Lack of Action on Climate Change Threatens the “Texas Miracle”

The Texas Miracle is at risk. With Harvey recovery underway, there has been a lot of discussion on how to prevent this from happening again, or at least reduce the damage by the next big one. There are two distinct discourses happening at this time. One arguing for business as usual and another arguing for significant change from the status quo of development.

What actually happens will likely fall somewhere in the middle. Policy makers will feel some pressure to take action of some sort, however, there will be significant pressure to limit how far the pendulum swings to mitigate future storm risk. Mitigating risk and improving resilience and adaptive capacity is expensive. However, we are also seeing that recovery and restoration are becoming pretty expensive, as well.

The Price Tag for Delaying Climate Action

Check out the chart below to see number of billion dollar storms in Texas since 1980. A good bit of them have happened since 2008. The black line is the average and it is on a steady incline. Right now we are clocking in at 2.5 billion dollar plus events a year. Several of them over a $10 billion price tag. Prior to Harvey the highest cost was over $30 billion in 2008. Harvey looks to more than double this at $75 billion. How many more of these events do we need to justify moving from business as usual?

billion dollar disasters NOAA update
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2017). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

What are Some Options? 

There is not an easy answer. Texas has been victim to a number of different types of natural disasters? Hurricane storm surge, flooding, drought, extreme heat, etc. Investing to mitigate in one event type won’t necessarily help to mitigate risk of other events. For example, building the Ike Dike, a storm surge barrier in front of the Houston Ship Channel, would not have limited any of the damage brought on by the Tax Day Flood, Memorial Day Flood, Harvey or the 2011-2012 drought. All of these billion dollar events happened since Hurricane Ike. Surprisingly though, (or maybe not Texas A&M has a significant amount of clout at the State House), the Ike Dike reached the top of the agenda for the State after Harvey. The Netherlands derived idea has been floundering about for years since Hurricane Ike devastated Bolivar Peninsula and Galveston, but it takes a non-related flooding event for it to get real attention. (To be fair, Ike Dike did get some traction in the State House this last legislative session but died in the spring. )

In any case, the big question is what do we prepare for next? Other than the resurgence of the Ike Dike after Harvey, which would require a special session to get it funded, the most pressing focus is on storm water management and flood mitigation. There is a significant amount of discussion about dealing with this flooding issue, but there is not any real money being made available. It is estimated that Harris County alone needs about $26 billion to upgrade its storm water infrastructure. Without significant changes in the way Harris County does business, they not have that kind of money.  Governor Abbott has refused to take any direct action or open up the rainy day fund,

need for repairs
Harris County Flood Control Map of Post-Harvey Damage

which is the largest in the country at $9.7 billion, to cover any of these costs. FEMA is over burdened and does not have the funds. Further, FEMA’s Director Long has already made it clear that the federal government is getting tired of bailing out communities.

 

This is politics as usual, particularly for Texas. The state expects the communities to fend for themselves or the Fed’s to provide the resources. It is OK for Texas to ask for disaster assistance funding, but other states better think twice.  Speaking of reaching for a handout, Florida did a 75/25 split with FEMA, Florida covering 25% of its recovery costs; Texas negotiated a 90/10 deal.  I am assuming we need the other 15% to enforce Senate Bill 4, the Sanctuary City bill.

Moving Forward

So what is going to move us ahead, away from business as usual? Right now we starve our infrastructure of funding, particularly on maintenance. There is absolutely no political will to raise taxes, even temporarily to just cover recovery costs, much less resilience. Contrary to what many politicians would have you believe, US citizens are willing to pay higher taxes to have better services and infrastructure. 90% of Americans are willing to pay their fair share of taxes if they know where the spending is going. I am not advocating that higher taxes are the best way to go, maybe there are other funding approaches such as public-private partnerships (some debate on the efficacy of these providing a public good) or resilience bonds and green bonds. So finding the appropriate funding resources is also not necessarily a problem. Further, knowing how to make our infrastructure more resilient is also not a problem. There are a growing number of voluntary resilience standards that can be used and plenty of Cities taking action.

The real problem, I would argue, is overall lack of mobilization from the private sector, primarily our oil and gas industry. The funding can be found, the resilience standards are available, the science and engineering capacity is boundless, the ability to innovate and lead is found across the region. Unfortunately, with all of this capacity and opportunity, we have allowed our City and Region to develop in a way that is not sustainable and is highly susceptible to hurricanes, flooding, drought, extreme heat, etc. Our largest economic sector, the oil and gas industry, has largely been silent, to the detriment of itself and the overall community.  The Houston region needs new industry and new talent. We will make our ability to recruit and retain high value and productive industry increasingly more difficult, if the private sector stays silent and does not push for change.  The Texas Miracle is already on life support. Is Houston up to the challenge to keep it alive?

 

[amazon_link asins=’1451683812,0521195632,1524732680′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’750astrodomes-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’6c115b61-a4a7-11e7-8e6c-b5e252ba17c4′]

 

Advertisements

Reducing Climate Vulnerability of Electric Power Grid to Extreme Weather Events

This post originally appeared on the HARC Blog

The primary story line for Hurricane Harvey is the amount of rain that it dropped on

Hurricane-Tropical_Storm_Harvey_in_Houston_-_August_26_2017_(36007370604) (1)
Picture Taken by R. Crap Mariner from Houston, USA

southeast Texas. Some estimates have the total amount at about 27 trillion gallons of water, approximately 86,000 Astrodomes. Much of the region saw significant flooding and recovery will take some time. Fortunately, Hurricane Harvey did not cause significant, long-term power outages. There were a large number, estimates range up to 800,000 customers, but my no means the power outages that were seen during Hurricane Ike, where 2.1 million customers in CenterPoint’s territory alone lost power1. Many of these customers were without power for several weeks. Hurricane Irma looks to put millions of utility of customers in the dark, as well.

Hurricanes and tropical storms are just one of the increasing number of natural disaster events that are threatening our electric power system. Ice storms, tornadoes and wildfires in 2017 have also resulted in significant power outages for the state. To see the national extent of this disaster potential check out the DOE report titled “US Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather.”2

[amazon_link asins=’0316353000′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’750astrodomes-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’82741c0c-a32e-11e7-8302-515bbf5f1787′]

Fortunately, the threat to our electric power system continues to be on many people’s agendas. The National Academies Press has just published a report titled “Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electric System3.” This report considers a multi-pronged threat to our system including cyber, physical and natural disaster threats. I will be in Washington DC this week discussing the natural disaster risk findings of this report with the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Solutions
For all of the risks, there are a variety of technology and data solutions that are actively being deployed that can minimize them.

Deploy Resilient Technologies
First, in light of our current situation, microgrids should be further deployed to reduce risk of hurricanes, tropical storms and flooding. Microgrids are mini-power systems for a building, campus, neighborhood, that typically have a variety of generation resources working together including a combined heat and power system, solar panels, and/or batteries. Microgrids and particularly microgrids with CHP are being considered more often to increase the resilience of critical infrastructure, including hospitals, wastewater and water treatment plants, police and fire stations, data centers, emergency centers, etc. It is estimated that approximately 3.7 GW of microgrid systems will be deployed by 2020.4 Small in comparison to other resources, but a very important resource as we look for systems that are resilient and have demonstrated their efficacy through a wide number of natural disaster events. To be resilient, these systems must be placed above predicted flood levels, have black start capability; must be able to operate independent from the grid, have appropriate switch gear controls and ample carrying capacity. An emerging funding mechanism to pay for these these systems may be resilience bonds. These bonds are to be issued to mitigate risk to critical infrastructure. This bond type has yet to be issued but has received a recent push by the insurance industry because of a desire reduce risk exposure to natural disasters. Technical resources also exist to help deploy CHP and microgrids. This includes DOE’s CHP Deployment program. Under this program, HARC has partnered with the DOE to operate the Southwest CHP Technical Assistance Partnership.

The second risk that is not so apparent now, but was a real problem a few years ago, is extreme drought and heat. Approximately 85% of power generation in the United States requires water for cooling. Due to drought risk, there should be greater emphasis on deploying systems that do not require water to operate5 . Water supply is a problem for states such as Texas that have been known to experience long-term droughts. The 2011 and 2012 Texas droughts resulted in the curtailment of power generation across the state. Besides drought, many western states see significant water risk due to growing demand for water by communities, agriculture and industry. Two generation systems that require no water to operate are PV solar6 and wind7 systems. These systems have been deployed at a growing rate, but will need financial resources and regulatory certainty to scale more quickly. A potential financial solution could be the master limited partnerships. This would put renewables on a more even playing field with fossil fuel assets that already use this funding mechanism. Green bonds are another possible solution that should receive further consideration.

Build to a Certain Standard
No matter what weather event is being prepared for, it is highly recommended that utilities and power system developers begin to design their power generation systems and transmission and distribution infrastructure to meet resilience standards like PEER (Performance Excellence in Electricity Renewal). PEER is a rating process designed to measure and improve sustainable power system performance. PEER is a voluntary program that utilities and power providers can work toward. A PEER rated power system meets strict criteria for reliability and resilience, operational effectiveness and environmental standards.

Improve Decision Making
It is difficult to determine the timing, the location and intensity of extreme weather events. With this level of uncertainty and when financial resources are limited, it is challenging to make the appropriate investment decisions. When decisions are not made, infrastructure is not built and our systems are not prepared. The result is significant damage and loss. However, recently there has been some progress in better understanding future climate patterns. Progress is being made with climate models that are greatly improving our understanding of the likelihood and intensity of future storms. Down-scaled regional climate models, developed by organizations like Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, are helping planners and decision makers to make more informed decisions. As our understanding improves better decisions can be made that will result in more resilient power infrastructure.

Conclusion
Solutions exists and new solutions are coming online to reduce the risk to our electric power systems. I discuss only a couple of options and their role in mitigating the risk of certain natural disaster events. For a resilient power systems, there is not just one or two solutions, there are a number of solutions and combination of solutions that must be deployed. For example, utility scale wind is great for drought scenarios, but may be vulnerable to high wind events, tornadoes and ice storms.
To scale these solutions quickly will require political will and considerable funding. The funding is there, but due to the political environment, it is largely sitting on the sideline. The political will has been a bit slow catching up. Regulations and policies must catch up with the reality that power systems are facing. The way is clear, the political will is less certain.

1http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Outages-dwindling-across-Te…
2https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/20130710-Energy-Sector-Vu…
3https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24836/enhancing-the-resilience-of-the-nation…
4https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/u-s-microgrid-growth-beats-…
5https://750astrodomes.com/2017/07/14/electric-power-sector-you-have-a-wa…
6http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight
7https://energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision
8http://peer.gbci.org/faqHurricane-harvey-nasa

 

 

Reducing Vulnerability of Electric Power Grid to Extreme Weather Events

This post originally appeared on the HARC Blog

The primary story line for Hurricane Harvey is the amount of rain that it dropped on

Hurricane-Tropical_Storm_Harvey_in_Houston_-_August_26_2017_(36007370604) (1)
Picture Taken by R. Crap Mariner from Houston, USA

southeast Texas. Some estimates have the total amount at about 27 trillion gallons of water, approximately 86,000 Astrodomes. Much of the region saw significant flooding and recovery will take some time. Fortunately, Hurricane Harvey did not cause significant, long-term power outages. There were a large number, estimates range up to 800,000 customers, but my no means the power outages that were seen during Hurricane Ike, where 2.1 million customers in CenterPoint’s territory alone lost power1. Many of these customers were without power for several weeks. Hurricane Irma looks to put millions of utility of customers in the dark, as well.

Hurricanes and tropical storms are just one of the increasing number of natural disaster events that are threatening our electric power system. Ice storms, tornadoes and wildfires in 2017 have also resulted in significant power outages for the state. To see the national extent of this disaster potential check out the DOE report titled “US Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather.”2

Fortunately, the threat to our electric power system continues to be on many people’s agendas. The National Academies Press has just published a report titled “Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electric System3.” This report considers a multi-pronged threat to our system including cyber, physical and natural disaster threats. I will be in Washington DC this week discussing the natural disaster risk findings of this report with the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Solutions
For all of the risks, there are a variety of technology and data solutions that are actively being deployed that can minimize them.

Deploy Resilient Technologies
First, in light of our current situation, microgrids should be further deployed to reduce risk of hurricanes, tropical storms and flooding. Microgrids are mini-power systems for a building, campus, neighborhood, that typically have a variety of generation resources working together including a combined heat and power system, solar panels, and/or batteries. Microgrids and particularly microgrids with CHP are being considered more often to increase the resilience of critical infrastructure, including hospitals, wastewater and water treatment plants, police and fire stations, data centers, emergency centers, etc. It is estimated that approximately 3.7 GW of microgrid systems will be deployed by 2020.4 Small in comparison to other resources, but a very important resource as we look for systems that are resilient and have demonstrated their efficacy through a wide number of natural disaster events. To be resilient, these systems must be placed above predicted flood levels, have black start capability; must be able to operate independent from the grid, have appropriate switch gear controls and ample carrying capacity. An emerging funding mechanism to pay for these these systems may be resilience bonds. These bonds are to be issued to mitigate risk to critical infrastructure. This bond type has yet to be issued but has received a recent push by the insurance industry because of a desire reduce risk exposure to natural disasters. Technical resources also exist to help deploy CHP and microgrids. This includes DOE’s CHP Deployment program. Under this program, HARC has partnered with the DOE to operate the Southwest CHP Technical Assistance Partnership.

The second risk that is not so apparent now, but was a real problem a few years ago, is extreme drought and heat. Approximately 85% of power generation in the United States requires water for cooling. Due to drought risk, there should be greater emphasis on deploying systems that do not require water to operate5 . Water supply is a problem for states such as Texas that have been known to experience long-term droughts. The 2011 and 2012 Texas droughts resulted in the curtailment of power generation across the state. Besides drought, many western states see significant water risk due to growing demand for water by communities, agriculture and industry. Two generation systems that require no water to operate are PV solar6 and wind7 systems. These systems have been deployed at a growing rate, but will need financial resources and regulatory certainty to scale more quickly. A potential financial solution could be the master limited partnerships. This would put renewables on a more even playing field with fossil fuel assets that already use this funding mechanism. Green bonds are another possible solution that should receive further consideration.

Build to a Certain Standard
No matter what weather event is being prepared for, it is highly recommended that utilities and power system developers begin to design their power generation systems and transmission and distribution infrastructure to meet resilience standards like PEER (Performance Excellence in Electricity Renewal). PEER is a rating process designed to measure and improve sustainable power system performance. PEER is a voluntary program that utilities and power providers can work toward. A PEER rated power system meets strict criteria for reliability and resilience, operational effectiveness and environmental standards.

Improve Decision Making
It is difficult to determine the timing, the location and intensity of extreme weather events. With this level of uncertainty and when financial resources are limited, it is challenging to make the appropriate investment decisions. When decisions are not made, infrastructure is not built and our systems are not prepared. The result is significant damage and loss. However, recently there has been some progress in better understanding future climate patterns. Progress is being made with climate models that are greatly improving our understanding of the likelihood and intensity of future storms. Down-scaled regional climate models, developed by organizations like Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, are helping planners and decision makers to make more informed decisions. As our understanding improves better decisions can be made that will result in more resilient power infrastructure.

Conclusion
Solutions exists and new solutions are coming online to reduce the risk to our electric power systems. I discuss only a couple of options and their role in mitigating the risk of certain natural disaster events. For a resilient power systems, there is not just one or two solutions, there are a number of solutions and combination of solutions that must be deployed. For example, utility scale wind is great for drought scenarios, but may be vulnerable to high wind events, tornadoes and ice storms.
To scale these solutions quickly will require political will and considerable funding. The funding is there, but due to the political environment, it is largely sitting on the sideline. The political will has been a bit slow catching up. Regulations and policies must catch up with the reality that power systems are facing. The way is clear, the political will is less certain.

1http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Outages-dwindling-across-Te…
2https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/20130710-Energy-Sector-Vu…
3https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24836/enhancing-the-resilience-of-the-nation…
4https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/u-s-microgrid-growth-beats-…
5https://750astrodomes.com/2017/07/14/electric-power-sector-you-have-a-wa…
6http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight
7https://energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision
8http://peer.gbci.org/faqHurricane-harvey-nasa

 

 

Three years, three floods

Over the last three years, the Houston region has experienced three 500 year plus rain events.  Will we see another three storms in the next three years? No one can really say. What we can say is that there will be more large flooding events and they are likely to be

1024px-Support_during_Hurricane_Harvey_(TX)_(50)
Port Arthur, TX – US National Guard

more commonly occurring and more intense. According to the National Climate Assessment, communities that are already vulnerable to weather extremes will be stressed further by even more extreme weather events.

The recent major flooding events and the likelihood of future flooding events, does not look good for Houston’s economic viability. People are watching what the City and region will do to start mitigating the impact of these flooding events.

Could Houston or any other City for that matter, have prevented flooding from 51 inches of rain or rain events with a 95% Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)? No, they couldn’t.

The 95% PMP was mentioned at a recent event at Baker Institute where Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, discussed the rain total amount from Tropical Storm Harvey in Houston. Check out what 95% PMP means, it is mind blowing  to think of that amount of rain falling at one time.

It is not helpful, however, when we have project developers and construction companies, many of them who helped get us into this mess, saying that everything is fine and we don’t need to do anything different. We don’t want to ruin the Texas Miracle with California land-use regulations and other heavy handed government regulation.

Harvey dog
Hurricane Harvey Dog – DOD

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning and belief is not correct, helpful or productive. Things aren’t fine with business as usual. The Texas Miracle, in Houston is under siege, Low cost of doing business and low cost of living does not last if there is regular disruptions to business and our community. Ongoing and regular recovery has a cost and it will be felt across the entire economy, not just in higher taxes, or loss of productivity but a decreasing desire by new companies to locate their business here. Houston is already under a double climate risk. Double in that we are facing increasing intensity of storms and that we have an economic threat as more companies, cities and nations make pledges to be carbon free. We need new industry and companies moving to Houston to diversify the economy. Still 70% of the Houston economy is tied to the oil and gas sector.

I am by no means arguing for heavy handed regulations or the mandating of requirements for land development and stormwater management. These are fightin’ words in Texas and will just end up getting everyone in an uproar. What I am suggesting is that we start looking at development and deployment of voluntary resilience standards; described in a previous post.  These standards are demonstrated techniques that will improve the ability of our storm water management systems, both grey and green infrastructure, to limit the impact of major rain events. By simply building capacity in the market through education and demonstration projects these ideas can be introduced into the market, tested by the market and the ones that make the most sense will get implemented.

Former Houston Mayor Bill White set a great model of how to introduce potentially controversial ideas in the Houston market through the 2004 Green Building Resolution. This resolution mandated that all City building be built to LEED certification standards. What this mandate did to some degree was allow local engineering firms, architects and builders to have the incentive to learn how to build to LEED in a cost effective manner so they can win City projects. The outcome was a better educated building and owner community that understood LEED and how to cost effectively meet these standards. Houston is now one of the national leaders for LEED building and Energy Star. We also must keep in mind, that progress in green building was aided by several of the large oil and gas companies began demanding LEED for their buildings and continue to do so.

The point that is important to keep in mind is there are ways to introduce new standards, hurricane harvey DODmethods and tools in the market without heavy handed regulations. There are ways to incrementally move away from business as usual without significantly impacting economic growth and productivity. There is no reason to continue with business as usual. The evidence is becoming increasingly clear that storm events like Harvey are going to be more common. The world is watching, it’s in our best interest to make the right decision to decrease our flooding risk, otherwise it will be made for us.

CHP Keeps Hospital Running During Hurricane Harvey – DOE EERE Post

By Taylor Jackson – DOE – Originally Posted in US Department of Energy’s EERE AMO Blog

Our thoughts and concerns are with all the people affected by natural disasters like the recent hurricanes and storms. With any major storm, energy reliability and security are major concerns for those in the storm’s path. Medical facilities in particular face significant risks if the power goes out – the ability to use energy for heating and cooling is crucial to patient care, protection of long-term medical research projects, and maintaining living and working conditions within hospitals.

While much of Houston, Texas, and the surrounding areas, were faced with uncertainty

TECO Harvey
Courtesy of TECO

as Hurricane Harvey made landfall, the Texas Medical Center – the largest medical center in the world – was able to sustain its air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, sterilization, laundry, and hot water needs throughout the storm thanks to the combined heat and power (CHP) installation operated by Thermal Energy Corp (TECO). CHP is a way to generate on-site electric power and useful thermal energy (heat) from a single fuel source. TECO’s CHP system at the Texas Medical Center uses natural gas to deliver 48 MW of power to provide reliability and security to the 19 million square foot medical campus even in the event of prolonged grid outages.

Even with rising water levels in the Brays Bayou and other areas around the CHP system, the energy infrastructure operated without interruption through the storm. Although the CHP system was designed primarily to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs for the medical center, the events of Hurricane Harvey showed that CHP was also a crucial part of the emergency preparedness plan and helped staff at the Texas Medical Center focus on patient care without fear of losing power. The Texas Medical Center includes medical research and care facilities like the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas Children’s Hospital, and the 16 other institutions.

Finish Blog Here…

From the Inside Looking Out – Impacts and Aftermath of Harvey from Houston

Originally appeared in the American Society of Adaptation Professionals Blog on September 8th, 2017.

When Hurricane Harvey was finished with Houston, it had dumped a record 51 inches of rain, exceeding the average total yearly rainfall by one inch.[1] Overall, approximately 27 trillion gallons of water fell from Harvey after making landfall.[2] To those familiar with the eighth wonder of the world, the Houston Astrodome, Harvey’s rain would fill the Astrodome 86,000 times.

Current estimates for property loss across Texas is valued at $150 billion to $180 billion, HH Rescueabout 10 percent of the total GDP of Texas.[3] This number does not take into account loss of economic activity and productivity, displacement of families, or injury and illnesses directly associated with the storm and its aftermath.

There is considerable discussion about what could have been done to prevent such a catastrophe. It is easy to look back after the storm and second guess previous decisions that led to the current region’s footprint. We have been asked whether any City could have prevented the flooding. I would suggest not. Cities don’t build to 40,000 year flood events[4] or storms large enough to place the entire City of New Orleans under 128 feet of water.[5]

That being said, the Houston metropolitan area did heighten its flood risk. The 9,000 square mile region has paved over large portions of coastal prairie and swampland with impermeable surfaces and allows development along the bayous and reservoirs without flood mitigation standards. The Houston region been able to develop in this manner because 500 plus year storms have been infrequent and due to local, state and federal resources, recovery has been relatively quick. However, we have now seen three 500 plus year storms in the last three years and the strain of providing loss recovery from FEMA, the insurance industry and state are starting to show. A shift from business as usual will require a change in mentality from loss recovery to storm risk mitigation, and by all indications from FEMA Director Long, communities should make this shift sooner rather than later.

Solutions

There is a lengthy list of items the Houston region could have done to limit damage. For example, limiting development on the reservoirs, increasing building foundation heights, low impact development, on-site storm water detention and placing on-site generation above ground level. In recent years some of these standards have been put in place for new construction. However, a substantial amount of funding must be identified, as well as infrastructure design standards updated, to rebuild this infrastructure to mitigate storm risk. Fortunately, communities can begin to look into the growing number of resilient design standards, such as ASCE’s Envision and look to resilience bonds to fund this work.

Rebuilding is already underway in Houston. As Mayor Turner stated, “we are a can-do City” and “we are not going to engage in a pity party.” As the City begins these efforts, it cannot ignore the coming storm risk due to climate change, nor can any surrounding communities. This rebuilding effort should not be done in silos. Development in one community impacts the viability and livability of other communities. Currently, there are a patchwork of jurisdictions with varying building standards and infrastructure requirements. As communities look to rebuild, it is imperative that they begin to coordinate with their neighbors to implement strategies that can enhance the adaptability and resilience of all communities.  Regional collaborative models have been developed across the country to improve adaptive capacity and resilience of communities. These collaboratives are not mandates or regulations. We all know that regulation and mandates are fighting words in Texas. Rather, these are frameworks and strategies that can identify cost effective, market-driven solutions. There are a variety of local, state and national resources that have experience developing these strategies. It is in the region’s best interest to begin to reach out to these organizations to rebuild a more resilient community.