Fighting Over 20 feet

Reading about NIMBY complaints to increased building heights in Glaeser’s skyscraper article reminded me of an ongoing dispute in my own neighborhood. Late last year Brooks Running announced it would be moving its corporate headquarters to the corner of Stone Way and 34^th on the boarder of Wallingford and Fremont. The project is a being developed by Skanska and is participating in the City of Seattle’s Living Building Challenge Pilot Program.

Low-impact development, density, 300 new jobs, all sounds pretty good right? Not if you talk to some of my neighbors opposing the project. The major complaint is that Skanska is seeking an exemption to the 45ft height limit in the area. By achieving a 75% reduction in energy use, the project is asking for an additional 20ft to add a 5^th story and make their Proforma pencil out.

What I find ridiculous about this dispute, is that the best argument community members can come up with is that the building’s height will look “out of place”. This is amusing when you look at the section drawing below showing the proposed height of the Skanska project (center) in relation to current and potential 45ft neighbors.  Calling this project out of place is a more than a stretch, especially when looking at the potential height of adjacent buildings.

As a nearby resident I love the idea of this underused corner being developed. To me this development means more patrons for the small local shops in the area, more demands for housing, and could serve as a catalyst for the entire area. Fremont/Wallingford is an ideal location to foster sustainable development that increases density in what is already a walking and transit friendly neighborhood. There will always be community members opposed to any kind of change, but a applaud Mayor McGinn for championing this project, and I hope it moves forward.

Landfill in Mexico to power 35,000 homes

Great use of methane that would otherwise contribute to global warming:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/for-mexico-city-a-repurposed-landfill/?smid=tw-nytimesgreen&seid=auto

Net-Zero: for the Buildings or for the Neighborhoods?

About 2 years ago I toured Miller Hull and was given a presentation on their upcoming project for the Bullit Foundation which was to be the first Living Building Challenge building in Seattle (The Bertschi School now looks to receive that honor). During the presentation I was inspired by the goals for the project but couldn’t help feeling like they were building a spaceship or Biosphere 3. The intent behind the Living Building Challenge resonates with me fully, but in practice it seemed rigid and isolationist. At the time the project was designed with a huge solar comb-over as shown in the image below. This was necessary to achieve net-zero energy onsite, but to me is looked like a grossly inefficient use of a high embodied-energy product, that compromised the daylighting for the building, and moreover stood to be a railing point for green naysayers.

Since my initial exposure to the project the Living Building Challenge has expanded its definition of net-zero to allow the use of adjacent buildings for renewable energy production. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see this expanded to water requirements as well. Living machines and grey water systems are very expensive and would benefit greatly from scale. The Bullit Foundation and the Living Building Challenge have been instrumental in changing regulations around rainwater catchment and grey water treatment, but it would have been nice to see them lay the groundwork for a neighborhood scale water treatment system.

I appreciate the Living Building Challenge as a benchmark for where we need to get to. It drives technology and policy and serves as an educational tool, but as described in the Carbon Efficient City, I think net-zero is often a concept better envisioned at a neighborhoods scale.

Calling the 1% (innovators not fat-cats)

I work in energy efficiency and renewables, and as such I am regularly confronted by customers looking for a silver bullet to improve their environmental impact. Conversations usually begin with questions about window replacements and solar panels, but these are only components of a larger system. I am increasingly intrigued by the power of a systems solution to both or environmental and economic struggles.

An example we like to use to express the potential for a systems approach is to look at the potential energy and money savings for a single family residence. Using 2008 averages, a Seattle household spent $4,700 on energy ~65% of which went towards transportation. Now let’s assume this family is in the market for a new vehicle and is also interested in improving the efficiency and comfort of their home. We can offer this family an energy efficiency retrofit plus a sizable solar electric system for ~$30,000 after rebates. This package of goods can be financed through local credit unions and be cash positive for the homeowner on day one (using amortized savings). We add into the mix a new electric vehicle, and the family is ~$2,500 up each year and has reduced their environmental impact by 10 tons of carbon/yr.

The perks to this family and the environment alone are persuasive, but check out what could happen if just 1% of Seattle City Light’s residential customers (3,600 households) implemented this plan it would:

• Inject $227 million into the local economy
• Create local jobs and careers
• Keep $9 million / year from leaving the local economy
• Stop emission of 36,000 tons of CO2 each year
• Reduce annual demand for gasoline by 1.4 million gallons

Is this a fantasy? Maybe, but we are only talking about a 1% adoption rate, which means we only have to hit the outer most point on the  Rodger’s diffusion of innovation curve to get this sea change moving. I see more early adopters than that at the Ballard Sunday Market.

 

 

Washington Solar: A model for a home-grown economy

There is a sinking feeling of inevitability that creeps into conversions around the questionable supply chains and production of durable goods like the iPhone. Companies discuss their sourcing choices as if they are powerless against the pull of the “free” market and cheap foreign labor.

Washington State’s solar industry offers a unique counter point. While not exactly a free market operation, our local solar industry is an example of how a little piece of isolationist legislation can go a long way towards supporting the local economy.  Washington State Senate Bill 5101 is that little piece of legislation, and here are the two key components:

1. The bill establishes different production incentives for different solar products ranging from $0.15/kWh-$0.54/kWh. The highest production incentive is reserved for made in Washington systems meaning both the modules and the inverter must be made in state.
2. The production incentive can only be paid to the owner of the property.

The effects of these two elements of the bill are dramatic. The media is awash with stories about cheap solar modules coming out of China, and American manufactures that cannot keep up, but with a $0.54/kWh incentive for Washington made products, imported module prices would have to drop 50% or more to match the payback from a made in Washington system.The fact that the incentives must be paid to the property owner is equally if to more important than the fast payback from Washington made systems.  This requirement has insulated Washington from the 800lb gorillas of the solar industry. Without this requirement companies with Power Purchase Agreement business models like SunRun along with their friends at Home Depot would have quickly descended upon Washington pulling  the profit from the production incentive out of the local economy.

Some would argue (and they are probably right) that the lack of power purchase agreements has stunted the growth of large scale solar in Washington, but you don’t have to look any further than the momentum around community solar projects to see yet another way Washington is keeping solar local.

This type of legislative intervention is not applicable to every industry, but it’s a nice reminder that there are alternative models, and we are not tied to a system that will slowly pull all of our manufacturing jobs to China and hand over the profits to multinational corporations.

A Market for Sustainability

Harney, K. (2011, October 30). Factoring energy efficiency into a home’s value. Los Angeles Times . http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/30/business/la-fi-harney-20111030

Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., & Thyar, M. (2011). An Analysis of the Effects of Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems on Home Sales Prices in California. Berkeley : Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory . http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-4476e.pdf

Last week we explored the need for metrics to quantify environmental impact and create a common language when discussing and prioritizing sustainability projects. Building on this concept I explored two recent trends both policy and market driven that are creating an economic case for sustainability.

The True Cost of Homeownership:

The LA Times articled linked above, discusses a new bill recently introduced into the Senate. The SAVE (Sensible Accounting to Value Energy) Act would require estimated utility expenses to be a mandatory factor in underwriting alongside principal, interest, taxes and insurance calculations.

This type of legislation would be a game changer for sustainability in the residential market. Valuation of energy efficiency within the lending process would create a strong market driver for energy efficient homes, and create a market whereby homeowners could better justify investments in energy efficient improvement for their homes. To highlight the potential impact of this bill the article presents the following case:

 “A typical new home that is 30% more energy efficient than a similar-sized average    house will save about $20,000 in utility expenses over the life of a mortgage. Under the Bennet-Isakson bill, appraisers would be required to add those savings to the current market valuation of the house. In this instance, Callahan says, the increase in value would be about $10,000”

Solar Re-Sale Value:

While the argument rages over whether or not renewables will ever achieve grid-parity with traditional energy sources (at least so long as the externalities of burning fossil fuels are kept out of the equation), a new study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab adds a new variable into economics of going solar. In An Analysis of the Effects of Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems on Home Sales Prices in California, researchers present their findings on solar home sales in California from 2001 to 2009. During this time period researchers found that on average, the resale value of solar electric systems was $5/watt, and new home sales that included solar sold for a $2.3-$2.6/watt premium.

The plummeting cost of photovoltaics and ever-changing incentive and financing market for solar will likely keep the resale value of solar in flux, but for the time being, the high upfront cost will likely continue to present a barrier to entry and keep homes with existing solar in high demand.

New Interactive GHG Map

The EPA just released a new interactive map showing green house gas emmisions from some of the country’s largest producers.

2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from large facilities 

It’s worth a look

A Plea for Performance

Miles per gallon (MPG) has become the understood standard for measuring the environmental impact of vehicles. Yet looking at the pie chart at left produced by the US Department of Energy, transportation accounts for slightly less than

Energy by Sector, US Department of Energy

1/3^rd of our national energy consumption. What has been missing from the public discourse on climate change is a performance metric as ubiquitously understood as MPG for the other 2/3^rd of the pie.

In the last decade the built environment has gone through a major upheaval based around Green Building certifications tied to prescriptive specifications for reduced environmental impact. More recently greater public awareness and research of certified green buildings has shown a need for a better yard stick for the measurement of a buildings carbon footprint. In a 2008 study by the New Buildings Institute, LEED projects were shown to trend towards improved energy performance, but building to building showed widely varying actual energy performance.

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3930

To achieve a true paradigm shift in the way we think about the impact of our built environment we need to move towards a truly performance based method of evaluating buildings. Fortunately there are signs of this shift beginning especially in the Pacific Northwest. The Living Building Challenge, a project of the Cascade Green Building Council, takes this concept further than most, calling for net-zero everything onsite. While important for early adopters as a showcase of what is possible, more attainable goals need to be set for the masses to help designers and builders ease into higher levels of performance.
Seattle has recently started two programs that are a great start for this type of stepwise improvement. On the commercial and multifamily side, starting April 1^st 2012 all building owners will be required to participate in a building energy benchmarking and disclosure and reporting program. The project aims to provide building owners and tenants with the knowledge to make informed decisions about lifecycle costs of building maintenance and operation. Single family homes in Seattle have received their own benchmarking program. While not completely performance based, the Energy Performance Score provides a modeled energy use of the home minus the habits of the occupants to produce an apples to apples comparison of the homes performance in relation to Seattle averages and goals for the future. The image below shows and example of a home’s scorecard.

 These programs set the groundwork for performance based improvements, time-of-sale retrofit requirements, and most importantly create a market driver for higher performance based around better public awareness that hopefully pushes Energy Use Intensity (KBtu/ft²) into the mainstream alongside MPG.

Next stop, Industry!