interviews
Water and the American West
by Richard Frank
October 25, 2021
This interview with Richard Frank, professor of environmental practice at the UC Davis School of Law and Director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
frank | Can you tell me a little bit about the story of water and how it's tied to the West, and to California in particular?
Richard | A friend of mine who's a Court of Appeals Justice here in California wrote an opinion on a water law dispute and started it with the quote, "the history of California is written on its waters." And I think that the point is true of the entire American West.
Water policy and legal issues are inextricably tied to the development of the Western United States; water is the limiting factor in so many ways to settlement, to economic development, to prosperity, and to the environment and environmental preservation.
Can you talk about the difference between groundwater and surface water– and the policies that regulate each?
There are really two types of water when it comes to human consumption. There's surface water: that is the water that is transmitted by lakes, rivers, and streams. Then there is groundwater, and a substantial amount of water that Americans and the American West rely on is groundwater. That is water that is stored in groundwater aquifers, which are naturally occurring groundwater basins. Both groundwater and surface water are critical to the American West and its economy and its culture.
Traditionally a couple of things are important to note, first of all, water is finite. Second, water gets allocated in the Western United States generally at the state level. There's a limited federal role. Primarily, policy decisions about who gets how much water for what purpose are made state by state.
I think allocation is really interesting in that it's more state-level than federal. How was water and the allocation of water in California designed? Is it a public-private combination? What goes on in terms of the infrastructure of water?
Another very good question. The answer is it depends. Most of our water infrastructure is public in nature.
Again, in the American West, the regulation of water rights is generally done at the state level, but the federal government, historically, has a major water footprint in the American West because it has been federal dollars and federal design and management that really controlled much of the major water infrastructure in the American West — you know, Hoover Dam, and the complex system of dams and reservoirs on the Colorado River in California, with the Central Valley Project that was built and managed by the federal government with Shasta Dam on the upper Sacramento River as the centerpiece of that project. But we also have a California State Water Project, the key facility being the Oroville Dam and reservoir on the Southern River that is managed by state water managers. If we were starting over, that kind of parallel system would make no particular engineering or operational sense.
But, we are captive to our history.
And then you have these massive systems of aqueducts and canals that move water from one place to another throughout the American West. They are particularly responsible for moving water from surface water storage facilities to population centers. In the last 50 to 75 years, these population centers have really expanded dramatically, so you need massive infrastructure to deliver water from those storage facilities, the dams, and reservoirs, which generally are located in remote areas to the population centers. So it takes a lot of time and energy to transport the water, from where it is captured and stored to where it is needed for human use.
California has faced continuous drought – what measures is the state taking now to manage water?
Just to frame the issue a little bit — we have, as I mentioned, a growing population in the American Southwest at a time when the amount of available water is shrinking due to drought and due to the impacts of climate change. We have growing human demand for residential and commercial purposes and at the same time, we have a shrinking water supply. That is a huge looming crisis.
And it is beginning to play out in real-time. You see that playing out in real-time. For example, several different states and Mexico rely on Colorado River flows based on an allocation system that was created in the 1920s, which is overly optimistic about the amount of available water. From the 1920s until now, that water supply has decreased, and decreased, and decreased. Now you have interstate agreements, and in the case of Mexico, international agreements that allocate the finite Colorado river water supplies based on faulty, now obsolete, information. It is a real problem.
What measures do you take now, knowing this information?
If you look at the US Drought Monitor, it is obvious the problem is not limited to the Colorado River. We are in a mega-drought, so cutbacks are being imposed by federal and state water agencies to encourage agricultural, urban, and commercial water users to cut their water use and, and stretch finite supplies as much as possible through conservation efforts.
In California, we have the State Water Resources Control Board, the state water regulator in California, and they have issued curtailment orders. Meaning, they have told water rights holders, many of whom have had those water rights for over a hundred years, that, for the first time, the water that they feel they are entitled to, is not available. Local water districts are also issuing water conservation mandates; the San Francisco water department is doing that, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan water district, is urging urban users to curtail their efforts.
And then agriculture. Agricultural users — farmers and ranchers — have had to get water rights in many cases through the federal government, as the federal government is the operator of these water projects. They have contracts with water users, individual farmers, ranchers, or districts, and they are now issuing curtailment orders. They're saying, we know you contracted for X amount of water for this calendar year, but we are telling you because of the drought shortages we don't have that water to supply. Our reservoirs are low at Lake Shasta or at the Oroville Dam.
When you drive from San Francisco to LA on the five, you see a lot of signage from the agricultural farming community about water. There's apparently some frustration about this. What are the other options for them?
About 80% of all human consumed water goes to agriculture. That is by far the biggest component of water use, as opposed to 20% used for urban and commercial, and industrial purposes.
Over the years, ranchers and farmers, and agricultural water districts assumed that the water would always be there — as we all do.
And the farmers and ranchers have, in hindsight, exacerbated the problem by bringing more and more land into production. You see on those drives between San Francisco and Los Angeles, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, all these orchards are being planted. Orchards are more lucrative crops than row crops — cotton, alfalfa, and rice. But, if you are growing a row crop, you can leave the land fallow in times of drought.
We don't have to plant. If the water stopped there, or if it's too expensive to get, it may make economic sense, but if you have an orchard or a vineyard it's a high value, those are high value crops, you don't have that operational flexibility and they need to be irrigated in wet years and in dry years. Now, you see these orchards, which were only planted a few years ago, are now being uprooted because the farmers realized that they don't have the water necessary to keep those vineyards and orchards alive. For ranchers, the same thing is true with their herds. They don’t have enough water for their livestock.
The water shortage has never been drier than it is right now. Farmers and ranchers are being deprived of water that they traditionally believed was theirs and they're very understandably, very unhappy about it. They see it as a threat to their livelihood and to the livelihood of the folks who work for them. Their anger and frustration are to be expected, but it's nobody's fault.
To say, as some farmers do, that it is mismanagement by state and federal government officials, I think is overly simplistic and misplaced in the face of a mega-drought. Everybody's going to have to sacrifice. Everybody's going to have to be more efficient in how they use water. All sectors are going to need to be more efficient with the water that does exist.
Looking at this percentage breakdown of water use – is it actually important for individual users to change their water habits?
Well, every little bit helps. When you're talking about homeowners, about 70% of urban water use is for outdoor irrigation. So we're talking parks and cemeteries and golf courses and folks' yards. You know, that used to be considered part of that American dream and the California dream — you would have a big lawn in front of your house and behind your house. Truth be told, that has never made much sense in an arid environment. That's where the water savings in urban areas is critical in the way it really involves aesthetics rather than critical human needs, like water for drinking and bathing and sanitation purposes. There is a growing movement away from big lawns, and away from the type of landscaping that you see in the Eastern US — there is no drought in the Eastern United States. As Hurricane Ida and other recent storms have shown, the problem is too much water, or rather than too little in most of the Eastern United States. So it really is a tale of two countries.
We just need to recognize that the American West is an arid region. It has always been an arid region, we can't make the desert bloom with water that doesn't exist. We need to be more efficient in how we allocate those water supplies. And it seems to me in an urban area, the best way to conserve and most effective way is to reduce urban landscaping, which is the major component of urban water use.
You also write about water markets and making them better – for those who don’t know, what is the water market?
Water markets, that is, the voluntary transfer of water between water users, is more robust in some other Western states. Again Arizona and New Mexico come to mind. California somewhat surprisingly is behind the curve. We are in the dark ages compared to other states. Water markets are kind of anecdotal. There is not much of a statewide system. It is done at the local level, through individual transactions without much oversight and without much transparency. And I have concerns about all of those things.
I believe conceptually watermarks are a way to stretch scarce, finite water resources to make water use more efficient. I can, for example, allow farmers or ranchers to sell water to urban uses or commercial usage or factories in times of drought.
Farmers sometimes can make more money by farming water, than they can by farming crops.
There are efficiencies to be gained here.
The problem in my view is really one of transparency. The water markets are not publicly regulated, and some of the people who are engaging in water transactions like it that way, frankly, they want to operate under the radar.
In my opinion, water markets need to be overseen by a public entity rather than private or nonprofit entities. We need oversight and transparency, so that folks like you and myself can follow the markets to see who's selling water to whom, for what purpose, and make sure that those water transfers serve the public interests and not just the private interests.
There have been a number of stories in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Salt Lake City Tribune about efforts in some parts to privatize water transfer. Hedge fund managers are buying and selling water, as a means of profiting. And it strikes me that when you're talking about an essential public resource — and in California, it is embedded in the law that public water is an inherently public resource, that water is owned by the public and it can be used for private purposes, but it is an inherently public resource — the idea of commoditizing water through the private, opaque markets is very troublesome to me. I think it represents a very dangerous trend and one that needs to be corrected and avoided.
Why is California so behind?
There's no good reason for it. It's largely inexplicable that since the state was created on September 9th, 1860, we've been fighting over water. In the 19th century, it was miners versus farmers ranchers. In the 20th century, with the growth of urban communities, the evolution of California into one of the most populous states with 40 million Californians, it has been a struggle between urban and agricultural uses of water.
In the second half of the 20th century, there was a recognition that some component of water had to be left in streams to protect ecosystems, landscape, and wildlife, including the threatened and endangered wildlife. That suggestion has made agricultural users in California angry. You will see those signs that allude to the idea that food and farming are more important than environmental values. I don't happen to believe that's true. I believe both are critically important to our society. But the advocates for the environment have a proverbial seat at the water table. So that's another demand for water allocation that exists.
Do you maintain optimism?
Yes. I think it's human nature to look on the bright side. I try to do that through research scholarships and teaching. There are models for how we can do this better in the United States. Israel and Saudi Arabia and Singapore are far more efficient with their water policies and efforts. Australia went through a severe megadrought. They came out of it a few years ago, but they used that opportunity to dramatically reform their water allocation systems. That's an additional model. I think most people would agree in hindsight that their previous system was antiquated, and not able to meet the challenges of climate change and the growing water shortage in some parts of the world.
Here in the United States, we can learn from those efforts. There are also some ways to expand the water supply. Desalination for one. Again, Singapore and Saudi Arabia have led the world in terms of removing the salt content from ocean water and increasing water supply that way. In Carlsbad, California, north of San Diego, we have the biggest desalination plant in the United States right now, and that is currently satisfying a significant component of the San Diego metropolitan areas’ water needs. It's more expensive than other water supplies, but the technology is getting more refined, so the cost of desalinated water is coming down at a time when other water supplies, due to shortages and the workings of the free market are going up.
At some point, they're going to meet or get closer. Unlike some of my environmental colleagues, I think desalination is an important part of the equation.
In a proposal that came up in the recall election, one of the candidates was talking about how we just need to build a canal from the Mississippi River to California to take care of all our problems. That ignores political problems associated with that effort, as well as the massive infrastructure costs that would be required to build and maintain a major aqueduct for 2000 miles from the Mississippi to California. That's just not going to happen. Some of those pie in the sky thoughts of how we expand the water supply, I think, are unrealistic.
interviews
When Status Quo Decision-Making Stops
by Jamie Bemis
February 26, 2019
This interview, with Jamie Bemis, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
I work for Bright Power. We do energy efficiency and renewable energy consulting. I work specifically in the affordable housing sector. I work with developers of new affordable housing, and managers and owners of existing affordable housing, to find ways to incorporate energy efficiency projects and renewable energy projects. Typically we're talking about solar in New York City. On the side, I organize with a group called Science for the People, which was originally started during the anti-Vietnam war organizing efforts in the late 60s and continued publishing and bringing activists together, both locally and across the country for about twenty years. In the 90s, Science for the People stopped being functional, but we've really brought it back.
As someone who's incredibly passionate about both environmental justice and social justice, and sees climate change as the nexus of all of these issues, I find it to be really meaningful and effective to work on the subjects of climate change and the implications for social justice and environmental justice in our communities. I tend to think of them both from the professional lens through my day to day work, working with local communities to incorporate energy efficiency measures to reduce the utility bills and also greenhouse gas emissions. But then also to organize on the side. It's a nice top down and bottom up way to get at an issue that is really timely.
Do you think energy democracy is intrinsically tied to equity?
I do. Yeah, I do. It's a good question. As I was preparing for this conversation I was thinking about a quote from the journalist Naomi Klein. Do you know Naomi Klein?
Yeah!
She wrote This Changes Everything. One thing she talks about is this idea of sacrifice zones, where our global economy extracts resources somewhere, uses them in a different place, and then dumps the waste associated with that process somewhere else. In today's day and age we're learning more about what we call "cradle to cradle" or "cradle to grave," which is the full life cycle of products and the full life cycle of things like our energy, and our food, where we get our materials, where we get our clothing and so on and so forth. As we start to analyze these processes and realize the implications for sacrifice zones, we're learning that these are not sustainable approaches and we're rethinking them.
Democracy, and energy democracy, is an incredibly compelling component of that in its core to our assessment of how we rethink things. Organic food is something a lot of people are familiar with, and it’s very en vogue to shop local, eat local, eat grass fed beef, which is great. When I think of energy democracy I think of that as the next step.
You asked about equity – I think a core component of energy democracy is local, decentralized control. I live in Brooklyn, I don't actually know where my electricity comes from. I would certainly have a lot more control over it if it was coming from my roof, from solar PV. That's also a better fit for the resiliency needed when the implications of climate change continue to get worse. Here in New York, we're going to have increased storm severity and increased weather extremes.
During Hurricane Sandy, there were communities that went without electricity for quite some time, particularly in the far Rockaways. When you have energy democracy, in the sense of decentralized and micro-grids, many sources of electricity feeding the grid, and many sources of battery backup and power that support that grid, you have a better ability to respond to the types of disasters that may occur with climate change.
I see energy democracy as a way to not only transition to renewable energy, but also to address issues of inclusion, social justice, access to the resources, and some of the social consequences of these questions as well – at the same time.
Does this sort of democracy work? What has the capacity to work in practice?
I absolutely think it does work 100%. I'm not convinced that every attempt at democratically controlled organization is going to work, just like with anything. I think the mechanism is effective. I come from New Hampshire, so I have this close tie to rural, small town communities – which by the way, are struggling to maintain their identity as young people increasingly move to the big cities of this country. We have coastal cities that are magnets for young people, and then you have small town communities all over the country saying, "Okay, who are we now? And who are we going to be?"
In New England, there's a really strong history of mills, particularly in Massachusetts. Also, logging and paper production in New Hampshire. There were small communities where that was the basis of industry 100 years ago. I think in communities like that, for two reasons, energy democracy really resonates.
First, in New Hampshire, we still have town hall meetings and that's how decision making is made on the local level. Where I grew up it's still democratic, one person, one vote, talk it out in town hall and vote. I think that's the best of what democracy is at its core, people to people. We're a really big country and by the nature of that, we are forced to have some representation and delegation of decision making responsibilities. But, at a very local level, in some instances, people still do it the old-school way. In New Hampshire they do that still in many towns.
With energy democracy, it's again about local control. The town my parents live in right now is considering investing in renewable energy, but also in the infrastructure they need to be a vital, twenty-first century town, like high-speed internet and so on. In a very real, very day-to-day process, saying, "How do we bring young people to this community? How do we attract tax-payers, but also workforce?" Sustainable, renewable energy is one way to do that. They're exploring the feasibility of a solar and other technologies. I mentioned in New Hampshire logging used to be a main source of income for the state. Now, they're using sustainable forestry and making electricity out of the wood. It's sustainable biomass to make electricity. It's not perfect, but it's an example of how the forestry practices that used to be serving the paper mills could now actually be producing renewable energy for the state.
Really, the question at the crux of all of it is, "Who controls that resource? Who has power?" I think it should be the communities. The local communities. There's no question it can work, and there's no question that it does, it just means that you need to have conversations about inclusion.
Do you think utility gets incorporated into future models? I think the conversation has to become, "How do we avoid mistakes we've made, that we know marginalize people, that we know don't work?” Especially when we're talking about power structures and equity – there will be large renewable energy companies who wield extreme amounts of power.
I definitely think the large solar power companies are not the answer here and not at all what we are focusing on when we talk about energy democracy. When I talk about energy democracy, I'm talking about small town in New England purchasing its own solar PV panels, even if it has to purchase ten at a time, and cooperatively owning that among citizens of the town.
I think the answer is going to be co-ops, not for-profit corporations. Definitely local owned and democratically governed cooperatives. What companies should be doing is fostering the development of these solar co-ops. In New York, we've recently passed legislation that made it easier for renters who have limited ability to control decisions on their buildings or to buy a solar PV system if you're a renter and don't have a roof. Now, you can buy into a solar co-op and it's virtually credited to your bill. Legislators, policy makers, and even corporations can further the goal of democratically controlled energy resources by furthering or supporting legislation like the one that let renters get involved with their community solar co-ops, and have production virtually credited to their ConEd bill, or whichever local utility they use.
But, the production will absolutely shift towards many, many, many more players instead of the big utility companies. You'll see many more smaller players that are much more tied to the local community.
I agree with you, there certainly will be big solar PV producers out there, but it wasn't really who we're talking about and it doesn't even need to be the main players. I think your point about increasing the resiliency of our community by having more distributed energy is absolutely true. It is inherently a risk-mitigation tactic, as well as just good governance.
To diversify.
Absolutely.
I ask this question a lot, how do you think policy should incentivize transitioning to different energy systems? Especially on a micro level, in cities like New York and Los Angeles, where there are more renters than there are owners – how do you incorporate them into the future?
I'm not an expert on some of the local policies. My role is more in facilitating the development of real world implementation projects. But, I will say, I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to the challenge of the renter community. This is what we call "the split incentive" between renters and landlords. Say there's a building owner and he or she is paying for oil for heating, and it's extremely expensive, so they want to do an oil to gas conversion. That's going to affect the tenants because they're the ones who live there. And, by the way, heat is included in their rent, so they have no incentive to be a cooperative or helpful ally in that transition.
Similarly, the tenants are spending exorbitant amounts on cooling, and they want to replace the windows. The landlord's going, "I'm not paying for that because it's not my problem." So, this is the crux of the challenge that we face in urban communities that are heavily renter-oriented. The one thing I will say is that it takes a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and willing group of people to come together around it.
That may very well soon become the case with the Green New Deal legislation currently in congress. I think we're having a moment right now. The climate change activist community has focused their energy very acutely on the Green New Deal legislation. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I feel like climate change, instead of just being something that keeps us up at night, is actually making folks really excited and empowered. I am so excited to see this, particularly among young people and millennials, and the up and coming generation of activists who are really finding their voice right now. We can see a lot more progress being made around this issue.
The split incentives in renter communities is one challenge among many. The density of our buildings is so high that providing the buildings in New York City with as much energy as it takes to meet our energy demand while there are so many people living in such a small place, is a very, very difficult challenge. But it can be addressed. We just need the political will to do it. Because of the vested interest from fossil fuel corporations, we haven't done that. It's really about making sure that the fossil fuel companies are not wielding as much political power as they have been, and that the new voices are being heard more.
Right now, we're perpetually paying for coal, gas, whatever, because we run out and we need more, whereas solar is expensive to create and install, but then becomes free.
You're right. Absolutely.
That’s really appealing, but it doesn't move people with urgency. To do that the issue becomes political. How do you engage people who aren't passionate? Especially because our lives are more and more connected to electricity. Our cellphones are central to our day to day. Our money, everything is connected to energy.
I'm glad you asked this questions. There's a couple things that I want to tease out. Your point about electrification is spot-on. One thing I think is exciting is that the challenges we face with regard to climate change today are some of those same challenges we faced ten years ago. The circumstances are getting much worse, but a lot of the challenges are the same. How do we reduce our energy consumption? How do we create more renewable energy? What's interesting is that the technology we have at our disposal has changed drastically.
You talk about technology, in Brooklyn, there's a pilot project that was using Bitcoin to trade solar. A peer-to-peer exchange of solar with no middleman. That is totally new and not something we could have done ten years ago.
With regard to electricity, I did a fellowship in Germany last spring on the subject of climate change, urban communities, and local strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. I was struck by how the shift to electrification is actually very concerted here in the US. In Germany, they still have a lot more campus-style systems of campus steam, or campus gas, campus-forced hot water plants, which are very efficient, where a number of buildings are linked on a common system.
Let's say you have an entire neighborhood that maybe share a forced-hot water/heating plant. That's a very efficient way of heating a building when you have a number of systems on a plant like that. Here in the US, we don't have that type of infrastructure. We don't have a history of that type of infrastructure as much. There are sections of New York City that have steam, but most of the city doesn't. So you see, instead, this shift toward electrification.
One thing I like about the electrification trend here in the US is that it's very flexibly. You're right, we do see buildings that have electricity based utilities, but you're flexible with regard to where that electricity comes from. Electricity can be made by wind. It can also be made by solar. I think as we look to the future, you'll see the shift toward electrification continue and the renewable energy resources that we have at our disposal are viable sources of electricity production.
That is actually a great trend that will contribute to our ability to leverage the resources we have at our disposal at a given geography. You can have locally oriented solutions that still make use of the fact that it's all based on electricity.
And how do you engage people who are not passionate in the same way?
There are a lot of climate enthusiasts out there. There are people who care about the environment. I spend very little time thinking about those people because they're already in! We're aligned and we're running in the same direction.
At Bright Power, I work on our sales team and it's my job to tell other people why this is something for them to do that's worthwhile. The good news is, it's easier than ever to make that case.
I have an identical twin sister – my twin is a libertarian who voted for Trump, and is very conservative. New Hampshire, where I'm from, is a purple state. For me, it's about how do I connect with the other side?
I'll give you a concrete example. Buildings over a certain height in New York City are required to have an emergency generator to operate critical systems, like elevators, in cases of lost power. But, if you include cogeneration, it's also called "combined heat and power" and it uses gas, so it's not fossil fuel-free, but it's an alternative. It uses gas and it produces heat and electricity. If you use a cogeneration system, you can often reduce the size of your emergency generator and there's a return on investment because you're reducing your utility bills every month, too, whereas an emergency generator either runs on gas or diesel fuel, you use it once or twice a year maybe, and it's very stinky. It produces a ton of emissions and it's a huge investment versus your cogeneration unit which can run 365 days a year, twenty-four hours a day, producing electricity and heat for your building that reduces your utility cost.
Often when I talk to my clients I just say, "Would you prefer a sunken investment? Or would you prefer a return on investment?" It's easy to make the cost case.
I work with a lot of mission driven non-profits. I can make a case about employment, or pollution surrounding energy efficiency and renewable energy because there's a lot of studies that show energy efficiency and renewable energy are way better for local employment than fossil fuels. It always depends on the audience, but there are so many different ways to talk about it because we understand the issues now better than ever. Everything from a return on investment, a wise financial decision, to the community impacts in terms of local job creation, to quantifying the negative externalities associated with pollution.
These are all bits and pieces of information that we have at our disposal. I typically focus on the financial benefits first because they're compelling. And then I speak to the other issues depending on who I'm talking to.
We all have a cousin or uncle who thinks wildly differently, but they're easy to ignore most of the time. An identical twin makes it a lot closer to home.
Oh my god, it couldn't be more real. I talk to her everyday and yet, we couldn't be on more opposite ends of the political spectrum. It's very grounding because she's truly the voice in my head. I know certain things I say she would not listen to. I try to frame it in different ways sometimes and I challenge myself to speak in ways that are compelling to her, and to her viewpoint. It is very challenging sometimes. Again, especially for the libertarian community where they're really oriented around independence, and small government, and local control, energy democracy actually fits very well with that.
Are you particularly excited about something you're working on right now?
Oh, gosh! I'm excited about so many things. I'll tell you what I'm excited about on the activist-side, and I'll tell you what I'm excited about as a professional.
As an activist, I'm very excited about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal initiative. As someone who organizes alongside scientists, engineers, computer scientists, and others, we're figuring out how we can best leverage our technical knowledge to contribute to what could very well be the most important legislation of many generations. I'm very, very excited to see where that goes, and I'm also excited to be someone who helps facilitate a public conversation around these things.
I think over the next year, we'll be facilitating local forums to do just that across New York. There are folks across the country doing something similar. It's an issue we can all come together around. I'm unbelievably excited about the potential for a Green New Deal, both as someone who works in clean energy, but also as a citizen who wants to see our environment in our communities taken care of.
As a professional, I work in affordable housing, in creating sustainable affordable housing. I'm excited everyday about making the places the most vulnerable members of our society live, a better place. A place where their utility bills are lower. A place that supports a healthy, fulfilling life. Right now, there's a lot of conversation between the neuroscience community and the sustainability community around health, buildings, and green buildings. Many of us are exploring the connection between sustainability, in terms of green building design practices, and health benefits. I think we're at the tipping point. That conversation is going to become really compelling, really quickly.
Earlier you asked, how do you make the case to folks who are not inclined to agree with you on the importance of sustainability? I think health is one of them. I mentioned it briefly in terms of pollution, but I can tell you, I was in a conversation last week about this new building going up in the Bronx in an area with higher levels of pollution than other parts of the city. We can design a heat and cooling system that will filter the particulate before it goes into the building or not. Its a cost question.
I think having a conversation around health is another way to make the case for sustainability measures. I would say, "Well, the system that filters particulate is way more efficient and will use less energy." My public health colleague might say, "It's also better for your health because you're going to have a higher indoor air quality." The fact that we can make that case together is brand new because the research on health and buildings is just now becoming widely available and widely discussed. I see that as a huge touchpoint for this industry and I'm really excited to see where it goes.
It's amazing to talk to people who are deeply into it because you're able to have the conversation in a way that's nuanced.
I guess the only thing I would say is that, for me, the concept of energy democracy also begs the question, "What do we mean when we say democracy?"
That's something I think about because I think today in our country, we take for granted that we live in a democracy. It's something that we assume, but our version of democracy often means delegation of responsibilities and representation by others. When I talk about energy democracy, that's not quite what I mean. I mean local control and shared ownership models. I think that's an important distinction to make because it's not macroscopic, it's within your community. It's the church that you go to, putting up solar panels and having shares. Or, a youth group or PTA deciding that they're going to pool money together and purchase the solar PV system for a school. It's that type of local community oriented action.
I think anyone can do it. I mentioned earlier the town where my parents currently live, exploring solar. But it's just everyday folks saying "This is a good investment," or, "I'm interested in learning more about this." You said you weren't sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing that the technical knowledge is out there. What I do think is that it actually enables democracy at a level that maybe we didn't have previously because we have a lot of information at the tips of our fingers that can enable us to move forward on local projects. I think it's a time of incredible opportunity and I guess that's the only distinction that I wanted to make, is that it's taking things down from the specialized knowledge spheres and putting them in the hands of everyday folks. It doesn't matter if you're a bus driver or if you're someone like me who works in sustainability consulting every single day, energy democracy means that everybody has the power to understand where their energy comes from, make decisions about where it comes from and make decisions that support their communities at it's very heart.
I guess, for me, that's really the most important part about the idea of energy democracy.