Week 3: Government and Action and UC

The University of Cincinnati has a variety of environmental initiatives, many of which are described
at http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/sustainability/campus_initiatives.html. In class we have talked/are
talking about the three general types of environmental policy instruments. Describe one UC
environmental program that uses government regulation as its primary instrument, one that uses
market-based approaches, and one that uses law as its primary instrument. In this write up,
“government” regulation can encompass policy made by the university. Similarly, university policy
can be considered “law.” If you cannot find a UC environmental program that fits one of the
instrument types, you may instead select a policy measure pursued by Cincinnati’s city government.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with specific reference to the
UC/Cincinnati programs you are describing. For example, writing that government-based
approaches may not be cost effective is insufficient. If you are discussing UC’s new Trayless Dining
policy, you should discuss whether or not this regulatory approach appears to be cost-effective for
the university. Cite class readings about environmental policy instrument choice and other sources as
necessary. Your narrative should be 6–9 paragraphs.


One of the University of Cincinnati's best qualities lie in its student body.  Our student body is informed.  Our student body is passionate.  Our student body is active.  When it comes to environmentalism and green initiative, students at the University of Cincinnati cut no corners in bringing our concerns and initiatives to the ears of the administration.

This topic is a perfect opportunity to talk about a group that I am a part of that saw a problem, took an initiative, and arguably influenced school policy.  I am a member of LEAP which stands for Leaders for Environmental Awareness and Protection.  Back in the spring of 2012, LEAP supported a group called UC Beyond Coal in an effort to not only raise awareness about the carbon footprint that UC was creating, but also the potential that our campus had to create a bigger, more positive effect on the environment around us by reducing that carbon footprint.

The University of Cincinnati burns coal.  Many people would assume this to be common sense - and it is - but at the same time, there were hundreds of students and faculty that did not know this.  The Central Utility Plant, located on 3000 Glendora Avenue, is home to "two Solar Titan combustion turbines, a Dresser-Rand steam turbine, five York chillers, two Trane chillers, two ERI heat recovery steam generators and two Nebraska boilers" (UC Facilities Page).  This plant provides power to not only the main campus, but also to six nearby hospitals.  The University also runs a second power plant on the East Campus.  This smaller power plant houses two boilers and two coal burners which were used for the sole purpose of providing power to the campus.

Now in 2012, UC invested a rather large sum of money, a few million dollars to be more precise, in converting their East Campus coal burners to run on as they described, 80% renewable materials (wood chips) and 20% coal.  This sounds great, but we all soon discovered, the plant wasn't exactly operating at the levels that it was saying it was

At this point members of LEAP, many of whom were already directly involved with UC Beyond Coal, joined the group in a public protest and began gathering signatures, about 3000 of them, and we dropped them off at the then president of UC Greg Williams' office.  Our goal was for the University to close both of its coal plants and to instead opt for a more cleaner initiative.

Now what does this story have to do with government intervention and regulation?  During this time, the University had another organization to worry about in regards to its carbon footprint:  The EPA.  According to new laws and EPA regulations, the University of Cincinnati was required to cut its carbon footprint as well as fossil fuel emissions by 2015, when these new provisions were to go into effect.  The new rules themselves came in the form of the EPA MACT act, the Maximum Achievable Control Technology act.  In order to comply with these regulations the University, only a few short weeks before the Beyond Coal movement had marched into President Williams' office, had announced that it would in fact shut down the first of the two coal burners by 2015.  Riding on the wave of this good news, UC Beyond Coal's demands to Williams was for the University to make a pledge to close down the second boiler by no later than 2019.

In this scenario, the EPA introduced new regulations that forced the University to reconsider and revise its carbon footprint and usage of coal.  The EPA used mandatory measures, enforced by the promise of monetary penalties in the case of non compliance, to help push the University to divest in coal.  The major player here was the government, but there was another player as well working towards the same goal:  the students.  And sometimes, that can help make all the difference.

Here's a link to the Press release made by members of UC Beyond Coal!
http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/uc-beyond-coal-members-enter-office-president-and-make-big-ask

and here are their facebook groups!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/leapUC/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/124588454298465/