house can be adapted to ability to invest in weatherization projects.
fit various economic situations— The City of Kalamazoo should provide mone-
and represents a long term in- tary incentives to landlords to weatherize their
vestment. rental properties. Kalamazoo’s Sustainability
• Housing weatherization can sub- Commission has already highlighted the envi-
stantially reduce carbon output ronmental impact of household energy use by
by using less energy. creating a 5-year sustainability plan. However,
the plan currently lacks policy on “Land Use,
Housing and Planning Policies,” which should
be elaborated to include the policy proposed here. Moreover, monetary incentives do
not necessarily need to come from tax-payers; funding is already allotted for urban de-
velopment. For example, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) under the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) “provides annual
grants…to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable
living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.” Kalamazoo qualifies as a metropolitan area large enough to
receive funding through the CDBG and may also be eligible for funding from a similar
grant program called the HUD HOME Investment Partnership.
Sources
“America’s Rental Housing: Homes for a Diverse Nation.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2006. 14 Feb. 2009 <http://www.
jchs.harvard.edu/publications/rental/rh06_americas_rental_housing.pdf>.
Kalamazoo County Health and Services Department. “Community Assessments and Reports: Poverty Report 2008.” Community Action Bureau.
2008. 16 Feb. 2009 <http://www.kalcounty.com/hcs/careps.htm>.
National Low-Income Housing Coalition. Local Area Low Income Housing Database. Feb. 2004. 25 Feb. 2008 <https://www2398.ssldomain.com/
nlihc/detail/article.cfm?article_id=3079&id=21>.
Schweitzer, Martin, and Joel Eisenberg. “Meeting the Challenge: The Prospect of Achieving 30 Percent Energy Savings Through the Weatheriza
tion Assistance Program .” Oak Ridge National Laboratory (May 2002). 20 Feb. 2009 <http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/309.pdf>.
United Sates Department of Energy. “Detail of Whole House Annual Energy Use .” Home Energy Saver. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://hes3.lbl.gov/hes/Zip
Carbon.taf?f=ZipCarbon&session_id=1336434>.
United States Census Bureau. “Quick Tables: Kalamazoo, MI.” 2000 Census. 22 Feb. 2009 <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QT
Table?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US26077&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-
lang=en&redoLog=false&-CONTEXT=qt>.
United States Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “Program Areas.” Weatherization Assistance Program. Mar. 2009 17 Feb.
2009 <http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/wip/block_grants.cfm>.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities.” Community
Planning and Development. Mar. 2009. 14 Mar. 2009 <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/entitlement/>.
- - -. Community Planning and Development. Feb. 2009. HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 6 Feb. 2009 <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/
affordablehousing/programs/home/>.
19
Utilizing Renewable Energy through
A Community-Based Model
Cory Connolly, Olivia Cohn, and Dan Blue, Michigan State University

The cooperative ownership of renewable energy production, coupled with state

feed-in tariff (FiT) policies, would increase the level of clean energy generation
in any state. The combination can diffuse start-up costs, provide a profit to small
communities and cooperatives, and create a stepping-stone to more comprehen-
sive energy policy.

Cooperatives can lessen the costs of a project that would otherwise appear daunting for
individual investors. A cooperative is a civil association that functions under the concept
of shared ownership in order to minimize the costs of a specific enterprise. Electric coop-
eratives exist throughout the U.S. but primarily utilize fossil fuels. In this model, a coopera-
tive would be composed of residents in a community that want to generate renewable
energy with a profit. Through cooperative ownership of a wind turbine or a set of solar
panels, costs such as installation, site assessment, and maintenance are shared. FiTs then
guarantee a profit for community investors.

FiTs mandate that energy rates paid

to clean energy generators are set
above the market electricity rate per
kilowatt-hour of energy produced. A
profit is guaranteed for all renewable
energy generators; across the coun-
try, utilities are currently guaranteed
a profit, but use almost all fossil fuels
instead of clean energy. This tariff rate
for clean energy is spread across the
entire consumer base under the pro-
gram, making the increased average
cost minimal.
Key Facts
• In Michigan, the Renewable Portfolio
Standard mandates that 10% of energy
production originate from renewables by
the year 2015.
• In one year, Germany offset 97 million
tons of CO2 emissions through the em-
ployment of renewable energy.
• Increases in energy pricing are negligible;
average increases in electricity prices
would be less than $2.00 to $3.00.

A limited FiT program should be established for clean energy cooperatives that are
owned by a minimum of 10 members with no single member owning more than 15% share
in the project. The program would guarantee a profitable tariff rate from the local utility
for the energy that the project generates. The set rate would be differentiated based on
the size of the project, type of technology, and availability of the resource. Focused FiT
policies, combined with energy cooperatives, would maximize community sustainability,
encourage disaggregated clean energy generation, and provide a stepping stone to fu-
ture, more comprehensive energy policy.

Existing Programs and Recommendations

In Germany, effective FiT systems have been used for over five years, with over fifteen
years of policy stepping-stones. Since the program amendments of 2004, over 250,000
jobs have been created.1 In 2006 alone, 97 million tons of CO2 emissions were avoided
through the FiT clean energy system.2 These benefits have been achieved while increas-
es in energy pricing were negligible; the average increase in electricity cost in Germany
was between $2.00 and $3.00.3

Broad FiT policies have been proposed in six U.S. states, including Michigan.4 Minnesota
established a state program called Community Based Energy Development (C-BED) in
2007. This program uses net-metering, guaranteeing energy credits for clean energy
produced. This is a less effective clean energy policy than FiTs, as the renewable energy
producer is only granted credits, not a profit, for energy that is produced.

In Michigan, Representative Valentine introduced HB 4023 in January 2009 under the

C-BED title.5 This proposal is almost identical to the current system in Minneosta, which
uses net-metering and front-loaded rates.

We recommend that instead of using net-metering, the legislation should use a coopera-
tive based FiT system that would guarantee a profit for communities generating clean
energy. We also recommend that eligibility is more selectively defined within the legisla-
tion and that it should focus on energy cooperatives and community based projects.
Currently, the legislation is written in a way that allows far broader eligibility, which is one
reason that the legislation has lacked political momentum.

Conclusion
Much of the opposition for FiTs originates from the potential for increased energy prices
and incredulity about program success. Energy prices are unlikely to rise at any signifi-
cant amount because the project is limited in scope to community-cooperative models.
Moreover, even less focused, more comprehensive programs have led to negligible price
rises of $2.00 to $3.00.

Community-based FiTs allow for exploration of the program with little risk. While this
policy would not maximize production of renewable energy like a broad FiT might, it
would prove the success of FiTs on a small scale, providing a stepping-stone for future,
more comprehensive policy. A FiT program with a community-based structure alleviates
political opposition and sets the groundwork for a clean energy future.

Sources
[1] “Feed in Tariffs” SolarCentury, <http://www.actionrenewables.org/uploads_documents/SolarcenturyFeed
Tariffguide.pdf>
[2] Büsgen, Uwe, et al. “Feed-In Tariffs – A guide to one of the world’s best environmental policies, Boosting
Energy for our Future.” World Future Council, 2007.
[3] Energy Federation of New Zealand ||| Index Home. 25 Apr. 2009 <http://www.energyfed.org.nz/FClark.
pdf>
[4] Rickerson, Wilson, James Bradbury, and Florian Beenhold. “The Outlook for Feed-in Tariffs in the United
States of America.” World Wind Energy Conference (2008).
[5] State of Michigan House of Representatives. House Bill Number 4023, Introduced 22 Jan. 2009, Repre
sentative Mary Valentine, referred to the Committee on Energy and Technology.

21
Expanding the Weatherization
Assistance Program
Sarah Collins and Valerie Bieberich, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) must be expanded to reach more

families, increase its educational programming, and make houses more efficient
by including renewable energy technology.

The recently passed stimulus bill H.R. 1 expanded the Department of Energy’s Weather-
ization Assistance Program (WAP) by $5 billion. Since its inception, the Weatherization
Assistance Program has improved over five million low-income homes through methods
such as weather-proofing, installing insulation, and sealing unnecessary openings. In ad-
dition to weatherizing homes, WAP also encourages the installation of energy efficient
products approved by Energy Star, a government-backed program that recommends
products meeting Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy efficien-
cy standards. Because WAP’s fund-
ing has been significantly increased, Key Facts
its programs must be expanded in the
• On average, WAP saves low-income
most effective way possible.
families $358 (in 2007 dollars) in re-
duced first year energy costs.
The activities of WAP should be ex-
• At FY 2007 funding levels, it would take
panded to include more families while
151 years for the 13 million qualifying
maintaining emphasis on families suf-
households to be weatherized.
fering from poverty. For low-income
• If all these homes were weatherized, al-
families, WAP should not only per-
most 2.75 million jobs would be created.
form weatherization and install more
In addition, savings per year would bal-
energy-efficient appliances to lower
ance costs within 8 years.
energy costs, but actively outfit qualify-
• Through efficiency gains, renewable and
ing households with renewable energy
efficiency energy standards and build-
technologies, especially wind, geother-
ing codes could save consumers $200
mal, biomass, and solar technologies.
billion per year by 2030.
Investment rebates should subsidize
the costs of these technologies and
lower the prohibitively high installa-
tion costs of these energy sources. WAP can provide the means for average families
to overcome these high upfront costs, and these families may then save money with
decreased energy usage. The amount sent back to the purchaser can be determined
on a sliding scale for income, with higher-income individuals getting less of the costs re-
imbursed. These rebates should be phased out over time as the industry grows and the
private market takes over, increasing competition and driving down prices. For middle-
to higher-income families, WAP can focus on disseminating information about renewable
energy opportunities, including how they may be incorporated into daily energy use now.
H.R. 1 contains a provision on tax incentives for increased energy efficiency in homes;
WAP should also ensure that people know about these and similar benefits while aiding
middle- and higher-income households in meeting efficiency standards.
This expansion in activity can be funded in part by H.R. 1, because many of the proposed
reforms merely alter the scope of existing programs. The majority of both the public and
policymakers perceive renewable energy technologies to be unavailable and difficult to
integrate into the average home. This is incorrect: the technology for these energy forms
is developed and available, and its reliability and cost-effectiveness is sure to grow with
expanded use.

In any comprehensive solution to the

Talking Points
energy situation, we need renew-
• Current energy providers may even pay
ables and we need improvements
households if their renewable energy gen-
to the grid for the transportation
eration outstrips traditional fuel use.
of energy from renewable sources.
• Wind, geothermal, biomass and solar en-
Proposals are currently underway
ergy technologies release fewer emissions
in Congress to address the needs of
than traditional fuels while potentially pro-
renewable energies on the grid and
viding more power.
direct action at the federal level. Al-
though building a new electricity cir-
culatory system equipped to handle
to volume of energy being produced could cost upwards of $100 billion, this cost could
be spread out over several years and millions of people, making the project less daunt-
ing. In order for small-scale renewable energies to be both feasible and successful, this
cost is necessary. The larger system must be modernized.

Next Steps
The federal government should require that WAP expands its activities to more house-
holds and incorporate renewable energies, and offer any additional assistance needed
for it to do so. WAP should adopt the program before the stimulus funding is spent, and
could test it on a regional basis, maintaining its community-based focus.

Sources
Schweitzer, Martin & Tonn, Bruce. “Nonenergy Benefits From the Weatherization Assistance Program: A summary of findings from the recent
literature.” Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, 2002. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/purl.cover.
jsp?purl=/814309-YTc0vO/native/, Accessed 7 February, 2008.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. “Energy Star.” http://www.energystar.gov.
United States Department of Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Program Overview.” Weatherization Assistance Program. http://www.waptac.org/
sp.asp?id=1437, Accessed 6 March, 2008.
United States Department of Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Program: Program Funding.” Weatherization Assistance Program. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008.
United States Department of Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Program: Program Overview.” Weatherization Assistance Program. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008.
U.S. Department of Energy. “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” Weatherization Assistance Program. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/weather
ization/, Accessed 25 September, 2008.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Ongoing Research.” http://www.huduser.org/research/tech.html, Accessed 6
March, 2008.
“Renewable Energy Standard May Save $200B In Annual Energy.” Environmental Leader. 2009. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/05/21/
renewable-energy-standard-may-save-200b-in-annual-energy/, Acessed 26 May, 2009.
Rascoe, Ayesha.“US Senate to tackle renewable energy grid in weeks.” Reuters UK. http://uk.reuters.com/article/emailidUKN2333732420090223,
Accessed May 26, 2009.
Smith, Rebecca. “New Grid for Renewable Energy Could be Costly.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/
SB123414242155761829-lMyQjAxMDI5MzI0NTEyNDUyWj.html. Accessed May 26, 2009.
Wald, Matthew L. “Wind Energy Bumps into Power Grid’s Limits.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.
html?pagewanted=2&emc=eta1. Accessed May 26, 2009.
Talbot, David. “Lifeline for Renewable Power.” MIT Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21747/page1/. Accessed May 26,
2009.

23
Proactive Conservation Policy
for Offshore Wind Projects
Dan Blue, Michigan State University

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission should 1) conduct a full study of the five
lakes to pre-designate areas in the Great Lakes waters that are critical to the
recreational fishing industry and ecological biodiversity, and 2) establish suc-
cinct, science-driven criteria for local and state governments to use to evaluate
permits for offshore wind projects that ensure the health of the Great Lakes eco-
system and fishing industries.

Political support for a national carbon market is growing and effective clean energy poli-
cies like feed-in tariffs are on the horizon. For the states surrounding the Great Lakes,
offshore wind will eventually be the chief source of clean energy. Wind resources are
extremely abundant offshore and thus, more efficient. The Great Lakes region will har-
vest much of its clean energy from offshore wind, but these energy projects come with a
host of additional complications, including disrupting fishery populations. Government
approval processes should consider impacts on the ecological system and recreational
fishing—a two billion dollar industry in Michigan alone, with countless linkages.

Policymakers and officials in charge of permit processes are not aware of the potential
impact of offshore farms on fisheries and migration patterns. Historically, similar conser-
vation issues tend to be ignored and then policymakers react only after it is too late to
prevent destruction.

A continual and distinct challenge for environmental protection surrounding the Great
Lakes is jurisdictional complexities. Eight states in America—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Il-
linois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York—all have Great Lakes shore-
line, not to mention the international presence of Canada to the north. Moreover, native
fishers have a different set of regulations and rights to the fishery resource, typically
including using nets, which are prohibited for most fishers. The host of stakeholders who
have rights and responsibilities to the highly connected lakes present a problem for com-
prehensive lake management.

In 1955, in order better coordinate fishery management, the Canadian and US governments
created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), funded by both governments and
led by an eight-person board with four members from each nation. The ecological sys-
tems and waterways of the Great Lakes are all connected. Fishery migration patterns are
complex and require serious scientific investigation to truly understand. Generally, fish
are highly sensitive to environmental perturbations and any small change in the climate
or habitat of one species by a wind turbine could drastically impact the fish’s spawning
and migration patterns, impacting the river systems and inland recreational fishing.

In the past, a relatively minor change in weather or habitat in the Great Lakes has altered
the migration patterns of steelhead trout in the inland rivers in Michigan. Anglers come
from across the country to fish steelhead in Michigan rivers and the state cannot afford
to lose the economic activity that these migration patterns generate.

The governors of the eight Great Lakes states, starting with Michigan’s Governor Jennifer
Granholm, should request that the commission do two things: 1) conduct a full study of
the five lakes to pre-designate areas in the Great Lakes waters that are critical to the
recreational fishing industry and ecological biodiversity and 2) establish succinct, science
driven criteria for local and state governments to use to evaluate permits for offshore
wind projects that ensure the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and fishing industries.

The pre-designation would pre-empt the conflicts that utilities and developers will ulti-
mately have. The areas could become de facto preserves, simply through GLFC desig-
nation and spreading the information contained in the report. The set of criterion for
local and state governments could be included in the permit approval processes for any
offshore wind farm in the Great Lakes. The criterion would include the pre-designation
of areas of fishery importance as well as take into account the disruptions to the system
involved with the installation of the lines and transmission of the electricity. The Depart-
ments of Natural Resources and Fisheries and Wildlife in each of the states would also
provide resources to the commission,
under the direction of the respective
Talking Points Governor.
• Offshore wind resources in the Great
Lakes are among the highest in the na- The administrative costs associated
tion. with mandates are avoided through
• The Great Lakes ecosystem and involv- the optional nature of the approval
ing waterways are highly connected. criteria and pre-designation. Local
• The recreational fishing industry is a ma- and state governments will be able
jor source of economic activity and tour- to use the information and criterion
ism for Great Lakes states. to craft and re-write their own permit
processes over the next few years.

Next Steps
Wind development is likely to happen very quickly in the lakes once effective policy is
enacted. Developers and utilities will prioritize their developments and some will push
for ignoring the impacts on fisheries. Historically, conservation issues and their economic
impact tend to be ignored by policymakers until it is too late. With a pro-active policy, we
can pre-empt conflicts and save our waterways and our fish.

Sources
Michigan annual average wind power, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/
pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-17m.html
Snyder, Brian and Kaiser, Mark. Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy. Renew
able Energy: An International, Volume 34, Issue 6, June 2009, p 1567-1578
Sportfishing in America, American Sportfishing Association, 2002
Sharp, Eric. “Steelhead activity rises with temps” Detroit Free Press. March 26 2009. <http://www.freep.com/
article/20090326/SPORTS10/903260383/1058/Steelhead+activity+rises+with+temps>
Governor Granholm has shown regional leadership on the issue, demonstrated by the recent establishment
of the Great Lakes Wind Council in February 2009.
The State of Washington’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s wind power guidelines from March 2009
could be used a reference point.

25
Disposable Shopping Bag Tax:
Curbing Dependency on Oil & Plastic
Elizabeth Miller, Northwestern University

By implementing a twenty-cent tax on paper and plastic bags, cities would gen-
erate temporary revenue for local governments, help businesses cut down on
costs, and take steps to reverse the ecological damage inflicted by disposable
shopping bags.

In America, nearly every retail transaction ends with the placement of purchased goods
into a disposable shopping bag. However, these symbols of modern convenience are
detrimental to the environment in a multitude of ways. The biggest problem with plastic
bags is the fact that approximately 12 million barrels of oil go into the production of the
100 billion plastic bags used annually in America.1

Contrary to popular belief,

paper bags are no more Key Facts
ecologically beneficial than • In the Pacific Ocean, a floating mass of garbage
their plastic counterparts. twice the size of Texas has accumulated, much of
The manufacture of paper which is comprised of buoyant plastic products.3
bags requires nearly five • According to the World Resources Institute, more
times more energy — 2511 than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests have
BTUs vs. 594 BTUs — than been lost to deforestation.
the production of plastic • Every year, Americans use 100 billion plastic bags
ones. Furthermore, 14 mil- and 10 billion paper bags.
lion trees are cut down to
make the 10 billion paper
bags used every year in the
United States, which has contributed to the fact that 80 percent of the earth’s natural
forests have been lost to deforestation.4 Finally, plastic bags cost approximately one cent
per bag and paper bags cost about five cents each, so large grocery stores such as those
in Evanston, Illinois spend substantial sums of money to purchase thousands of bags
every year.5

In recent years, three policies have emerged as ways to decrease usage of disposable
shopping bags: bans, recycling programs, and taxes. When San Francisco implemented
a plastic bag ban, consumers merely switched to using paper bags instead of beginning
to use reusable ones. Bag recycling programs, another option, are not economically fea-
sible. It costs $4000 to process and recycle one ton of plastic bags, which can be sold
on the commodities market for $32.6 Furthermore, it takes 1444 BTUs to recycle a single
paper bag.7 While New York City passed a bill in January 2008 requiring all businesses
who give out free plastic bags to also collect them for recycling, Mayor Bloomberg has
since proposed implementing a six-cent tax on plastic bags.8

This third alternative, taxation of disposable shopping bags, has been proven to be the
most effective in changing consumer habits and decreasing usage of disposable shop-
ping bags. Ireland’s tax on plastic bags led to a 90% drop in consumption and raised
the equivalent of 9.6 million dollars in its first year alone.9 Even more importantly, it has
changed consumer habits. According to The New York Times, carrying plastic bags in Ire-
land has become “socially unacceptable”.10 In July of 2008, Seattle also passed a twenty-
cent tax on paper and plastic bags, which is predicted to decrease consumption by at
least 70%.11

Talking Points Next Steps

• In Ireland, a 20-cent tax on plastic bags de- Customers of retailers defined by
creased consumption by 90% in the first the city code as grocery stores,
year after implementation and raised mil- convenience stores, and combina-
lions of Euros for the government. tion drug/grocery stores would pay
• Implementing a tax on paper and plastic a 20 cent tax on every disposable
shopping bags in the city of Evanston, Il- shopping bag used. Officials in
linois would decrease packaging costs for Seattle determined through their
businesses and generate revenue for the research that 20 cents would be
city government until disposable bags are costly enough to create a mean-
no longer used. ingful impact on shoppers but not
too high to simply cause outrage in-
stead of consideration, so it would
be an appropriate amount to charge in all cities implementing this program.12 To avoid
hurting low-income individuals, people who are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) will be exempt from
this tax.

Sources
1. The Numbers…Believe It or Not. Reusablebags.com. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=4
2. Plastic-Bag Ban Full of Holes. USA Today. http://sks.sirs.com/
3. Garbage Mass is Growing in the Pacific. National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.
php?storyId=89099470
4. Paper Bags Are Better than Plastic, Right? Reusablebags.com. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=7,
and Forest Holocaust. National Geographic. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.
html
5. Plastic-Bag Ban Full of Holes. USA Today. http://sks.sirs.com/
6. Recycling Can Fix This, Right? Reusablebags.com. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=5
7. Paper Bags Are Better than Plastic, Right? Reusablebags.com. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=7
8. City Council Passes Bill for Recycling of Plastic Bags. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.
com/2008/01/10/nyregion/10bags.html, and In Mayor’s Plan, the Plastic Bag Will Carry a Fee. The New
York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07bags.html?pagewanted=2
9. The PlasTax - about Ireland’s Plastic Bag Tax. Reusablebags.com. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts
php?id=20
10. Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/
world/europe/02bags.html?pagewanted=1&_r=211
11. Seattle Mayor Nickels Proposes Green Fee on Shopping Bags to Curb Environmental Impacts. U.S. Mayor
(April 2008): http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/COM_040708_00_00_011_b.pdf, and
“Green Plastic Bag Fee to go before Seattle Voters. Seattlepi.com. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/404422_
bags30.html
12. Disposable Bag Fee and Foam Ban FAQ. Seattle.gov. http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/issues/bringYourBag/
docs/disposable_bag_fee_&_foam_ban_FAQ.pdf

27
 The Next Big Thing:
Water Crisis
Riley Wyman, Colorado College

O n a planet covered 70 percent in water, in bodies that are made up of 60 percent

water, and with showers, sinks, toilets, and sprinklers everywhere we turn, it is no surprise
that water scarcity is not an issue at the forefront of many minds. While many expect
cheap water to be continuously and readily available, “renewable” water resources are
depleting. Amidst increasing waste and climate change impacts such as reduced runoff,
earlier snowmelt, and increased evapotranspiration, the world is nearing a crisis point.
Without addressing the main issues facing water resources today—energy, conservation,
and quality—we cannot even being to imagine the consequences.

Water and Energy

The “energy crisis” of today is forgetting an important element: the precious commodities
of each oil and water might soon debilitate the use of the other. In order to generate
electricity, we consume incredible amounts of water, and in order to deliver clean water,
we consume incredible amounts of energy. Water and energy are inextricably linked.

Water consumption does not occur only when running faucets or watering the lawn…it
is used when turning on lights and plugging in the toaster. The power used to generate
electricity comes from a number of sources in the United States—nuclear, coal, hydro-
electric, and more. Thermoelectric (coal) power generation facilities demand significant
volumes of freshwater to function, and account for 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater
withdrawal and about 3 percent of the nation’s freshwater consumption. This is second
only to agricultural irrigation. Nuclear plants, on the other hand, consume 40 percent
more water, and natural gas combined cycle plants consume 60 percent less.

With changes on the horizon in the types of energy we use, water concerns must be at
the forefront of those decision making processes. “Clean coal” technology will demand an
estimated 4 to 6 billion gallons of water more a day, not to mention the potential impacts
on water quality. Carbon sequestration technology could more than double the amount
of water consumed per unit of electricity generated. Wind energy requires very little
water, while solar plants require significant amounts of water. Solar plants use as much,
if not more, water as nuclear power plants, which poses a significant problem for states
like Arizona, who have a lot of solar potential, but very little water. And the transportation
sector brings in another whole set of problems—with electric cars requiring 10 times as
much water as gasoline and biofuels demanding 20 times as much, shifting the way we
fuel our cars can have major implications. The question of the amount of water needed in
both current and upcoming methods of power generation is an important one.

Worries about water consumption in the attempt to drive energy away from dependence
on foreign oil must be considered. A decrease in dependence on foreign oil will lead to a
dependence on domestic water, and the implications of this are widespread. Solving the
paradox of the oil-water link requires integrated policy, management, and technologies
to help enhance one resource without depleting the other.
Water Conservation
Instead of simple continued development of new water projects, water conservation
mechanisms are important to creating sustainable practices and responsible use of what
is often a finite resource. Aquifers are being depleted faster than they can be recharged
by the natural water cycle, and many areas rely on piping in water from afar, as local sur-
face water resources are frequently limited.

Conservation is not just about turning the water off when brushing your teeth—it is about
policies and programs that standardize incentives for both consumers and municipalities
to use less. Pricing, reuse, and storage are just three mechanisms that are becoming very
important to the world of water conservation.

In many areas across the country, especially around the West, water prices are artificially
low relative to the cost of providing the water (piping systems, reservoirs, purification,
etc.) and the externalities associated (excess effluent, recreation, environmental, etc.).
Economic principles suggest that anything scarce and in demand commands a price,
and as such, water pricing is becoming a more and more acceptable policy instrument.
There are many mechanisms for doing this—selective metering, block pricing, water-use
charges, pollution charges, effluence charges, and many more. Regardless of the mecha-
nisms, movement towards pricing structures that more adequately reflect the price of the
commodity is necessary towards incentivizing conservation and encouraging awareness
among consumers. This is especially important at the agricultural level, where prices are
heavily subsidized and use is exceptionally high. The funds accrued from such activities
are also important towards investment in water infrastructure, maintenance of existing
systems, and developing new technology.

Though not fully accepted by the public yet, as technology emerges for the reuse of
water, states and local governments are finding more ways to conserve. Water reuse can
be very effective, especially in the industrial and agricultural sectors, as issues of water
quality are not as stringent. Additionally, as technology catches up in wastewater treat-
ment, health and quality concerns are minimized and “toilet to tap” becomes an increas-
ingly viable and cost-effective option for meeting demand. Pubic education is important
here, as there is a natural distaste for the reuse of water for consumption. Legal changes,
too, are important, as experimentation and treatment standards change the need for
protective legal codes and as downstream water rights complicate matters. Many West-
ern states have effective regulations towards attempting to encourage water reuse, while
simultaneously monitoring health and safety issues. Ensuring that laws are reflective of
current technology, costs are manageable, and that the public is on board is important
and provides outlets for pollution abatement and wastewater disposal.

Conserved water during non-drought periods can be effectively stored underground and
accessed later when water supplies are less readily available. As public acceptability of
surface storage such as dams and reservoirs decreases, the importance of groundwater
storage grows. The interconnection between surface and groundwater in water storage
helps recharge aquifers, increase capacity of lowered and over drafted water tables, and
allows the augmentation of water supplies in an environmentally friendly way. This also
provides an outlet for effective conservation measures by having a safe way to protect
the conserved water. Ultimately, water storage can provide a buffer against water scarcity
29
and variability, though its overuse could potentially create difficulties in regulated supply.
Various legal barriers still exist to the full implementation of water storage projects and
must be anticipated and addressed.

Water Quality
Between urban development, increased agricultural land use, and climate change, water
quality concerns are no longer just for developing countries. Without access to clean
water resources, preexisting water scarcity is magnified and health concerns become
increasingly significant.

As cities grow and urban sprawl increases, water supplies face contamination due to
impervious areas and careless development techniques. Cement sidewalk, roads, and
buildings prevent water from being reabsorbed into the water table, causing increased
runoff. The water then carries with it the many pollutants and chemicals of city life, which
eventually makes its way back into water supplies. Urban runoff in conjunction with prob-
lematic home septic systems have been shown to cause pharmaceutical contamination
of water supplies, which poses an even more significant problem because much of the
contamination is not filtered through water treatment. Urban contaminants pose a unique
type of threat, as municipal water supplies are already stretched. Increased development
will only perpetuate these dangers.

Perhaps one of the biggest factors impacting water quality, especially in the West, is ir-
responsible agricultural practice. Irrigation not only puts a burden on already scare water
resources, but it also creates heavy salt loading in the water supply. Irrigation causes salts
to be leached from underlying soils as the water moves through the subsurface, resulting
in a 150% increase in salinity. This causes severe problems not only for crops and water
in the area, but especially for supplies downstream where salt levels already tend to be
higher. Crop production falls with increases in salinity levels, household water appliances
corrode and clog sooner, and water treatment costs go up. Water from the Colorado
River alone undergoes around $376million dollars per year on reclamation from salt load-
ing. Furthermore, when combined with pesticide use, irrigation and rain cause chemical
runoff that endangers the groundwater supply, increases surface acidity, and can have
more widespread impacts like coastal eutrophication and disruptions in the water cycle.

The biggest factor impacting water quality in the near future will be rising temperatures
from climate change. As temperatures rise, oxygen levels decrease. As streamflow and
lake levels fall, pollutants face less dilution. Climate change causes the increase in the
frequency and intensity of rainfall, thus producing more pollution and sedimentation due
to runoff. The flow magnitudes also increase, which can carry more contaminants through
water supplies and overload storm and wastewater systems. As sea levels rise, the in-
crease in salinity of coastal rivers and bays would lead to saltwater intrusion, causing the
destruction of groundwater resources in coastal areas. Drinking water supplies are the
most important to preserve amidst severe climate change impacts, however, the recre-
ational uses are important considerations too as water quality affects fishing, ecosystems,
swimming, and more.

To see how this topic develops, join the Center for Energy & the Environment at
www.roosevelt.campusnetwork.org
For more information, visit these sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-fuel&page=5
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/2008_Water_Needs_Analy
sis-Final_10-2-2008.pdf
http://www.congressional.energy.gov/documents/3-10-09_Final_Testimony_(Bauer)_
(NETL).pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1944
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/939/Pricing_water.html

31
your ideas.
your leadership.
your issues.

it’s the new

student activism.

rooseveltcampusnetwork.org
Rooseveltcampusnetwork.org