Our Cleanest Cities and their Zero Carbon Progress

By John Addison

John Addison is the author of two books - Save Gas, Save the Planet that details the future of transportation and Revenue Rocket about technology partner strategy. CNET, Clean Fleet Report, and Meeting of the Minds have published over 300 of his articles. Prior to being a writer and speaker, he was in partner and sales management for technology companies such as Sun Microsystems. Follow John on Twitter @soaringcities.

Sep 30, 2019 | Environment, Resources | 5 comments

Our cleanest cities provide powerful lessons in how to transition to clean energy, while growing a city economy, and providing better services to citizens. All of these cities improved their renewable energy generation, energy-efficient buildings, government, equitable communities, and transportation. The success of these cities, and the ranking of all major U.S. cities is detailed by American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The highest ranking U.S. cities are these:

  1. Boston
  2. San Francisco
  3. Seattle
  4. Minneapolis
  5. Washington DC
  6. New York
  7. Los Angeles
  8. Denver
  9. Austin
  10. Portland

In the face of our climate crisis, most of these cities have ambitious plans to become carbon neutral with zero net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These cities plan to generate all electricity with renewables. At the same time that wind and solar power are being massively deployed, buildings and people are becoming more efficient, requiring less electricity.

Getting to 100 percent renewable electricity, however, does not cut even half of a city’s GHG emissions. Buildings typically use natural gas (methane) for heating, cooling, hot water, and cooking. Vehicles spew emissions by burning gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. To take advantage of renewable electricity, buildings and transportation will need to be all electric and efficient.

It is a pleasure to write about the top four cities since I formerly lived near Boston, I now live in San Francisco, I have conducted workshops in Seattle, and my wife was born in Minneapolis.

In these top cities, you find partnerships and coordination shared by city government, service providers, technology leaders, financial innovators, non-profits, and community organizations.

Boston

Boston outranked all other U.S. cities in the Scorecard. Boston plans to be carbon neutral by 2050. Boston buildings are far more energy efficient than most. The Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code mandates efficiency. Buildings greater than 50,000 square feet must report annually on energy use and efficiency progress, such as achieving LEED or Energy Star certification.

The city partners with Mass Save to fund training for builders, contractors, and inspectors.

Stroll the historic streets of Boston and you will see over 800 green buildings with LEED certification. All use efficient lighting, insulation, heating and cooling. Many are mixed use near transit. Some are unique, such as the Boston Public Market which showcases local sustainable food.

Since 67 percent of Massachusetts energy is from gas (methane), Boston is challenged to become carbon neutral. Offshore wind will play a major role. Looking at its success in Europe and nearby Rhode Island, Massachusetts has mandated offshore wind development; the 800 MW Vineyard Wind project is underway. The 84 turbines will be 14 miles offshore, not upsetting anyone’s views.

Utilities promote electricity and gas efficiency. Low-income and multifamily programs are promoted to help with low-cost and free LED light bulbs, thermostats, energy audits, and building insulation with financing. Renters, homeowners, and landlords can all apply for help. Boston Seniors Save Program helps lower income seniors replace old systems with efficient heating.

Boston outranks most cities in using electric and hybrid vehicles in its government fleet. To encourage citizens to switch to electric cars, all parking structures must equip five percent of spaces with EV charging, and have an added ten percent wired to be EV ready. The compact city of 48 square miles (of land) makes it easy to get everywhere by walking and using transit.

San Francisco

San Francisco was number two on the Scorecard and number one in transportation. San Francisco (SF) promotes 0-80-100-Roots Climate Action: zero waste by 2020, 80 percent of trips made sustainably by 2030, and 100 percent of electricity from renewables by 2030. Five thousand tech companies have driven growth in the SF Bay area, yet SF emissions are 30 percent less than in 1990.

Urban density helps. In equal square miles of land to Boston, most places in SF can be reached by walking, buses, and commuter rail. San Francisco is home to Uber, Lyft, and a variety of last-mile solution providers offering shuttles, ebike, and scooter sharing. SF fast-track approves mixed-use buildings near transit by establishing Priority Development Areas (PDA) where fewer development approvals are needed. Endless reviews, which stretched to eight years added cost and uncertainty to developments, are now streamlined to less than two years. To help address its crisis of expensive housing and homeless, no parking spaces are required. SF is a leading city in transportation mode shifting, rather than only driving.

San Francisco is likely to achieve its goal of 100 percent renewable energy within ten years. It has long promoted solar roofs and energy efficiency. Community choice aggregator (CCA) CleanPowerSF, make it easy for customers to elect electricity generation from 100 percent renewables. Major utility, PG&E, generates 40 percent of electricity from renewables. This September 2019, the SF Board of Supervisors approved breakthrough legislation: by 2022, large commercial buildings must use 100 percent renewables; by 2030, commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet must use 100 percent.

Seattle

Seattle generates virtually all electricity with renewables thanks to its leading utility, carbon-neutral Seattle City Light, and thanks to having 8,000 solar buildings. Like many great cities, Seattle is leading, not waiting for the federal government, to deal with climate change. This August, the Seattle mayor and city council resolved to reduce GHG emissions 100 percent by 2030 with a Seattle Green New Deal.

Seattle City Light offers programs for low-income customers such as weatherization, refrigerator replacement, energy efficiency, and heat pump installation. Seattle City Light’s Multifamily Program offers property rebates on lighting, windows, and heating, ventilation and cooling updates (HVAC). In 2017, Seattle also formed the Environmental Justice Committee and encouraged those most impacted to have a voice in environmental planning.

Amazon, Seattle’s largest employer, announced plans to order 100,000 electric delivery trucks, making home delivery far lower in carbon emissions, than individuals driving to stores to pick-up goods. Amazon has committed to meet the Paris Agreement ten years early. It has over 50 solar rooftops, and is a major buyer of wind, solar, and other renewable power globally.

Seattle is home to non-profit the Bullitt Foundation whose president Denis Hayes states, “Tomorrow’s cities will consist of ‘living buildings’ inside vibrant, resilient neighborhoods all connected by super-efficient transportation links. Today’s living buildings, like the Bullitt Center, represent efforts to learn from nature how to exist comfortably and productively in a particular environment, making the least possible demand on resources.” The Bullitt Center helps organizations globally go beyond net zero. Its six-story headquarters building with integrated solar generates 60 percent more energy than it uses.

More about Sustainable Seattle.

Minneapolis

Minneapolis jumped from the seventh to the fourth in the 2019 Scorecard. Minneapolis aspires to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent by 2050. New energy policies for existing buildings were key to Minneapolis jumping ahead of green cities like Washington DC and New York City. Also, energy use must be disclosed anytime a home is sold or apartment rented.

Xcel, the region’s largest utility, is moving away from coal, Minnesota’s largest source of electricity. Thirty percent of electricity now is generated by wind, hydro, and solar. Offshore wind on the Great Lakes has the potential to replace all coal power in Minnesota.

Minneapolis wants to address environmental justice with community-driven programs. An example is the Green Zones Initiative that includes giving voice to impacted communities, collecting data, planning, and funding. Priority issues include equity, displacement, air quality, brownfields and soil contamination, housing, green jobs, food access and greening. Members of the Northern and Southside Green Zones serve on advisory committees to the City Council.

Like all cities, the city needs to leverage its own funds. Using $10.6 million from the Affordable Housing Trust, the city attracted another $188 million in public and private funds to build 764 units of affordable multifamily rental housing.

The Report and Scorecard

It is not surprising that these cities scored at the top, because they excel in energy efficiency, transportation efficiency, and policies that promote efficiency. The report, after all, is sponsored by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. If you use different criteria for sustainability, the ranking order would differ, but the top 10 cities would likely be these. For anyone, the free Clean Cities report, at 282 pages, is a valuable reference. As cities innovate, we can learn from their successes and from policies and actions that did not work.

For this post, I included specifics about renewable energy not in the Clean Cities report. For these cities to reach their carbon neutral aspirations, they need both efficiency and renewables.

Efficiency is a key to shifting to renewables, improving buildings, mobility, and city living. It is easier to power a city that only needs one gigawatt, not ten. As RMI founder Amory Lovins taught us, the easiest watt to generate is the negawatt.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.

5 Comments

  1. I’m pleased to announce I’ve completed the first design of zero carbon emissions from combustion engines. Carbon capture with the nitrogen and carbon being used as fertiliser.

    Reply
  2. This report is a load of baloney. A) It’s based on pie in the sky plans, not actualities. B) Boston has horrible traffic congestion, and transportation generates a big bulk of GHG. What electricity Mass doesn’t generate from natural gas comes mostly from nuclear. C) SF is similarly congested. This is not true: “SF fast-track approves mixed-use buildings near transit by establishing Priority Development Areas (PDA) where fewer development approvals are needed.” In fact, legislation to accomplish this was voted down. This also is not true: “It has long promoted solar roofs…” In fact, it is hard to get a permit to put solar panels on roofs in SF; everything in SF has to go through a long and expensive permitting and variance process. I live there and can tell you that there are very very few solar panels in SF. As far as “elect electricity generation from 100 percent renewables” the transmission wires don’t know where the power comes from. D) Re Seattle, this also is baloney: “thanks to having 8,000 solar buildings.” The real reason Seattle does well in renewable energy use is because so much of the electric power in the Pacific Northwest is generated by hydro. All in all, this report is disappointing.

    Reply
  3. The article is accurate. You could make a strong argument that these cities need to be making faster progress in more housing, better transit, and getting to carbon neutral. We just experienced Climate Week including Greta Thunberg’s UN speech. There is real anger that we are not moving faster.

    The article includes a link to the 282-page ACEEE report that details their ranking, which includes factors like policies and code to move the cities in the right direction. I think that if you looked at the factors they considered, you would not call it “pie in the sky.”

    Boston reports that 28% of its GHG is from transportation. The majority is from buildings and wastewater treatment where the city scored high in progress and policies. ACEEE does not weight renewable energy use. My article points out that 67% of Boston’s electricity is from natural gas. It sounds like you would definitely not rank Boston #1.

    By law, San Francisco does use Priority Development Areas (PDA) that has enabled it to increase housing permits six-fold. This is California law SB375. California Senator Scott Wiener has proposed other legislation that would have increased housing density near transportation statewide, that unfortunately did not pass. As millions of Californians like me have contracted with Community Choice Agreegators for solar and wind power, California has seen strong growth in renewables. More people contract for renewables and more is generated, even though the transmission lines are just moving electrons. In San Francisco, the CCA approach appeals to more homeowners than putting solar on their roofs; you raise valid points about permitting difficulties. Within the city limits, San Francisco has over 600 solar roofs, including 27 SF City facilities that have solar power, some as large as 5 MW.

    Yes, the state of Washington has abundant hydropower. Shifting to renewable energy is a much bigger challenge for most cities.

    At a time when we are seeing the devastating effects of anthropogenic climate change, yes we need to move faster. You can look at the congestion, hurdles, and emissions in these cities and be angry with them, with ACEEE, and with me. Your anger is understandable. I prefer to look at the progress, and encourage our cities to pursue the policies, funding, and partnerships that will help them reach their carbon neutral aspirations.

    Reply
  4. This is a vote for thoriam fueled reactors. Thoriam is abundant in the earth’s surface and it’s use as reactor fuel has been well-known since the 1950s. Unfortunately (for the U.S. Govt. and military) it doesn’t yield materials for weapons like uranium reactors so was by-passed. Thoriam’s half-life is 300 years vs. 100,000 for uranium and is much less toxic, making it easier to mine, handle and store. Thoriam also has a greater energy capability; one ton of thoriam is equivalent to 35 tons of uranaim and 4 million tons of coal. Finally, in a thoriam reactor, thoriam is both the fuel and the the coolant and no hydrogen is produced, so it is impossible to have a Fukishima-like meltondown and explosion. So, what are we waiting for??

    Reply
  5. Oh…and guess who leading in research on new thorium fueled reactors? Thats right…China.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

How Gen Z Impacts Urban Mobility

How Gen Z Impacts Urban Mobility

New mobility culture calls into question the commute and opens new options for city planning and commute patterns. Our study found almost two-thirds of Gen Z consumers would be willing to accept a longer commute in a self-driving vehicle. While the single driver commuter experience is generally perceived as bad, unhealthy, and stressful, the “we” commute of mobility culture could be a positive and healthy experience similar to today’s train commutes.

MetroLab’s 10 Principles for Government + University Partnerships

MetroLab’s 10 Principles for Government + University Partnerships

Using tools like algorithms and sensors, smart cities increase the quality of life for their residents, by making these communities cleaner, safer and healthier. When done thoughtfully smart cities efforts can also strive to make cities more inclusive and equitable. At the end of the day, it’s all about the people who live in these communities and making their interactions with city and/or county services easier and better.

California as an Example for Managing Urban Water in Drought Periods

California as an Example for Managing Urban Water in Drought Periods

Coordinated approaches are preferred for building urban drought resilience. Over the long term, a “trust but verify” policy can be more effective than the “better safe than sorry” approach of the mandate because the former encourages local suppliers to continue investing in diversified supplies. A good model is the stress-test approach the state adopted toward the end of the drought, which allowed local utilities to drop mandated conservation if they could demonstrate that they had drought-resilient supplies to last three more years.
In the wake of the drought, the state has adopted measures to improve information sharing, including a system for urban suppliers to provide regular updates on their supply situations. To encourage all agencies to prepare for more extreme droughts, urban water management planning documents must now address how suppliers would manage longer droughts.

Share This