Local governments are exploring various carbon reduction strategies to achieve low or even zero carbon urban development that offer a higher quality of living than typical ‘business-as-usual’ development approaches. Municipalities are also concerned with building capacity to withstand changing climate by increasing the physical resilience of urban infrastructures (McDaniels et al. 2007). Redesigning low-carbon city centres with distributed infrastructure networks is gaining increasing interest, as well as improving resource flows that foster community resilience and improved energy, water and waste services (Biggs, Ryan et al. 2007; Ren and Gao 2010). Compared with traditional central energy supply, distributed systems can employ a wide range of technologies for low carbon society construction including: combined heat and power plants (CHP), photovoltaic systems (PV), small wind turbines and other systems using renewable energy sources, (e.g. biogas digesters) (Ren and Gao, 2010). The distributed water system approach is called ‘Water Sensitive Urban Design’ and uses the full water cycle, from rain and local water sources like groundwater, to recycle grey water and blackwater to ensure water usage is reduced (Newman 2009). These alternative models of power for water supply, wastewater and waste treatment are referred to as ‘green infrastructure’ and the term is typically based around the principles of decentralised infrastructure (PB and CUSP 2010). Centralised production relies on extensive infrastructure to transport energy and water lengthy distances in a linear and isolated manner; this is wasteful because of line losses and power shedding, whereas distributed power and water systems are tailored to match localised demand and resource availability (Newman 2009). Small-scale generation close to load creates significant efficiencies, allowing in the case of distributed energy the recovery of heat, otherwise wasted (CSIRO 2009). The system resembles more closely the circular metabolism approach of natural ecosystems that use outputs of various processes as inputs for others (Jones 2008). Green infrastructure is linked to the concept of sustainability as it typically aims to “reduce resource consumption, cost of supply, reduce cost of treatment and reduce carbon footprint whilst ensuring liveable qualities (PB and CUSP 2010).” In Australia, there is a significant role for distributed green infrastructure services in achieving carbon emission reduction targets. Recent reports suggest cogeneration technology could provide a 20% reduction in electricity demand over a 15-year period (Nous Group 2007). Yet, minimal policy has been put in place to realise this value. Since privatisation, government has been reluctant to intervene in an energy market established for large, centralised utilities (Thompson 2008). However, opportunities provided by new technologies and the pressures of climate change are prompting local authorities to explore alternative governance strategies to deliver energy, water and waste services. The emergence of distributed green infrastructure systems pose a unique set of challenges for its implementation and management and these are generating new modes of multi-level governance at national, regional and local level (Gough et al. 2008). This study examines the emerging shift towards distributed infrastructure systems and the parallel transition that is occurring towards decentralised forms of governance to support climate change strategies such as, low carbon urban development. An examination of various case studies of urban development in this paper, will demonstrate certain trends of governance emerging that have significantly impacted the establishment of distributed power and water services and dramatically reduced carbon emissions

The State of Australian Cities (SOAC) national conferences have been held biennially since 2003 to support interdisciplinary policy-related urban research.
This paper was presented at SOAC 5held in Melbourne from 29 November – 2 December 2011.
SOAC 5 was hosted by the University of Melbourne, RMIT University, Monash University, Swinburne University of Technology and Latrobe University as well as the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Grattan Institute, the Victorian State Government and the City of Melbourne.
Three plenary panels brought researchers from across the country to address ‘big issues’: place-based disadvantage, the design and form of Australian cities, and metropolitan governance. Over 175 papers, in 46 themed sessions, cover topics ranging from planning and governance for environmental sustainability, to housing affordability and adequacy in the context of an aging population. Healthy communities, better public transport, high quality open space, participatory planning, and issues affecting the peri-urban fringe are also strong sub-themes within this conference.
All published papers have been subject to a peer reviewing process.