interviews
Becoming Prosumers Of Energy
by Ruth Santiago
February 16, 2019
This interview with Ruth Santiago, a lawyer who works with community and environmental groups in southeastern Puerto Rico, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
How do you think of energy democracy?
Energy democracy stems from the effects of energy coloniality and how certain jurisdictions have been used for extractive and exploitative practices and have become sacrifice zones for operations that create great wealth for other people over time.
How did you get involved in this work?
I got involved because of proximity. We have this saying in one of the groups I work with that says, "The environment unites us and identifies us." Not just the subtropical dry forest, and mangrove forest, and salt flats, and offshore cays, but also things that impact that environment – they also unite us and define us.
I was raised to a certain extent in Salinas. I spent my formative, adolescent years here. I was born in the South Bronx, my parents were part of the return migration to Southeastern Puerto Rico. They were from a municipality that's a little bit further east of Salinas, but very similar in many ways in terms of being part of the sugarcane monoculture, a high concentration of Afro descendent people, and real situations of struggle and survival. They decided to return to Puerto Rico when I was 12. I was raised along this Southeastern coast on and off from that time. One of my memories of growing up here as an adolescent was the Aguirre Power Complex being built in the early 70s. It was something that came to us. We did not come to the nuisances. Nuisance was built where we are.
The government of Puerto Rico tried Operation Bootstrap. Rapid industrialization and a very intense industrialization program that affected Guayama with industry coming in. First, light manufacturing and then the petrochemical industry. Then, pharmaceuticals, which are still very present. These energy plants were meant to serve more than the communities. These big, central station, fossil fuel plants were meant to provide energy to those heavy industrial uses that consumed and required a lot of energy.
What we saw in two places in Southern Puerto Rico, one here in Salinas and the other over in Guayanilla in Southwestern Puerto Rico, was how the power plants were set up very close to the petrochemical industries. We had the Phillips Puerto Rico Core Petro Refinery. Aguirre Power Complex was basically in service to that and other heavy industrial users. People were told they would get jobs. They said, "Oh, we're going to generate upwards of 2,000 jobs." People were a little skeptical and concerned about how that would impact the possibility of safe fishing at least. They were told it would not be impacted. Ultimately, what happened was Phillips did not generate anything close to 2,000 jobs and folded after a few decades, but did leave a terrible legacy of contamination to air, water, and land. People lost a lot of their ability to do the subsistence fishing even.
Aguirre Power Complex came in stages. They had two power plants in one. In 1972, they set up what was known as the Thermoelectric Plant. Again, people were told they’d get jobs from this. Again, the plant does not hire many local residents. It’s estimated there was 20-25% local hires, and the rest came from all over, anywhere but Salinas and Guayama. The same thing with the Combined Cycle units, because as I said, it's two plants in one.
At the dawn of the 20th century Puerto Rico got its first coal-burning power plant and the only coal-burning power plant that was established by AES. They're a Delaware corporation with their headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, but they do business all over the world. In November 2002, they started a brand-new, so called clean-coal power plant. It's been disastrous. Again, people were told, this is going to be beneficial in terms of stimulating the local economy and bringing down the electric rates. None of that happened. What has happened is that people are getting more and more exposed to pollutants and heavy metals and public health is being impacted.
Your work seems two-fold. One is dedicated to producing energy that is actually clean and that will not leave a legacy of toxicity. The other is in trying to invert the power structure of how that energy is produced and sold. Correct?
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Can you talk about your work in both areas and how they come together?
We have done a lot of resistance work, and a lot of work to promote community alternatives on energy and sustainability issues. There's a long history of activism here. I became more active in energy issues around 2003. We started participating in the monitoring of the Aguirre Power Complex and how it impacts public health, air quality, and water. Both the sea water and the potable water. The only source of potable water here is the South Coast Aquifer. That was monitoring.
We started participating in different administrative proceedings with a group called Comite Dialogo Ambiental, the Environmental Dialogue Committee. Then we participated in proceedings against PREPA, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, but also the AES Corporation.
I've done both administrative proceedings and litigation in courts related to different impacts from those plants, and most recently a company called Excelerate Energy out of Texas was proposing to build what they call an offshore gas port and a marine natural gas pipeline, that we just defeated. It would have been running right through the middle of Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and impacted corals and seagrass beds and offshore cays and all kinds of things, and the ability of people to do subsistence fishing and ecotourism and otherwise just use and be in the environment.
We've done a huge amount of work with respect to the coal combustion residuals or coal ash waste related to the AES Power Plant. The coal ash waste is a concentration of heavy metals, toxic heavy metals that were being spread all over, and is now being accumulated at the AES Power Plant site in Guayama, Puerto Rico.
That summarizes the energy resistance work that we've done. In terms of going beyond resistance and seeking to build the solutions and the alternatives, we've done a lot of environmental education, both with Comite Dialogo Ambiental Inc. and another group, an umbrella organization called, Eco Development Initiative.
Prior to the hurricane in conjunction with IDEBAJO and a community board called Junta Comunitaria del Poblado Coqui, in Salinas, we helped start what is known as the Coqui Solar project. It's a community solar initiative. It was started with lots of workshops and consultation and collaboration with professors, like Efrain O’Neill from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, which is the technical campus here.
It was, for years, before the hurricane, quite a struggle to get people to understand, to want to move towards solar energy, especially rooftop solar communities. It was going very slow. We were certainly doing the education work and the policy work, but not getting very far on the ground in terms of actual implementation of the first steps, the pilot project for the solar community. But right after the hurricane when it became clear to, I think, everyone in Puerto Rico and probably anyone familiar with Puerto Rico that the current electric grid does not work for the people of Puerto Rico. People have been much more receptive to the Coqui Solar project and initiatives of solar communities and other alternatives to central station, fossil fuel generation.
Can you tell me how a solar community works?
That's something that's being developed right now. The way people in Coqui Solar envision it is people who have the appropriate rooftops, usually cement, which is not the case for everyone, are able to come together to think about and work on generating energy using PV systems on their rooftops. It's certainly much more than just everyone in the community having PV equipment. This is beyond just a technological solution. It's about the social agreements necessary to make that energy and that technology serve community needs in the most efficient way.
Are you seeing a lot of progress in new ways of approaching energy? From the community, but also from a municipal government level?
That's really hard to answer. Certainly with the mind set and attitudes. There's much more receptiveness to the things that we've been talking about for years about solar communities. That has definitely changed and there's a lot more interest and it's a very dynamic situation with respect to energy. After the hurricane, honestly, people realized we're basically on our own here and the government, local, federal, municipal, comes to help us. We have to figure out these solutions.
We're seeing a lot more on the formal scale. A group called ACONER, the Association of Renewable Energy Consultants and Contractors, say they're doing five to six times the number of installations they were prior to the hurricane.
Things have definitely changed. We don't know exactly how much.
There is what can be called, lip service. A lot of lip service about renewable energy which is dangerous, especially with the government of Puerto Rico. They're saying they're adopting the 100% renewable energy goal for 2050, and I think 50% by 2040, but their actions are promoting lots of natural and fracked gas. It's a tricky situation in that sense because you hear everyone saying we adopt renewable energy, but not only are they putting the money elsewhere, they're also talking about a kind of renewable energy that's not community-based,.
What we're seeing is that the government is being pushed by every energy company you can imagine. It seems everyone has an interest in doing some kind of project here, including at utility scale. That it is not the same as the kind of alternatives we're talking about in terms of solar communities.
Why is this an urgent issue for you right now?
We saw here in Puerto Rico, that it's a matter of life or death. People need to take this into their own hands, energy by and for the people. Become more than just passive consumers but actual producers of energy and control their means of production.
We knew before the hurricanes, and we experienced it afterwards. This huge and deadly hurricane was compounded by this terrible electric infrastructure system. It's not serving the people of Puerto Rico in a real way. Maybe that was the best we could do at some point, but that's no longer the situation here and we an opportunity to do things differently. To do better. Much better.
interviews
An Interview with Jeffrey Shumaker
by Max Moinian
May 31, 2018
Who are you and where are we?
My name is Jeffrey Shumaker and we are in Bryant Park by my office.
What’s your favorite privately-owned public (POP) space in Manhattan?
One of my favorites is Grace Plaza. It was recently renovated with an Amanda Burden touch: many types of seating, movable and fixed, and lots of planting. POPS can be controversial, viewed as privatizing public space. Unfortunately there are many POP’s I don’t like, built under the original rules which had virtually no design requirements whatsoever. These spaces need to serve the public, but we need somebody to own them, otherwise no one will take care of them. They’re often lost in limbo.
You mentioned Amanda Burden. What were her main goals that you aligned with during your time at the DCP?
I think the main thing she brought to the Department of City Planning and to the city was a pedestrian and human perspective. Even in the work we presented to her. They were otherwise generic diagrams about rezoning or changing a neighborhood. No surprise the community wouldn't understand what you were talking about. A lot of credit goes to Amanda and the Urban Design office in bringing the work down to the human, through sketching and clearly communicating intent on proposed changes. Not just from the air, from a helicopter view, but from the ground. That’s the vantage point that people live and experience the city from.
The intention is to make legible drawings. But does the act of drawing perspectives rather than plans change the design?
Absolutely. It definitely changes the design. It forces you to get into the qualities of things that only you as a person can really appreciate. When you draw from the air you’re focusing more on the roofs of buildings, mechanical, and other things. From the ground you start looking at use, transparency, materiality, street trees, the design of the sidewalk. All the things you wouldn’t see from above.
During your master’s at MIT, what was the urban crisis everyone was talking about?
That’s a good question. Compared to what’s happening in the world now, it was a relatively happy time. I worked with Dennis Frenchman on projects in China. I think the crisis was the rapid development of cities, and not necessarily in the best way.
What are some of your favorite planner jargons?
Resilience, sustainability, livability, equity. Not to say that they’re not important. With PlaNYC, the whole city was viewed through these lens and it was groundbreaking when it was first released in 2007. What I am saying is that
We should not be exclusive. You want people to understand the process so that they can advocate for better planning and design in their own communities.
Public realm is a good one. When you speak to communities often times they dont even understand what you’re talking about when you use the term “public realm.”
What’s the alternative?
Public life, public space, streets, parks -- call it what it is, what people can identify with.
Can you talk about autonomous vehicles (AV)?
Everything cycles back around. For example, street car designs might be useful for AV: the idea of dedicated zones to move efficiently. We’re looking at older streets to inform future ones. Maybe using different technologies now, but the design is essentially the same.
In this rendering, there’s no difference between the sidewalk and the road. There’s a kid on a scooter in front of a car. When you’re speculatively designing future streets, who is at the table and how is safety discussed?
Those renderings were very aspirational. There’s a big role for urban designers to play in preparing cities for this technology when it’s ready. There’s still a lot of work to do before we get to truly safe streets. And there’s always a risk that the technology may fail. But I think it’s important to be optimistic about what the future could be.
It’s a call to action.
Those renderings are part of a conversation we’ve been having with the City. To remind them that now is the time to lay the groundwork for this technology when it gets here.
Did the vision of a shared street start from another discipline? Is the car company telling you this is the vision?
It was very much internal. Based on my experience at the City and with DOT, but mostly internal. It was our idealized vision of what could be.
All of the major car companies have a research wing looking at the future city, showing nice images of pedestrian-friendly, smart cities. You have to wonder: what are they in it for? Are they sincere in wanting to make cities better for everybody? I think there’s a need for strong government and regulation to counter that.
I doubt you were talking about AV when you were in school. What do you think prepared you for this work?
Trends change, the terms we use change, but the fundamentals are the same. Fascinating to me now that I’m working internationally is that from the ground, cities are very similar. The character, design, and neighborhoods are different, and you celebrate those differences. But having places to sit, good sidewalks, plants, places of interest…that is everywhere.
Nanshan Center, by KPF
LVGEM Baishizhou Master Plan Shenzhen (c) KPF
Elements that every city needs, but is there a model that you can just drop on cities?
That’s a good question, and it’s a tough one. Good urban design principles may be basic to you and me, but sometimes it’s important to state the obvious.
What are the principles that carry over form public to private practice?
Certainly in this country, cities are fighting for every last dollar, and need to be smart about leveraging private development for the benefit of the public. New York has become an expert at this, for public space, subway improvements or waterfront access, there are many ways...
At the City, you can’t realize anything without the private sector. We depend on them for affordable housing, parks... But when you’re working for the City you’re a public servant. You are ultimately working for the public. In the private sector, you work for clients and you can only push things so far. But, no matter where you work, you are always trying to find a balance between doing what’s best for the private property owner and what is best for the city and the public.
Some people may think that government work is actually more restricted.
In a way, yes. There are many layers to it. A lot of the work we did was never shown publicly, it was really meant to keep the conversation going for us. Sometimes the City is your client, and that could be the best of both worlds. The smarter developers realize that generally what’s good for the city is good for the bottom line.
Planners have been repairing past mistakes. But now there’s a big shift into thinking about the future … I don't know if that existed as much before?
I haven't really thought of that. A lot of the work I was doing was essentially how do we bring a sense of urbanity back into places. Infilling surface parking, mixing uses… Now, given the challenges of climate change, technology, cities are just trying to keep up, let alone get ahead. It forces everybody to think differently, in more immediate and longer terms about where cities are going.
Is it cyclical? Or do we keep refining big waves?
Maybe the waves are getting smaller and faster. All the disruptive technologies are happening at a pace that cites can't keep up with. At least with the kind of zoning we have in New York, which is frankly old-fashioned.
Do you think there are too many rules?
Yes I do. The physical zoning resolution just keeps getting thicker and thicker. Its three very large volumes. We don't tend to take out, we just keep adding to it.
Was there a point where you shifted into thinking more about the future?
City agencies aren't necessarily known for being the most proactive or progressive, but the Bloomberg administration was different. The now famous Bloomberg pilot project: we don't have to change the rules to try it, and if it works, then we change the rules. A good example of this is micro-unit housing. We removed the minimum unit size requirement and held a design competition. Some very creative designs showed how outdated the rule was. Carmel Place was built and is very successful, and we ultimately changed the rule citywide.
What is going on in New York City right now?
I think the affordability crisis gives a sense of urgency that is understandable and warranted. There is a need to create lots of affordable housing fast. The rush is too fast for many neighborhoods. As much as everybody wants affordable housing, there is pushback. Anytime you talk about neighborhood change people get very defensive. Particularly when it’s their neighborhood. In theory everybody wants affordable housing and nobody wants to shut the door on newcomers.
But we’re at a tipping point: so many people want to be here, which shoots up prices. Even in East New York, the first neighborhood under the de Blasio administration to be rezoned. Investment was brought there for the first time in a very long time. And the minute the City announced its plans to rezone, speculators started buying and flipping property. Then you see the values go up, and up, and up. It’s a tough issue. Cities have gotten so expensive and exclusive. If people can’t afford to live here, what kind of city are you left with?
Are you a fan of infill development projects?
Yes. I think it achieves a lot of urban design goals. I think most would agree now that the tower in the park model was just anti-urban. It created campus conditions. You're either in it or you're not. And in talking to NYCHA residents and tenant associations over the years...there is a strong sense of us vs. them, people who live in the development vs. those who live outside. That’s not an urban position.
I understand the defensive nature against an infill proposal and the valid fear of losing one’s home, but the status quo is just not sustainable. Without more Federal money, NYCHA has to figure out how to generate income on its own. I think there's a way to do it that could keep everyone in place, probably even add affordable housing along with market rate units. Create better communities with less space -- better quality, not quantity. So they're not campuses. So they're part of the urban fabric.
Do you think there’s a need for more private planning firms?
Definitely. There are very few firms you could go to for planning and urban design that really get it. That understand and focus on the zone between the city and regional scale and the building scale. I think ultimately more firms and more competition is better for cities.