First there was RCRA, which addressed the need to improve stewardship over our resources. Then came the US Supreme Court’s decision on United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (Case No. 05-1345, released April 30, 2007) upholding the right of local governments to direct the flow of solid waste to publicly owned waste facilities without running afoul of the Commerce Clause. Now comes the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) originally signed into law with the Energy Bill of 2007 and later funded through an appropriation included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), allocating funds for improving local energy efficiency and reliability.
While individually these have little in common, collectively they offer opportunities to jurisdictions looking for ways to divert wastes and unmarketable recyclables currently ending up in landfills, at the same time adding to our energy security, and decreasing the GHG burden of handling and transporting the lion’s share of organic wastes to another destination.
Even where ridiculous impediments in awarding diversion credits exist, a public entity’s ability to direct waste to its facility should overcome the financing “Valley of Death” conversion technologies (CTs) have faced in the past.
Our companion publication, Distributed Energy, is rooted in the belief that while a strong grid system is important to energy reliability, true security requires what only diversity in options can provide. In that sense—and in light of the factors mentioned above—what better option is there than in the conversion of organic wastes to energy at the first point of separation and consolidation?
Who won’t like this idea? I think you can guess the answer without any help from me, but in the light of our current stewardship challenges, their concerns seem likely to become less and less central to our interest, both local and national.
Whether we’re talking about energy or fuel production, the societal, economic, and environmental advantages of shortstopping a large proportion—perhaps as much as 80% of the 70% of landfill-bound wastes—through conversion seem obvious…all the more so for those municipalities facing the prospect of increased hauling distances.
For those who claim that today’s CTs involve capital costs greater than their efficiencies merit, my answer is that their avoided costs—be they in energy offset, transport reduction, or landfill airspace impact—put them well into the black by any measurement standard.
True, this lacks the drama of a perfect storm, but combined with stewardship it’s a far sight better than a williwaw.