- • 'J . :,, ,,.,·~ . , -... ..... Q eople and The City of Portland, Oregon, with the guidance of Mayor Neil Goldschmidt, recently passed an Energy Conservation Policy which, when implemented, should reduce energy consumption in the city by 30 percent or m,ore by 1995, representing a financial savings of over 162 million (1979) dollars annually. over a year, a "Discussion Draft" was written and the proposal was brought to the people for input. The city held a number of workshops where people were encouraged to comment on specific aspects of the policy, ask questions of the committee, and to make specific suggestions for amendments, etc. After two such workshops were held in different parts of the city, two days of formal hearings were held where people were able to make their feelings known and their . suggestions became part of the record. As an ~ffect of t_his process,· new objectives were added-e.g. mak!ng recY_cltng options mandatory for all garbage collectors in the city, This plan has already been hailed as the most comprehensive and innovative attempt by a municipality to save energy yet devised. Official recognition of Portland's plan has been high- from Walter Cronkite right on up to Jimmy Carter-and· requests for information have been.coming in b):' droves to the City Energy Office. After one takes a look at this plan, one can sec why it has been so popular. . A most important part of the plan-and my favorite feature--is how it was drafted. A group of local citizens who were appointed by the City Council volunteered over 3,500 hours certain sections of the policy str_~.ngthened-e.g. _requiring the commercial sector to prepare energy audits not 7ust on heating and cooling use, but industrial processes as well, and many other small items included, which 'increase the overall effec" tiveness of the plan. . of work to develop this document. This committee represented neighborhoods, utilities, industry, organized labor, environmental groups and elsewhere-quite an unusual wor~ing group! The perspectives these people added truly made it an effort of the community. After the committee h:id met for We here at RAIN, as well ,as many other groups throughout the city, have been getting numerous calls for information about this important document. Because of this great interest, we have decided to outline the general goal and individual policies of the plan. Even so, this listing does not inelude the many pioneering objectives of the different policies, inclu_ding such things as the establishment of Local Improvement Districts to help finance neighborhood power facilities, help for El=:11:::::=:I =E=N=E=RG=Y====-11 Energy and Downtown Revitalization: The Austin Opportunity, Renewable Energy Resources Commission, Austin, Texas, August 9, 1979, from: Ray Reece Renewable Energy Resources Commission 516 Terrace Drive Austin, TX 78704 Typically, urban revitalization projects are grand attempts to bring big development and big bucks to the center city. While such efforts are usually unresponsive to housing and community development needs, it's now becoming apparent they are oblivious of progressive energy planning as well. When new office/commercial complexes move in, replacing old businesses and residential areas, they tend to reinforce the city's most inappropriate energy-use patterns. High gloss development is noticeably out-of-touch with conservation and renewable energy goals - and it's starting to look very vulnerable on these grounds. In Austin, Texas, such a prospect has spurred members of the city's Renewable Energy Resources Commission and its advisory citizens' groups to urge that the city instead take 'advantage of known conservation measures and renewable energy sources to make its proposed downtown revitalization project a national model for energy-conscious urban redevelopment. With the establishment of a Model Energy Development Demonsti;ation District (MEDDD) they estimate that energy consumption could easily be reduced by 50% over conventional development approaches, while having many other positive impacts on the city. The Austin Opportunity is a straightforward report to the city council which outlines how a MEDDD·can be implemented, along with the multitude of concepts that could be incorporated into an energyconserving downtown strategy. This preliminary report, one of the first of its kind, signals the beginning of a dialogue critical to any major city caught between the desire to revitalize and the absol~te necessity of cutting back on energy use. It also identifies a new kind of political tangle: The MEDDD proposal, for example, did not just appear in a vacuum. The American City Corporation - a subsidiary of Rouse Corporation, developer of Columbia, Maryland and. two major shopping malls in Austin - has already completed a conventional revitalizati0n plan for the city, slating large areas of downtown Austin to be levelled for an office/commercial mega~block. Existing urban renewal designation would give the developers legal authority to condemn these areas, and a group of investors would be drawn together for the project. A few city officials are pushing hard for the Rouse approach to revitalization. Not surprisingly, references to renewable energy in'this plan are nearly non-existent. Instead, it relies on such increasingly energy-inefficient features as developing a convention business trade in Austin, and moving peoplt around on exclusive monorails. The Renewable Energy Resources Commission, on the other hand, has • become the advocate for the alternative MEDDD approach, taking advantage of the crucial time factor to generate
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz