Since the dawn of time (well, OK, since 1979 when Michigan and Princeton Professors Ross and Williams developed the idea of a “house doctor”), energy efficiency enthusiasts have been convinced that retrofitting a residential building to save energy could pay for itself in fuel savings.  It’s been a rocky road since those days, when the prime concern was our dependence on unreliable Mideast oil rather than climate change, and in the energy price valley of 1985 – 2000, it was a lot harder to make the case.

But over the last ten years, subsidized programs all over the country have carried out hundreds, perhaps thousands, of retrofits.  Many were aimed at affordable housing, including the federally funded Weatherization programs, and state efforts like NYSERDA’s Assisted Multifamily Program (AMP, in which I was active) and the current Multifamily Performance Program (MPP). Others focused on coaxing the owners of unsubsidized multifamily buildings, including coops, condos, and market-rate rentals, to upgrade their building systems in the interest of greater efficiency, but always with the carrot of long-term savings. Similar efforts went on in many of the more progressive states.

All these programs were successful in installing efficiency upgrades:  insulate the roofs, add caulking and weather-stripping, switch to fluorescent lights, replace that failing boiler, and add better heating controls.  And because we had used careful analysis and detailed computer models, we were confident the savings were there.  But the fact is, we couldn’t present fuel and electric usage data from any of the early projects to prove that our analysis was accurate. As late as 2008, we had a grand total of 20 buildings from AMP for which we had verified savings, largely of satisfactory magnitude.

Of course this is a problem from a technical perspective – we would like to know we are telling the truth when we claim that savings will be forthcoming.  But there is another, much larger problem:  all the retrofits done under Weatherization or NYSERDA programs are subsidized, one way or another, so the owner could expect a much more substantial return on their own partial investment than they would receive in pure market circumstances. And still it was hard to get them to undertake the projects.  Further, what we need now is a truly massive campaign of energy retrofits, far larger than can ever be subsidized by either NYSERDA or the federal government. And owners rarely have the cash reserves to undertake energy retrofits on their own.  The only way to bring retrofit activities “to scale” is to make them an investment opportunity for lenders, by which I mean banks.

But you know bankers – dour, untrusting, “show me your cash flow” types who want proof that you will have the money to meet your monthly obligations. (We will omit discussion of the unfortunate events of the last few years except to note that now no one will lend any money without ironclad guarantees of credit-worthiness.) If we want bankers to lend money for retrofits based on the use of energy savings to repay the loan, we need tools to convince them that the savings will be forthcoming.  Until now, those tools were not in evidence.

Today, we stand a chance.  Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation and Living Cities commissioned Steven Winter Associates and HR&A Advisors to undertake a massive study of energy retrofit activities in New York City, and to formulate an underwriting approach based on their findings. The just-released report provides both a powerful case that the savings will be realized in enough instances to justify significant investment activity, and an analytic framework that will make investments even more secure.

On the technical side, they examined 231 buildings for which pre- and post-construction data was available, and developed a strong set of useful conclusions. Just a few examples: expect more substantial and reliable savings from fuel use reduction than from measures aimed at electric usage; the more fuel your building uses, the greater the potential for savings. (Before you say “duh”, this was quantified in way that that will be very useful for underwriting, as we will see.) And because buildings are complex systems, they found that while observed savings tracked projected savings in a statistical sense, there would still be cases where the savings fell short.  How can this risk be minimized, making energy efficiency retrofits an attractive investment for our dour banker?

Here is where the team developed an exceedingly clever analytic approach.  The engineers designing the retrofit will use their models to predict savings.  But from an analysis of the 231 buildings, the team already knew that on average, they could expect savings roughly equal to half of the pre-retrofit fuel use minus a substantial constant. (See the paper for the math!)  The clever approach then is to trust the engineer’s model unless it predicts savings greater than the average found for their data set, adjusted for energy use in the building being modeled. If the model predicts savings greater than the data set average, use the data set average. If the model predicts savings less than the data set average, use the model results. Then go talk to your banker. When this approach was applied to the buildings in the data set, they found that the actual energy savings substantially exceeded these adjusted predictions, a situation that should leave underwriters satisfied.

Can this work?  Will we see a dramatic increase in capital available for energy efficiency retrofits? Only time will tell, but we have made a substantial step forward.  All the buildings in New York City over 50,000 square feet will undergo energy audits, as required by Local Law 87 of 2009, and the proposed measures and their estimated savings will be there for all to see. Now, a robust way to justify financing the measures is also available.

The same day last week the City Council helped us all breathe easier with a new law on chemicals in carpets, the Department of Environmental Protection released its new stormwater rule that encourages natural rainwater detention and retention, along with accompanying design guidelines. “Natural” here is not being used like the labels on cleaning products – here we are talking about honest to goodness mother nature. Rather than send rainwater to concrete tanks, sewers, and treatment plants, the new DEP rule encourages onsite reuse and natural infiltration.

It’s hard to overstate how much of a “180” this rule and the Green Infrastructure Plan represents for DEP, at least in terms of the principles involved. Until very recently, the only stormwater approach that mattered to DEP’s water engineers were those that could be measured in tanks and pipes. While we all know rainwater can be absorbed in the ground, directed into a rain barrel, and retained by a green roof, it wasn’t that easy to measure this capture. So it didn’t count at all for DEP. It does now.

The new rule is not a panacea for those who favor green infrastructure but is still a big step forward. The rule drastically reduces the allowable runoff from new construction and major reconstruction (a 90% reduction from previous limits). DEP will consider a range of approaches to reduce runoff including vegetative cover, green roofs, and permeable pavement. It will also consider open-bottomed detention systems that allow infiltration. Owners are required to provide maintenance for these systems so they work as intended. And finally, new developments next to a waterway must send rainwater into the waterway (rather than the sewer system).

Taken together, this rule implements 4 Task Force recommendations:

• SW 2: Reduce Stormwater Runoff From New Developments
• SW 4: Send Rainwater to Waterways
• SW 5: Encourage Innovative Stormwater Practices
• SW 6: Maintain Site-Based Stormwater Detention Systems

Another good day for green codes and a great way to kick off the New Year!

Green codes continue to fly off the City Council’s legislative shelf like bagels on a NYC morning. We can’t even keep track and we helped draft them!

Last Wednesday, the City Council gave New York a New Year’s present by prohibiting the sale, offer for sale, or installation of carpets and carpet cushions that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the Green Label Plus standards from the Carpet & Rug Institute. Implementing the Task Force proposal Health & Toxicity 1: Limit Harmful Emissions From Carpets, we believe this law is another first in the nation for a municipality. While many jurisdictions have standards on paints and coatings, carpets haven’t received the same attention.

But they should. For those who aren’t familiar with VOCs, they are a class of carcinogenic chemicals behind “new car smell” that cause a host of health problems ranging from respiratory ailments to major organ damage. While paints and coatings off-gas VOCs very quickly, it takes longer for carpets to release their VOCs thus increasing the likelihood that end users will be impacted. Interestingly, the vast majority of U.S. carpet manufacturers meet the Green Label Plus standards — the problem is with imported carpets. So, in one package we have a new law that improves the health of New Yorkers and also increases the competitiveness of American carpet manufacturers.

For ongoing updates on the status of the GCTF proposals, check out our Codes Status Report.

The headlines wrote themselves, “For the Birds” etc.  But it is seriously good news to see that the USGBC has begun to recognize bird-safe building design as a worthy category of recognition within the LEED framework.

Untold numbers of migratory birds are killed each year flying to the bright lights of night-lit skyscrapers where many become confused and too tired to continue, or are thrown off their path.  And many more die by simply flying into our massive glass facades- whose reflections they cannot “see”, it looks like more sky to them.

Henceforth, projects that  undertake measures with regards to facades and both interior and exterior lighting can receive points via the LEED Pilot Credit Library.

If the measures prove effective the pilot credit could possibly become an official credit within the relevant LEED standards. A small step toward greater recognition of the interdependency between our built and natural environments.

FURTHER READING:
Lights Out New York: Save Energy, Save Birds [8.3.11]
Urban Green Council spoke with Dr. Susan Elbin, Director of Conservation and Science at New York City Audubon, about Lights Out New York.

Photo credit: Claudio Gennari

One of the great benefits of climate change is the opening of the Arctic, making available vast new supplies of fossil fuel, most recently highlighted by a substantial mutual exploitation agreement between Russia and Exxon.

Seriously, of course this is awful.  It won’t even lower the cost of fossil fuels significantly because it will be such a small slice of global oil production, and even that slice will take years to serve.   More importantly, when (not if) some pipe cracks open under the ice in the middle of the four-month night, they (whether Exxon, Rosneft, Shell, BP, or whoever) will be totally helpless. Well, I mean the crews on the rig will be helpless. The lads and lassies back at corporate HQ will be doing the usual bang-up job of manufacturing reasons why no one could possibly have seen this coming.

The U.S. should at least try to stop this.  Unfortunately, we don’t have much influence over either Russia or Exxon, and one major reason is that we have no serious national program for reducing fossil fuel use ourselves. We really can’t castigate Putin for their arctic adventures when we recently approved Shell poking a few 4,000-foot holes into the seabed off Alaska’s north slope), and all signs point to our imminent (and tragic) approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring very heavy oil from Canadian tar sands to Houston refineries.

If you haven’t noticed (which would be reasonable, considering the scant attention it’s paid in the mainstream media), the Keystone XL pipeline is the reason our foremost climate scientist James Hansen, agitator Bill McKibben, and activist celebrities like Darryl Hannah have been getting arrested in front of the White House. The White House?  Aren’t the good guys in charge? Why aren’t these demonstrators over at the House of Representatives, protesting climate change deniers?  Well, because we seem to have moved from an administration that denied climate change and let oil companies do whatever they wanted to an administration that supports climate science and lets oil companies do whatever they want.

There are two likely explanations for the administration’s lack of resistance to these potentially catastrophic developments.  First, the price of gasoline is heading toward $4/gallon, and anyone opposed to drilling and pipelines is attacked on that basis (no matter that neither arctic drilling nor the tar sands will have any real impact on gas prices.)

Second, in the middle of a deep recession and with staggeringly high unemployment across the country, politicians may have finally realized that voters want them to do something about jobs. Unfortunately, Keystone XL has a well-oiled publicity machine bragging about the 20,000 jobs they say they will “create.”

This analysis is wrong. Simple arithmetic shows that energy efficiency programs aimed at reducing our need for fossil fuels will create more jobs than any pipeline, since the money that will go to Canada to pay for the oil would instead stay within the country and go to workers in weatherization programs, wind turbine factories, or electric car development efforts. This arithmetic was developed by Democratic Party policy wonks over decades, but their understanding seems to no longer be operative.

If this foolishness continues, arctic seals will soon find it much easier to see the oil-soaked polar bears trying to sneak up on them.  On all other fronts, these projects are bad news in both the short and long term.  Oil spills will darken the Arctic, or even Montana, and the ongoing increases in greenhouse gas emissions will ensure that the ice and the food chains we all (seals, polar bears and humans) rely on for our survival will soon be irrevocably altered or gone.

Photo credits: [Keystone Pipeline] U.S. Dept. of State |  [Tar Sands Protesters] Ben Powless / tarsandsaction.org

At least 90,000 birds are killed every year in New York City by colliding with glass in buildings as they migrate to and from their breeding grounds. Many fly at night and are disoriented by illuminated buildings and structures; bright light interferes with their natural navigational cues. To help mitigate this critical problem for birds, New York City Audubon is encouraging New Yorkers to participate in Lights Out New York. From September 1st to November 1st, midnight until dawn, they urge everyone to turn off the lights in city building to save birds and save energy.

Urban Green Council’s Rachel Schuder recently spoke with Dr. Susan Elbin, Director of Conservation and Science at New York City Audubon about Lights Out New York:

Rachel Schuder: Why should someone interested in green building care about this issue?  Is it a really a big problem?

Susan Elbin: Being a green building is not just about being resource efficient in terms of energy consumption and construction, although Lights Out New York certainly does curb energy use.  Being truly green is about taking a holistic approach to our environment, and part of that is conservation of wildlife.  When manmade structures impede the ability of migratory birds to safely pass through or over our city, it is our responsibility to correct the problem. Turning lights out is an easy solution that really does help.

And yes, the problem is a huge.  New York City Audubon’s data indicate that 90,000 birds are killed every year from colliding with glass—a number that we know is underestimated.

RS: How does turning off interior building lights at night help migrating birds?  Aren’t birds more likely to collide with a building they can’t see?

SE: Migratory birds traveling at night are drawn to lighted areas, a phenomenon known as the beacon effect. Combined light emissions from city buildings produce an urban glow, like you see in nighttime photographs from space. Light disorients birds.  It diverts them from their migratory path, brings them lower in the skies, and can cause them to use precious energy. Because most birds actually migrate at night, you can imagine the magnitude of the problem! Birds may collide with lighted windows at night or window reflections during the day.

Once these night fliers come in for a landing and begin to look for food and shelter, they face the daytime hazards of glass: reflections of trees in windows and false passages through glassed-in courtyards and indoor plantings confuse birds and cause them to collide with glass.

Continue Reading

Our June 15th panel discussion, Oppositions: Pennies from Heaven?, was one of the best we have organized here at Urban Green Council.  The moderator and panel had just the right mix of background and perspective to foster a really engaged discussion.  Not everyone agreed about everything, which forced both the panelists and the audience to consider the subject of photovoltaic systems from positions outside their comfort zone.

Laurie Kerr, Senior Policy Advisor at the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, took the role of moderator and started things off with a challenge to the other panelists to justify the expense of PV systems when myriad other technologies could provide similar benefits at a fraction of the cost.  Her prime example was a calculation showing that swapping your incandescent lamps for compact fluorescents was 457 times more cost-effective at reducing your electricity use than installing solar PV. This framed the conversation and placed the onus on solar advocates to justify the expense of these systems while other measures languish.

Each panelist was given five minutes to present; Bill Guiney from Johnson Controls was first.  Bill is a kind of solar thermal hot water guru, having worked on and advocated for these systems for roughly 20 years.  He pointed out that solar thermal is a simple and effective system that for most projects can eliminate the use of electricity, natural gas or other fuel to heat water.  He recognized that many early solar thermal systems lacked rigorous engineering and, as a result, there were many early failures and horror stories.  Today, the solar thermal industry is highly regulated, the systems are extensively engineered, and applications are as reliable and failure-free as any other mechanical system. The systems are not expensive, don’t require particularly specialized labor, and take up so little space that they are applicable even in very dense locations.

Continue Reading

Like a lot of people, I look forward pretty keenly to major announcements from Apple.  When Steve Jobs takes the stage I often find myself glued to video or transcripts.  I am not a full-time geek- I don’t subscribe to Wired, I don’t know what API means and I have never paid the slightest attention to product announcements of any other tech firm.  But Apple is different.  They are an integral component of the American zeitgeist today.  Whether your principal interests are design, marketing, technical innovation, or business strategy – they are an organization that everyone wants to know more about.  When they announce plans (or, more correctly, when they announce upcoming announcements) a huge portion of the educated class leans forward to listen.

So if you follow the tech space at all you are no doubt aware that Steve Jobs’ WWDC 2011 Keynote was last week.  Typically I leave these announcements fascinated by how quickly the technology on offer is changing (I know, duh) and inspired in a few small ways by the design execution of these innovations.  But last week when I read Engadget’s live blog of the event over lunch I found myself, well, seriously depressed.

The major tech news in the presentation revolves around cloud computing, iCloud in Apple-speak.  You’ll be able to sync loads of stuff in the cloud- mail, music, photos, documents- for free.   Veterans of Apple presentations will know they follow a very strict format.  Black background, simple white text, huge glossy images of screens and products.   It’s as if the presentation itself is a device, with the audience glued to the massive “screen”- replicating almost exactly the way many of us find ourselves transfixed by our iPhone as we wait for a train or walk down the sidewalk.  Humans seem prone to a weirdly unconscious connection to these backlit screens.  Maybe it was because I was in the midst of this trance that I found myself so shocked when Steve Jobs finished his presentation with some images of the real world.  To demonstrate that they are “serious” about this iCloud service, Jobs provided a short tour of their newest data center- and it is massive.

Continue Reading

Weather is what’s happening in the air around us, and climate is how it is, long term, where we are. At least, that’s what we used to mean, back when a location came with a climate: temperate, tropical, sunny, or moist.  Seasonal variations were part of the idea of climate – summer, winter, monsoon, mistral – but there was little room for other change within the concept.  On the other hand, the weather changes constantly, giving us a way to make conversation in elevators with total strangers or romantic rivals.

At the end of the nineteenth century,  Arhennius pointed out that man-made variations in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere could alter the earth’s temperature, and the science of climate change was born.  A fringe activity until around 1990, it now attracts most of the attention of atmospheric scientists, since it is well established that if we continue our wasteful ways we will irretrievably alter the earth’s climate, and not in a good way.

But all this talk of climate change is about long term statistical quantities, like average temperature, area of minimum arctic sea ice, fraction of coral reefs bleached past recovery, or the range of altitudes over which the edelweiss can flower.  Ask a climate scientist about the severity of the rainstorm last Sunday night and she will suggest that you talk to a weather analyst, since no individual weather event can be directly tied to the slow process of climate change.

Well, for any individual event, that’s probably true.  But have you been following the news lately?  Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, has, and in an astonishing op-ed piece published in the Washington Post he implicitly challenges climate scientists to deal not with individual weather events, but with the extraordinary series of floods, tornadoes, and everything but a rain of frogs that have been devastating one locality after another.  I won’t tell you his conclusion because everyone should read the entire piece for themselves. Less time than you’ve already put in, guaranteed!

Photo credit: NASA

Catherine is the President of Luthin Associates, an energy management consulting firm that proactively manages energy procurement and sustainability services for their clients.

With the passage of Local Law 43 by the City Council last year, a minimum of 2% biodiesel must be blended into all grades of heating oil – #2, #4, and #6 beginning in October 2012. Local Law 43 also requires that the sulfur content in #4 heating oil be reduced from 3,000 parts per million (ppm) to 1,500 ppm (a NYS law also passed last year requires that sulfur in #2 heating oil be reduced to 15 ppm by July 2012).

This came about because of New York City’s poor air quality – the Fed gives the city a failing grade. The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has concluded that buildings using the dirtiest heating oils—#4 and #6—are a major cause of the city’s high air-pollution levels. Further, the hospitalization rate of New York City children with asthma (which is aggravated by pollution) is twice the national average.  This caused the city to look into cleaner alternative fuels for heating. One solution? A bit of biodiesel in the heating oil mix.

Biodiesel is a 100% renewable fuel that is made from domestic soy oil, recycled restaurant grease and numerous other sustainable “feedstocks.” Biodiesel contains zero sulfur and greatly reduces air emissions when blended with traditional heating oil.

Here are some of the most common questions on biofuels, and answers to them:

Where do I purchase these fuels?
By the 2012 heating season, when the legislation kicks in, all of these products are expected to be widely available. However, biodiesel is competitively priced and readily available today. All bioheat oil sold in New York must meet ASTM biodiesel spec D6751 and heating oil spec D396.

Continue Reading