Group 1: Green Infrastructure

Memo #1

  1. Issue Summary: The biggest issue here is that green building and infrastructure isn’t in the generic start of normative behaviors. Local governments are slowly transitioning to GI, but it is not the norm in city planning or residential buildings either.

   II.     Background: GI makes communities more environmentally resilient, see this quote from the EPA:

“Green infrastructure is a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet weather impacts that provides many community benefits. While single-purpose gray stormwater infrastructure—conventional piped drainage and water treatment systems—is designed to move urban stormwater away from the built environment, green infrastructure reduces and treats stormwater at its source while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits.” (US EPA, O. (2015, September 30). What is Green Infrastructure? [Overviews and Factsheets]. US EPA.)

Though our project is focused on actual building and not water, this quote is still important because it talks about cost, resilience, and stronger communities.If we look back at the SDGs strong communities, reduced inequalities, and industry/innovation, and resilient communities. Green buildings address all of these.

   III.    Policy Issues

  1. Money
  2. Transition time
  3. Community want/ desire
  4. Political will

   IV.    Pros and Cons

  1. Pro- Healthier communities
  2. Pro- sustainable cities
  3. Con- cost of restructuring
  4. Con- Political will

   V.     Recommendations

  1. I’m not sure what I would recommend outside of the idea of maybe having a step one looking like community meetings with governing bodies or maybe citizen science and the use of digital tools.
  2. If you take a look at what the Bullitt Center in Seattle has done, you can see a green building done very well where the structure also makes you feel like you are a part of it.
  3. Maybe studying Green buildings/ communities all over the world would give more insight into how to move forward also beyond what Fairfax is currently doing as a county. LEAD buildings aren’t enough.

“Achieve a 30% energy performance improvement for new construction, and a 25% energy performance improvement for major renovations;

Achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 32% for new construction, and 24% for major renovation.”  (Green Building | Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination. (n.d.))

These are stats from Fairfax and their green buildings and personally I don’t think these numbers are necessarily good.

Works Cited

Green Building | Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/green-building

US EPA, O. (2015, September 30). What is Green Infrastructure? [Overviews and Factsheets]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure

WA, D. C. in S. (n.d.). Bullitt Center. Retrieved February 24, 2021, from https://bullittcenter.org/

Memo #2

Issue Summary

With the Sustainable Development Policy for Capital Projects being revised in September 2020, Fairfax County should guide businesses and residents towards green practices that are both economically beneficial, environmentally sustainable, and address public health. Green building practices that have the most combined environmental and economic benefit are reasonable for both businesses and individuals and follow today’s available science. Examples of these practices are high-ranking LEED certifications for large businesses and green safe home initiatives for residents.[1] Businesses and resident owners should be required to retrofit structures that do not meet green standards. With today’s available science and the understanding of the risks and benefits of green practices and policy, we should require businesses and residents to follow all current green practices.

Background

Regulations rather than incentives for green building policy are effective and improve communities and municipalities as a whole.[2] The benefits of increased amounts of green buildings are multidisciplinary: the economic savings, environmental benefits from CO2 reduction, and improved health and air quality should all be recognized.[3] The implementation of green building policy has practical benefits for citizens and business owners. Green practices for businesses involve requiring high-ranking LEED certifications which are proven to be beneficial for energy efficiency and ultimately save money.[4] For businesses the LEED certification itself should not be the only indicator of a green building as lower ranking certifications are not effective indicators of energy efficiency. Other green practices for businesses could include economically feasible, implementable practices like vegetated walls or roofs during warm months.[5] It should be noted that there are significant economic benefits as well as risks of LEED certifications for businesses, for which the various benefits ultimately outweigh the risks.[6] Residential owners have different concerns than businesses in terms of green buildings, however green building policy should be implemented for the safety of the citizens of Fairfax County.[7] The Green & Healthy Homes Initiative is an important policy element to consider when writing policy that affects residents. It should also be noted that there are economic benefits for citizens like increased market values of residential homes that have LEED certifications.[8]

Policy Options

  • Continuing the requirement of a minimum gold certification for large buildings and businesses after 2021.
  • Incentivize platinum standard for all businesses as well as the implementation of other practical green practices based on the individual business.
  • Require homeowners and landlords to follow a program similar to the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative to ensure the safety of individuals along with environmental and economic benefits.
  • Expand the HomeWise Program to include more steps to retrofitting residential homes to green building standards.[9]

Pros & Cons

  • Requiring businesses and residential owners to retrofit non-green structures will likely be difficult because of public and corporate questions regarding the economic risks of green building. However, questions should be met with understanding, facts, and clear guidelines for a gradual change in policy for businesses and residents.
  • A transition period between non-green building infrastructures and green building will likely be challenging with constantly developing science, since we only have current science to back information on.
  • Retrofitting non-green structures have clear economic, social, and health benefits for all parties involved.
  • A gradual approach to requiring businesses and residents to follow green building practices will allow policy to adjust to scientific development in the field of green building and public health.

Recommendations

  • Fairfax County should follow the policy goals timeline of the revised Sustainable Development Policy for Capital Projects.
  • In addition to the minimum LEED gold rating for buildings over 10,000 SF, Fairfax County should offer incentives for other green building practices followed by buildings of any size.
  • Fairfax County should begin the creation of a program similar to the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative to begin the process of addressing green residential buildings and or expand the HomeWise Program.[10]
  • After 2031, Fairfax County should require businesses to retrofit structures that do not meet updated green standards. After this date, Fairfax County should require residential owners to retrofit their homes to the green standards outlined by the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative program or similar program.

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1672

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10835547.2010.12091802

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652616001359?via%3Dihub

[4] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1672

[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778814001376

[6]file:///Users/zlarn/Downloads/2010_An%20Overview%20of%20the%20Benefits%20and%20Risk%20Factors%20of%20Going%20Green%20in%20Existing%20Buildings_Article.pdf

[7] https://www.greenandhealthyhomes.org/

[8] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10835547.2009.12091789

[9] https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/eaf/news/fairfax-county-launches-homewise-program

[10] https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/eaf/news/fairfax-county-launches-homewise-program

Memo #3

Issue summary.

The current measures to ensure sustainability in Fairfax County government buildings are not sufficient to ensure actual emissions reduction, as they focus too much on theoreticals. Furthermore, the emphasis is placed on LEED, a certification that has been shown to not have significant reduction of greenhouse gases at all, while also being a huge cost sink.

Background.

It has become mandatory that buildings in Fairfax County are certifiable under Green Building standards. The current standard is the LEED ratings. Formerly, it was required that all county buildings were LEED silver or higher, but legislation passed in 2020 required not only a LEED Gold certification, but also solar and EV compatibility, have an on-site renewable energy component, and a 30% energy efficiency improvement over the LEED standard. Furthermore, according to this updated legislation, all buildings built or majorly renovated during or after 2031 must have net zero energy, meaning that the energy produced by on-site renewable sources equals the energy consumed.

There are some issues with this approach to reducing carbon emissions. Firstly, the initial cost: According to a study by Rocky Mountain Institute, net zero energy buildings cost an average of 7.3% more to build than regular buildings. Also, LEED Gold is not the highest LEED rating. There is one higher: LEED Platinum. Gold simply means a higher rating of 60 out of 110 or higher, or a rating of at least 55%, which isn’t that high.

Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions are not taken into account very much in the LEED Certification; green power and carbon offset are worth only 2 points out of the 33 possible ones dedicated to Energy and Atmosphere, whereas 18 points out of the 33 are dedicated to energy efficiency.

The LEED certification process also lacks any sort of concrete measure of carbon emissions reduction, instead focusing on theoretical models. A study by Scofield et al., 2019, shows that the environmental benefits of green buildings certified with LEED are negligible compared to regular buildings because of this flaw in the certification. This appears to be addressed by the greenhouse gas policy, however it should be noted that ANSI (the body mentioned in the Fairfax County policy besides LEED that appears to have resources to evaluate carbon emissions reduction) doesn’t appear to have any concrete guidelines as to actually measure any emissions reduction, only to outsource the evaluation to third parties.

According to a study by Wang et al., 2016, this is a bigger problem with green buildings in general. The greenhouse gas emissions are not well taken into account.

Policy options

  • It is possible that a different certification system can be used in place of, or in addition to, LEED and ANSI. One suggestion is the PAS 2060 standard for carbon reduction, which specifically mentions measurements of carbon emissions. These standards are used worldwide to help with carbon neutrality.
  • A tool such as Athena SMI Impact Estimator can be used for the buildings to help estimate carbon neutrality.
  • One example of a carbon-neutral (actually carbon-negative) building is Powerhouse Telemark in Norway, which uses solar panels on its roof to generate energy beyond what the building consumes to offset carbon emissions, and the excess is sold back to the grid.

Pros and cons

  • Changing the certification method to PAS 2060 means moving away from a well-established American certification system specifically designed for buildings to one developed abroad that is more generalized, and also doesn’t have the different levels of certification that PAS does. This might not sit well with the county or the taxpayers, as well as the state and federal governments which would prefer that the county uses American-made things. Therefore, an outright replacement of LEED is highly unlikely.
  • Adding something on to LEED, or making it so that any evaluation of CO2 emissions could also follow PAS 2060 requirements, would be more politically feasible.
  • Using Athena SMI impact estimator to determine the carbon impact is an additional measurement that could be used to help reduce carbon emissions. However, implementing more carbon-reduction measures to a building can increase its cost in the short term, although the cost does get made back with the lower amount of carbon energy produced. This would also not sit well with the ANSI evaluators, who would not have their job be as significant, or possibly eliminated entirely.
  • The use of carbon-neutral architecture in Norway is an example of reducing carbon emissions, and can be adapted to fit Fairfax County’s needs. This will also increase construction costs, as solar panels are costly, at prices of $28,100 for a 10 kW system, or higher if more energy is necessary. This would not be beneficial to the taxpayers, at least in the short term, but would be beneficial to the companies that install solar into the building, as it means more money for them.

Recommendations

  • An analysis should be conducted with the carbon emissions on existing Fairfax County Government buildings, and these should also be conducted on new construction.
  • Usage of architecture with solar panels incorporated into it would be beneficial, as this would generate on-site energy in addition to reducing carbon emissions and helping attain carbon neutrality.

Reference List

ANSI GHG Validation and Verification Body Accreditation Scoping Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://anabpd.ansi.org/Accreditation/environmental/greenhouse-gas-validation-verification/DocumentDetail?DRId=20897

Carruthers, H., Ap, L., Casavant, T., & Eng, P. (2013). What is a “Carbon Neutral” Building? 6.

Checklist: LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction | U.S. Green Building Council. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/checklist-leed-v4-building-design-and-construction

Ecoact. (n.d.) PAS 2060 The ideal standard for carbon neutrality. https://info.eco-act.com/hubfs/0%20-%20Downloads/PAS%202060/PAS%202060%20factsheet%20EN.pdf

Environmental Vision | Environment. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment/environmental-vision

Green Building | Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/green-building

How Much Do Solar Panels Cost? 2021 Guide | EnergySage. (2021, February 4). Solar News. https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/

IE for Buildings | Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2021, from http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator/

Petersen, A., Gartman, M., & Corvidae, J. (n.d.). SINGLE-FAMILY INSIGHTS. 72.

Powerhouse Telemark / Snøhetta. (2020, October 30). ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/950507/powerhouse-telemark-snohetta

Scofield, J. H., & Cornell, J. (2019). A critical look at “Energy savings, emissions reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 29(4), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0078-1

Sustainability Initiatives | Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/sustainability-initiatives

Wang, T., Seo, S., Liao, P.-C., & Fang, D. (2016). GHG emission reduction performance of state-of-the-art green buildings: Review of two case studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.037