Policy Option Analysis - Elizabeth Caniano

Question: What actions, if any, should the Director of Public Works of Richmond, Virginia take to implement solar technologies to reduce the frequency of residential waste collection?

Client: The Director of Public Works of Richmond, Virginia, James Jackson.  The Department of Public Works (DPW) collects and disposes solid waste.  It partners with the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) to independently handle residential-based recycling collection and subsidizes those costs.   The CVWMA provides recycling services to 13 local governments.

Background info:

Currently, the City of Richmond has arranged for the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) to provide residential recycling programs.  Bi-weekly curbside recycling extends to residential units with four families or fewer [1].  The monthly service fee for CVWMA recycling is $1.67 [2], paired with a monthly municipal subsidy of $1.90 per household [3]. The city’s CVWMA program includes four drop-off recycling locations, open to all residents [1]. 42.1% of residents live in multi-unit structures and are not provided curbside recycling [4].  For these individuals to recycle, they can access utilize the drop-off site or services that might be arranged by property managers.

DPW, independently of CVWMA, provides weekly residential solid waste collection.  Households pay a monthly-fee of $17.50 for disposal.  Apartment complexes are allowed four municipally-issued, 96-gallon “Supercans”, and are charged $17.50/month per month per can. These fees are included in water utility bills [5].

In 20008, city residents sent 88,004 tons to landfills and recycled 6,903 tons [2]. At 7,3%, this diversion rate lagged behind the greater Richmond area's total 52.8% recycling rate, and the state rate of 38.5 % [6].

Policy Options: Criteria analysis

Option 1. Status quo (as described above). 

This policy encourages eligible households to keep waste below 96 gallons per week and limits pickup to once per week per household. The recycling contractor, CVWMA, likely gained customers from the recycling subsidy. Other “winners” are households that reduced their Supercan usage through unlimited recycling, now paying less for weekly pickup. Given prior year budget approval, this is a fiscally viable that should not meet strong political resistance.

This policy does not offer customers a less-frequent pick-up alternative.  Those producing less overpay for trash collection needs, and the environment does not benefit from reduced pick-ups. DPW cannot affect the pickup behaviors of their commercial waste providers reaching multifamily units (42.1% of population).  The recycling subsidy likely stunts the growth of commercial recycling providers and their investment/purchase of efficient recycling procedures and equipment.

The waste management incentive, however, is misaligned with the sustainability push of the Green Richmond Initiative that cites waste system improvements essential to a healthy urban environment [1].

Option 2: Sidewalk Solar Trash Receptacles: Pilot program to give apartments in urban areas solar-powered trash receptacles.  Solar receptacles would be installed on sidewalks or parking lots. Sides of receptacles to be prepped and sold for advertisements. If program is well received, subsidize solar receptacles for other interested property managers.

Receptacles can reduce trash collections by 80% [2], allowing property managers to reduce pick-ups with commercial providers. DPW will pay $4,000 per receptacle; ad revenues could offset/ exceed these amounts over time. Residents would experience cleaner air and less traffic. Participating property managers could reduce waste management costs. Commercial providers would experience decreased revenues from these properties; yet they would expend less labor and operational effort, so may not necessarily lose profits. The 2011 installation of 44 solar compactors suggests that DPW is knowledgeable of long-term impacts of the receptacles. This option furthers the aforementioned municipal sustainability initiatives.

Reservations surface of manager interest in these receptacles (aesthetic concerns, outreach to and feedback from residents, savings prediction) and sidewalk availability. To strongly decrease waste collection, enough property managers would need to join program. Commercial providers must agree to accept trash from external receptacles and continue tiered service. Heftier bag weight and less mobile receptacles would demand enhanced labor per pickup; for ensure property manager sign-in, overall fees must shrink. For these solar receptacles to significantly curb multifamily trash collection needs, would need considerable buy-in from property managers. The costs of installing receptacles for property-manager oversight, and the unpredictable/unconventional ad revenue from new placement media might charge opposition. 

Option 3: Install street can crushers in urban residential areas for those without curbside DPW recycling access. Provide biweekly pickup.

DPW would cover cost of machines (~$6,500 each) and biweekly pickup. Economy-sized solar aluminum can/plastic bottle crushers can hold and crush up to 2,400 items [3]. Machine novelty might encourage recycling behavior, thus increasing recycling diversion and reducing solid waste produced by apartments. If utilized enough by apartment residents, there would be a a reduced need for commercial trash pickup and environmental costs from unnecessary trash collection. Could sell ad space on building sides to offset costs. Property managers and residents of multifamily buildings will gain service.  Increased business for CVWMA would benefit authority and local economy. The sustainability angle might grab support from some. This option could appeal to pace-setting motivators of politicians, as offering is unprecedented in the area and might raise acclaim for innovative green programming.

Such recycling would only extend to plastics bottles and aluminum cans, would require per-person buy-in, and sufficient surface area for each machine. DPW would need to promote equipment locations and benefits. Property managers might lose pressure or interest to arrange on-property recycling for other recyclables. Potential losers include commercial recycling providers (if property managers drop services after this installation) and those concerned with aesthetics. Costs of program, which is only extended to selected residents, will likely raise concerns.  

(Policy Question)

[1] http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionCleanCity/RichmondRecycles.aspx

[2] http://rvanews.com/features/day-059-the-competition-between-recycling-and-refuse/117036#fnref:3

[3] http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_ff3d8680-6904-11e3-9fba-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm

[4] http://www.richmondgov.com/Sustainability/documents/RVAGreen_ARoadmapToSustainability.pdf

[5] http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/RefuseCollection.aspx

[6] http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Land/RecyclingPrograms/Reports/AnnualReport-RRR2008Final.pdf 

(Policy Options: Criteria Analysis)

[1]http://www.richmondgov.com/Sustainability/documents/RVAGreen_ARoadmapToSustainability.pdf

[2]http://www.wm.com/enterprise/municipalities/community-solutions/solar-powered-trash-compactor.jsp

[3]http://www.shoplet.com/1049-SA-PET-Bottle-Crusher/GHSM1697124/sgdv