We’re going to be surrounded by animals quite often this year, and we couldn’t be more excited. Thanks in part to the generosity of the Peter Kiewit Foundation, we are proud to announce that we are working with the state of Nebraska’s top tourist destination, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo. Over the course of 2012, we will be partnering with the Zoo to create their energy and sustainability master plan, integrating a few of our engagement tools to foster a few sustainable behavior changes, and facilitating the implementation of the new strategies.

It goes without saying that this project will present some unique opportunities. The Zoo sits on a 250+ acre campus, sees well over one million visitors every year, and is the tourist gem of the city of Omaha. And, oh, there are animals there. Many animals of all shapes and sizes. What a treat it’s been already to get to know the Zoo’s leadership team and staff. They are firmly committed to conservation, which makes perfect sense; their conservation-oriented mission is such a great foundation for the work that’s ahead.

We’re extremely pleased to have such a great opportunity to impact so many people…and animals. Now we just need to ensure we avoid the lions and tigers and bears…oh my.

Last month Public Opinion Strategies conducted a phone survey of 400 Omaha residents (registered voters) to learn about city residents’ opinions regarding transportation. Public Opinion Strategies published a memo to summarize its findings. Interestingly, the survey shows that even though there is a strong preference for driving a car among Omaha residents, 72 percent favor “increasing spending to expand and improve public transportation, sidewalks and bike lanes in Omaha.” Even more surprising is that 57 percent favor increasing such spending even if it requires a tax or fee increase.

As Omaha winds down on the transportation master plan process, this survey demonstrates tremendous support for dedicating some percentage of transportation spending to offer more choice, including public transportation and infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lowering the bar to transportation choices will make Omaha a more vibrant and attractive place to live and allow it to remain at the top of so many national rankings of cities’ economic and social vitality.

During these oh-so-cold months in the midwest, I love to begin thinking about the first thing we’re going to plant once the ground thaws. As such, I find myself gravitating towards articles that lean towards food and gardening.

A recent commentary from our friends at GOOD asked the question, “Will urban gardens wilt post-recession?” Oh what an excellent question. Urban gardening is a hot trend these days, especially in cities where vacant lots dot the landscape. They’re revitalizing the landscape of many neighborhoods, providing a place for neighbors to come together, and of course producing locally-grown food that is far healthier and more sustainable than most of what can be found in the local grocery store.

But I can’t help but disagree with the rosy picture that the article’s author paints. Yes, urban gardens have a multitude of benefits, and I firmly believe that they unquestionably belong in our urban fabric. I’m not convinced, however, that the multi-acre urban gardens are providing us what we need, especially in Omaha, to achieve the kind of density that will allow us to live more sustainably.

If urban gardens are to be a major part of the land-use equation, they’re displacing several households that could be living on that land. The big question is what happens around those gardens? If we simply continue to build McMansions surrounded by vast swaths of private turf lawns, we’re just going to perpetuate the problem of decreased density. Walkability goes out the window, as does connectedness with neighbors. When we’re spread out, we drive more, talk with our neighbors less, and generally live a less-satisfying life.

Our work with Metropolitan Community College was, at least in part, focused on ascertaining the viability and long-term trajectory of urban gardens in Omaha. They’re absolutely going gang-busters right now, and one organization after the next is jumping on the bandwagon, thinking about how they can improve community health, create jobs, build more cohesive neighborhoods, and decrease poverty. There’s no reason to think that the trend will not or should not continue. BUT planners need to be sure not to sacrifice increased density. Knowing Omaha’s City Planning Department, I’m sure we’re in good hands.

Electrons are difficult to see, so talking about electricity can sometimes be confusing for people whose everyday job does not involve measuring kilowatts (kilo-whats?) and kilowatt-hours (did you fall asleep just reading that sentence?). But just about everyone uses electricity everyday. If you are a commercial or industrial customer, then it is really important to understand electricity demand.

Understanding that you pay for the electricity you use in a given period of time is pretty straightforward. Understanding demand is a little trickier. Demand charges are based on the fact that electricity generators and transmitters must match electricity production and delivery to the instantaneous demand for electricity. Thus, they need to have the capacity to deliver all of the electricity needed at the point in time when the total demand for electricity is highest (typically in the summer months due to air conditioner use). Utilities must maintain this capacity even at times when demand is not at its highest. The demand charge helps to pay for the infrastructure that isn’t being used all the time so it is available when needed during the peaks. Customers that have a greater contribution to that peak end up paying a higher demand. Typically, only commercial and industrial customers are large enough to individually affect the peak, which is why residential customers do not see demand charges.

Pretend for a minute that you bake pies and I buy and eat only your pies. Your oven can only bake one pie at a time, but you also have to have a pie ready for me whenever I want to eat one. As long as I eat pies at the same or slower rate than you can bake them, you don’t need another oven or any more pie-making equipment (e.g., pans, mixers, or ladles (are ladles used when making pies?)).

Anyway, if I start to eat pies faster than you can make them in your single oven, you will have to invest in a second oven and more pans and equipment because you must have a second pie ready when I finish the first one. I will eat pies faster for a while, but eventually I will slow down again and one oven is all you need to keep up. But now you have a second oven and extra equipment you aren’t using anymore. As your only pie consumer, you could start making me pay more for my pies now. After all, I caused you to need a second oven even though it is just sitting there. I was the reason you had to buy it, so it is reasonable for me to help pay for it.

The electric demand charge is like the extra cost of that second oven, except that electric utilities spread that cost among many customers. Utilities also figure out who is eating the most pies and causing most of the the need for extra ovens. Utilities charge those pie eaters even more than the rest of pie eaters.

Depending on how your company uses electricity, it might save as much energy from demand reduction as it could from energy efficiency improvements (energy efficiency is like eating fewer total pies, regardless of how fast you eat them). Although it is clear that the energy efficiency market has been attracting smart money, and that efficiency improvements can reduce demand, many companies fail to consider how strategic demand reductions can save money.

In Verdis’ own work OPS has made significant progress with energy efficiency improvements (lighting retrofit, building system improvements, behavior change). Thus, Verdis is starting to explore whether and how targeted demand reduction can help OPS save additional dollars. Although the main driver for demand reduction in many organizations is cost savings, there is an environmental benefit as well. The longer we can help keep that usage peak low, the longer we can delay construction of the next big utility plant. And until every next utility plant will be something other than coal- or natural gas-fired, we have an extra incentive to keep demand low.