Climatechangestudio vol1

1 Reducing Emissions

VOL I: TOWARDS A LOW CARBON PHILADELPHIAREDUCING EMISSIONS 30 PERCENT BY 2030 IN THE DVRPC REGION

University of PennsylvaniaMay 2014

Melissa Andrews, Libby Horwitz, Brynn Leopold, Dan Levin, Shijia Lu, Lu Xu

Reducing Emissions 2


INTRODUCTION

The nine-county metropolitan area for which the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) plans, which includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania, and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey, is regarded as an economic and cultural hub in the Mid-Atlantic region. It ranks consistently within the top ten largest American metropolitan areas for population, employment, personal income, and retail sales. This collection of counties is less well-known as a major producer of the greenhouse gases; however, the DVRPC determined in 2010 that the nine counties in total produced 81.6 million metric tons of CO

2-equivalent greenhouse gases, which

is approximately 1.2% of the United States’ total emissions, or about the same quantity as the entire countries of Portugal and Austria. The DVRPC made these findings in support of Connections 2040, its 2013 long-range plan for the region’s transportation and land use. The plan also identifies that the three primary sources of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions were from commercial and industrial energy use (36%), transportation energy use (32%), and residential energy use (22%).

At the behest of the DVRPC, the University of Pennsylvania School of Design Climate Change studio is developing recommendations for actions that the Metropolitan Planning Organization can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This goal sets the DVRPC on track to meet its longer-term goals for greenhouse gas reduction, as outlined in Connections 2040, for ultimately reducing emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. DVRPC staff requested that the studio focus on recommendations pertaining to compact development, energy-efficient buildings, and renewable fuels in power generation and transportation, categories that address the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

Under the guidance of Gary Binger, FAICP, former manager of the Association of Bay Area Governments and Co-Director of the Center for a Sustainable California, the studio has prepared an initial set of best practices and case studies for greenhouse gas mitigation that could be applied to Greater Philadelphia. To form a baseline body of research, the studio focused on current efforts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other Mid-Atlantic states, as well as on the cutting-edge work of California and Oregon. We also spoke with professionals who have been addressing similar issues in the field.

The studio then targeted some of the most promising initiatives and sought to determine the reduction in greenhouse gases that each initiative might

Introduction


Introduction

yield if applied within Greater Philadelphia, and whether each initiative could sufficiently contribute to “bending the trend” away from projected increases in regional greenhouse gas emissions. This report serves as a compilation of that research. Each individual recommendation can be placed within one of the categories of (1) providing services with less energy, (2) supplying energy with less carbon content, and (3) reducing demand for the services that energy facilitates, but in strategic combinations many of them may yield greater reductions than when deployed separately.

We separated potential GHG emission reductions into high, medium, and low potential using a relative scale of the GHG reductions that we either found in our research or calculated. High impact ranged from estimated reductions of 20 to 50%, medium ranged from 5 to 19%, and low was below 5%. These values are based on estimates from case studies and reports and could vary if applied to the DVRPC region. For some categories, we were unable to find approximate GHG reduction values, as some techniques are new and lack data, while others have immeasurable impact without a specific or defined program. For these categories, we made assumptions from qualitative research.

After sharing its findings with the DVRPC, the studio will select the strategies that yield the most promising outcomes and that are technically and politically feasible. We will delve further into the actions required to implement them, and the costs required to do so. This analysis will be released as a final report in April 2014.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview and Recommended Strategies ....................................................12Transit Oriented Development......................................................................14Transfer of Development Rights....................................................................16Urban Growth Boundaries ...........................................................................20Local Compact Development Assistance Program .....................................22Public Transit Service Expansion ................................................................24Parking Management...................................................................................26Pricing Initiatives..........................................................................................28Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Programs..............................................30Car-Shares & Bike-Shares...........................................................................32

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...........................................................................6ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................7TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE .........................................................10

IMPACT & COST SUMMARY .................................................................66DVRPC ROLE SUMMARY ......................................................................68CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................70APPENDIX.................................................................................................................74

BUILDINGS........................................................................................34

FUEL SOURCES......................................................................................50

REFERENCES.......................................................................................81

Overview and Recommended Strategies ....................................................36Building Benchmarking, Auditing, & Retrocommisioning.............................38Retrofits........................................................................................................42Green Buildings............................................................................................44University/Business Partnerships.................................................................46

Overview and Recommended Strategies ....................................................52Alternative Fuel Vehicles..............................................................................54District Heating, Cogeneration, and CombinedHeat and Power............................................................................................56Food Waste & Methane................................................................................58Solar Production in the Region.....................................................................60Utility Partnerships.......................................................................................62

Transfer of Development Rights ..................................................................74Service Expansion ......................................................................................75Methane Recapture, Landfills ......................................................................76Solar Power Space Requirements ..............................................................77

Table of Contents


Glossary of Terms

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning EngineersBRT - Bus Rapid TransitBTU - British Thermal UnitCHP - Combined Heat and PowerCNG - Compressed Natural GasCSP - Concentrated Solar PowerDCED - Department of Community and Economic DevelopmentDVRPC - Delaware Valley Regional Planning CommissionEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFTA - Federal Transit AdministrationGHG - Greenhouse GasesICEs - Internal Combustion EnginesITE - Institute of Transportation EngineersLCFS - Low Carbon Fuels Standard ProgramLEED(R) - Leadership in Energy and Environmental DesignLHV - Lower Heating ValueMOS - Mayor’s Office of SustainabilityMOTU - Mayor’s Office of Transportation and UtilitiesMT CO

2-eq - Metric Tons of CO

2-Equivalent (Greenhouse Gas)

NJDOT - New Jersey Department of TransportationPA DEP - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionPECO - Philadelphia Energy CompanyPennDOT - Pennsylvania Department of TransportationPGW - Philadelphia Gas WorksPILOP - Payment In-Lieu of ParkingPPA - Philadelphia Parking AuthorityPUC - Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission SEPTA - Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority TIF - Tax Increment FinancingTOD - Transit-Oriented DevelopmentUGB - Urban Growth BoundaryUS DOT - United States Department of TransportationVMT - Vehicle Miles Travelled


Acknowledgements

In recognition of their efforts in supporting our studio this spring, the PennDesign Climate Change Studio 2014 would like to acknowledge the following:

» Our Instructor Gary Binger (FAICP) for his guidance and support

» Rob Graff and Shawn Megill Legendre of DVRPC, our client representatives who took time to present information to and answer questions from our group

» PennDesign faculty and staff including John Landis for developing the studio concept and Kate Daniel for her administrative support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


TRANSPORTAT ION & L AND USE

BU I LD I NGS

ENERGY


Initiatives relating to reducing vehicle miles traveled and decreasing emissions deriving from development patterns.

Initiatives working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from residential and commercial building design and construction.

Initiatives working to decrease greenhouse gas emissions deriving from fuel sources


Overview ......................................................................12Transit Oriented Development........................................14Transfer of Development Rights.......................................16Urban Growth Boundaries ..............................................24Local Compact Development Assistance Program .......30Public Transit Service Expansion ..................................34Parking Management....................................................38Pricing Initiatives...........................................................42Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Programs...................46Car-Shares & Bike-Shares...........................................52Conclusion ...................................................................56

TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE

Overview and Recommended Strategies ....................10Transit Oriented Development.......................................12Transfer of Development Rights...................................14Urban Growth Boundaries ...........................................18Local Compact Development Assistance Program .......20Public Transit Service Expansion ...................................22Parking Management....................................................24Pricing Initiatives...........................................................26 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Programs...............28Car-Shares & Bike-Shares...........................................30


Transportation & Land Use

OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

OVERVIEWThe following section explores various strategies related to Land Use and Transportation, including:

Transit Oriented Development generally refers to increasing density around transit nodes and corridors and while it can be politically challenging to implement, the research has shown this to be an extremely cost effective method of reducing emissions in the transportation sector.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) allows for property owners to sell or “transfer” their development rights to another interested party. TDRs show reasonable potential to reduce GHG emissions within the region, however they have proven technically and politically challenging to implement in the short term.

Urban Growth Boundaries, although relatively cheap to implement, are very controversial in terms of their effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their potential to increase land and property prices.

Local Compact Development Assistance Programs have promise in improving the capacity of municipalities to plan for greenhouse gas reductions and align their planning goals with those of the DVRPC, but the benefits of these programs are more likely to be seen in the long term.

Public Transit Service Expansion – being a new public transport service – has shown some effectiveness in reducing VMT; however, its high cost and long implementation timeframe may discourage its application.

Road & Vehicle Pricing explores strategies to reduce VMT by increasing the cost of car usage, be it a VMT tax or congestion pricing. Generally, we found these strategies to be ineffective and politically challenging to implement – however we do feel that Pay-As-You-Drive insurance merits further exploration.

Parking Management and Initiatives incorporates a wide range of strategies primarily aimed at reducing VMT. Some of these strategies can be extremely politically controversial, but the potential for emissions reductions is considerable.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Programs show promise in reducing automobile trips of less than three miles; however their cost to implement limits their potential impact.

Car-Share and Bike-Share programs have demonstrated success in some urban areas; however, their cost and length of implementation may not make them a suitable policy for reducing GHG emissions.


Overview and Recommended Strategies

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIESStrategies that are under “Strongly Recommended” are those strategies that are both considered to be effective and relatively easy to implement. Strategies that are “Moderately Recommended” are those that are effective or inexpensive, but not both. “Not Recommended” strategies are those that are considered ineffective, too costly, or too difficult to implement in the timeframe allotted.

We note that just because a strategy is not recommended does not mean that it does not merit further study elsewhere – only that it should not be considered as an effective way to reach the 30% reduction target.

Strongly Recommended: » Transit Oriented Development is highly effective in terms of reducing VMT and is inexpensive to implement from a government perspective.

» While road and vehicle pricing are not likely to be effective strategies in the short term, pay-as-you-drive insurance has shown considerable promise and merits further exploration.

» Parking Management may have considerable political opposition regarding implementation; however, the breadth of scope and significant potential to reduce VMT makes this strategy merit additional research.

Moderately Recommended: » Bike and pedestrian improvement programs, while very effective in reducing automobile trips of less than three miles, are very costly to implement, and thus have limited impact on reducing GHG emissions in the next 15 years.

» Local compact development assistance programs can provide municipalities with funding, knowledge, and skills to plan for resource-conserving land use methods, but given the incremental nature of changes to land use through comprehensive planning, its short term effectiveness will be minimal.

Not Recommended » Urban Growth Boundaries are very controversial in terms of their effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their potential result in raising housing prices.

» Service Expansion: While good public transport access is important for a variety of reasons, as a cost-effective and timely GHG reduction strategy, it falls short.

» Transfer of Development Rights: contain too many technical and political difficulties in implementation and thus we do not recommend them as a short-term strategy.

» Car/Bike Share Programs: Compared with other strategies, car-share and bike-share are less cost-effective in the short run because of the time needed to construct and expand sharing facilities as to foster a sufficient amount of ridership to significantly reduce VMT and GHG emissions.


TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

INTRODUCTIONWhile Transit Oriented Development should specifically refer to developments integrated with public transport facilities, it is more broadly used today to refer to denser forms of development around transit nodes. For the purposes of this report, TOD will refer to this more colloquial use of the term.

CURRENT CONDITIONSDVRPC has done substantial work on promoting TOD within the region. There are 21 different plans or studies at different scale and scope across the region that were paid for in part or full by Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) funds. These plans include places as diverse as Germantown, Conshohocken, and North Wales. DVRPC additionally has put together seven additional TOD plans for various locales around the region, incorporating all types of transit. Additionally, the DVRPC hosts four other plans on its website, but does not prepare or fund these. Going into even greater detail, DVRPC maintains a listing of TOD sites, studies, and development activities via its “On Track” publication.

As a result of DVRPC’s planning efforts, the region has seen significant TOD activities in the last 10 years. Bryn Mawr, PA incorporated TOD and a Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) in 2009, utilizing a $100,000 TCDI grant. In 2005, Marcus Hook Borough made TOD-friendly zoning changes. In addition, DVRPC funded part of a TRID financing plan to support transit oriented development. Redevelopment of the Ardmore train station, with integrated residential, retail, and commercial office space, is also in the planning stages.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSAccording to a 2010 USDOT report, nothing was expected to be as effective as increasing density within walkable neighborhoods. Within the report, a metric of 60-90% of new urban growth in compact, walkable neighborhoods would result in a national reduction of up to 84 mmt CO

2e/year by 2030.1 Additional case studies within the DVRPC region have

identified private vehicle trip reductions of nearly 30%; with other developments in places like Washington DC seeing trip reductions of over 90% compared to the expected Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rate.2

ESTIMATED COSTAlthough government funding plays a key role in planning TOD upfront, the private sector is the primary funder. In order to incentivize TOD, municipalities may need to revise zoning codes to allow for denser development.4 around transit nodes, provide tax relief for developers who build close to or along transit corridors, or provide access to low-interest loans to reduce financing costs to developers. Generally, the upfront costs of these are low, however legal fees and challenges to rezoning can be costly. Municipal costs can be exacerbated via supportive infrastructure such as sidewalks and bike lanes. Developer contributions can offset these direct costs in areas of high development demand. Less desirable locations will be unlikely to be able to extract a contribution and will need to self-fund these improvements.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The recommendation of TOD is closely related to many goals in Connections 2040. For example, by reducing land consumption for development and increasing walking and transit usage, TOD preserves open space, preserve historic resources and cultural landscapes, reduce congestion, and improve air quality. By increasing development activity within business districts and increasing housing and employment around transit nodes, TOD also helps meet the goal of investing in centers and increase accessibility and mobility. The ultimate goal of TOD is to reduce VMT and GHG emissions.

HIGH IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$



Transit Oriented Development

STATION SQUARE APARTMENTSLandsdale, PA

Station Square is a 35-acre TOD located adjacent to the Pennbrook Station on Church Street in Upper Gwynedd Township, Pennsylvania, on the former Ford Electrics Plant Superfund site. Station Square consists of a mix of residential, retail, office, parking and public green spaces within several blocks of the station. A TOD overlay district was implemented to facilitate the development. As of today, 346 apartments and 49,000 square feet of commercial space has been built.3 In 2008, Station Square was examined for its effectiveness as a TOD in reducing VMT. The study showed that the trip rate within Station Square was 29.1% less than the expected ITE rate for a non-TOD development.

figures 1 and 2: Station Square apartments in Lansdale, PA


TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)

INTRODUCTIONCreating local transfer of development rights (TDR) programs preserves open space and densifies existing centers. As indicated in Connections 2040, property owners clear and preserve open space in exchange for selling their development rights, which are then purchased by developers in order to increase density.5 The ratio of open space credits to density amount is determined and codified by the municipality in which the land is located.

According to the Sightline Institute, TDR programs “achieve their greatest potential for reducing GHGs when a rural or exurban landowner sells the right to build a single family home, and a developer in the urban core purchases the right to increase floor space for multi-unit housing.”20 Most TDR programs are not focused on reducing GHGs emissions, but many are invested in densifying their receiving areas, and simultaneous densification and land preservation - particularly if that land is composed of forest or wetland species- both contribute to GHG mitigation. Some of the most effective TDR programs at preserving land are in or on the edge of metropolitan areas. These include the programs in King County, Washington; New Jersey Pinelands; Montgomery County, Maryland; Palm Beach County, Florida; and Collier County, Florida.21

CURRENT CONDITIONSAs of April 2013, 44 municipalities in the DVRPC region had TDR ordinances; an additional 15 counties in New Jersey’s Pine Barrens region participate in the Pinelands Development Credit Program.6 In New Jersey, aside from the Pinelands Development Credit Program, only two TDR programs have been implemented.7 In Pennsylvania, Buckingham Township in Bucks County is the sole successful TDR program.8 Chester County has a handful of operational TDR programs.9

The DVRPC is quite familiar with TDR programs. With a grant from the William Penn Foundation, it conducts most of its TDR outreach in the New Jersey counties along with New Jersey Future.10 Salem County has been a primary focus. In 2011, these two organizations and several others in the Salem County Regional TDR Task Force developed a feasibility study for a countywide TDR program.11 These programs, however, were not established with the explicit goals of tracking or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

LOW-MEDIUM IMPACT

MEDIUM COST

$$$


Philadelphia

Bristol

Princeton

Camden

Trenton

Glassboro

Voorhees

Chester

Pottstown

Lindenwold

Norristown

Lansdale

Pitman

Palmyra

Phoenixville

Paulsboro

Haddonfield

Morrisville

Gloucester City

Mount Holly

Hatboro

Coatesville

CollingswoodDarby

West Chester

Riverside

Media

Ambler

Hightstown

Souderton

Lansdowne

Haddon HeightsRidley Park

Norwood

Pennington

Telford

Hopewell

Conshohocken

Swedesboro

Pemberton

Narberth

Jenkintown

Merchantville

Prospect Park

Woodbury

figure 1: This figure shows the Connections 2040 “Centers” that are dense enough (on average) to support at least a rail system, and which might be most likely candidates to implement receiving areas prior to 2030.


ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSThere are few studies evaluating the potential of TDR programs to reduce GHG emissions. A 2011 study conducted by the Sightline Institute in Washington, which looked at models that compared neighborhood-level GHG emissions in King County, Washington based on household location, was the only readily available source.12 Applying its outcomes to the DVRPC region using Centers identified in Connections 2040, TDRs would decrease GHG emissions in the DVRPC region by 4.4 percent (See Appendix for calculations).

ESTIMATED COSTThe program will require up-front funding for planning and outreach, and there are potentially high indirect costs in the mid-term from increased community services required in the receiving areas that are designated for densification. If the TDR program is set up correctly, in theory it should be funded internally during its operation.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040:This program targets the Connections 2040 “Centers” as receiving areas, and thus echoes its goal to invest in centers, and in the long term, reduce congestion. It also meshes well with the Connections 2040 goals of retaining the integrity of DVRPC’s Conservation Focus Areas and other rural areas and open space. In Connections 2040, DVRPC encourages TDR programs for preserving open space when constructing new residential projects in rural areas, as well as a strategy for creating “critical masses” of development in growing suburbs to support mass transit. 19 This strategy is in line with the recommendations offered in the Sightline Institute study discussed above and in the Appendix.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSIn each coupled sending and receiving area, the DVRPC would need to work with rural landowners, developers, municipal leaders, and the general public to achieve the needed support for creating a TDR ordinance. The DVRPC would also have to work with state agencies for large regional TDRs.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSPreservation of open space in sending areas and densification in receiving areas can increase quality of life for a variety of stakeholders. Principally, rural landowners receive funds to

Transfer of Development Rights

figure 2: indicates that population growth is not occurring in synch with the existing proposed Cen-ters, which will complicate the GHG mitigation ef-fects of proposed TDR programs; there may not be a large enough group of residents interested at this time in moving into more densely populated areas.



CASE STUDIES & BEST PRACTICES

Rick Pruetz, in his 2009 Journal of the American Planning Association article analyzing the common features of successful TDR programs, notes that these five programs - and 15 others - share nine factors. They include:1) Creating a program in an area that has demand for bonus development - otherwise, developers are “satisfied with the density that they get for free.”222) Customizing the receiving area based on some or all of the following:

» Existing infrastructural capacity » Political buy-in » Co-ordination with existing development » “Clear designation” - presumably its boundaries, but perhaps also how it is described verbally

to the community » Consistency with comprehensive plan » Location in a market with demand for density » Sensitivity to areas that cannot accept more growth

3) Strictly limiting development in sending areas, particularly through zoning4) Restricting opportunities for getting a bonus in development density to the TDR program itself - not having it as an incentive for other programs5) Calculating “enhanced transfer ratios” that are sensitive to local market conditions6) Making density bonuses “by right” in the zoning ordinance, reducing developer risk7) Strong local support for preservation programs8) Keeping the program simple and easy to understand by different stakeholders9) Consistent promotion of the benefits of TDRs to the public, developers, landowners, and politicians

TDRs require a careful balancing of supply and demand, in multiple markets, and over many years. A 2010 New Jersey Future report noted that only one municipality had passed a TDR enabling ordinance since the State TDR Act was passed in 2004, but that it still faced “implementation hurdles.”23 Of 14 municipalities that were committed to and received state planning grants to implement intra-municipal TDR programs, “not one community has been able to actually implement a TDR program.”24

The study noted that New Jersey’s municipalities face such hurdles as high costs to plan the program itself as well as the infrastructure changes it will create, lack of “sustained local leadership,” insufficient support from state agencies, and insufficient guidance or skills to conduct the real estate market analysis needed to support the program’s sustained functioning.25

These hurdles are substantial, and although the DVRPC can and should continue to conduct outreach and provide technical assistance to reduce them, it is unlikely that all stakeholders could work together effectively enough to yield the 4% reduction in GHG by 2030.

preserve their land and people living in developed areas have greater access to goods and services. A well-planned TDR program can also guide future development patterns and preserve wildlife corridors.

FINANCING METHODSThe program will primarily be financed by developers once it is established. However, to get over the hurdle of beginning implementation, municipalities will likely require incentives, particularly for inter-municipal cooperation.26 The DVRPC, in their recommendations for Salem County, NJ, included leveraging impact fees, designating Revenue Allocation Districts (RADs), applying for grant funding, participating in a state infrastructure financing program, and creating cost-sharing mechanisms for inter-municipal TDR programs.27


URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES

INTRODUCTIONAn urban growth boundary (UGB) limits expansion into rural lands by creating a boundary around existing developed areas. UGBs usually contain sufficient land supply for housing needs in a 20- to 30-year period. By limiting land supply, UGBs promote higher density development. As a result, cities and regions that have implemented UGBs are expected to have a more compact urban form.

CURRENT CONDITIONSCurrently, none of the cities or counties in the DVRPC region that we studied are implementing any UGB or similar policies. However, the concept of “Centers” that the DVRPC just developed in its long-range plan Connections 2040 is closely related to the idea of urban containment policies. The plan envisions a hierarchy of livable core centers and subcenters in the region that contain compact and mixed-use developments while conserving open space and natural resources outside of them (Figure 3).

In addition, DVRPC is promoting smart growth and keeps a smart growth project database, including conservation subdivision design (CSD).29 CSD is a type of smart growth strategy that helps local communities by concentrating residential housing development on a portion of the site and preserving sensitive open space and natural areas on the remainder. Natural Lands Trust, a non-profit conservation organization, has developed some CSD ordinances.30 Currently, thirteen local communities in Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties have adopted CSD ordinances (Figure 4).

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSOne study by Hankey and Marshall estimated that in a complete urban infill scenario, with an urban growth boundary applied to each of the urban areas in the US, the per-capita VMT can be reduced by 0.22% annually from 2000 to 2020 (Figure 5).31 ESTIMATED COSTThe estimated cost of implementing a UGB policy is relatively low, before considering legal fees. UGB policy would require funding for staff time to create policies, and conduct outreach to municipal residents.

LOW-MEDIUM IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$


figure 5: A 2010 study done by Hankey and Marshall forecasted that the UGB scenario, among all other policy scenarios, provides the lowest daily VMT and carbon emissions, the lowest an-nual VMT and carbon emissions per capita, and the lowest residential energy demand in 2030.


figure 3: Connections 2040 envisions a hierarchy of centers and subcen-ters in the region to contain compact and mixed use developments and conserve open space and natural resources, much like Maryland’s Priority Funding Areas.

Source: DVRPC, Connections 2040 Plan for Greater Philadelphia, 2013, page 52

Urban Growth Boundaries

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The main goal of adopting UGB policies is to foster a compact urban development form and reduce GHG emission. This recommendation is also related to several goals in Connections 2040, including preserving open space, managing stormwater and improving water quality, improving air quality, and investing in centers.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSDVRPC and local governments that should coordinate to voluntarily implement a UGB policy.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSMany UGB opponents fear UGBs may result in a loss of affordable housing within the boundary due to land constraints and, therefore, high land costs. However, researchers have argued that market demand, not land constraints, has led to increased housing costs. Additionally traditional land use regulation also often reduce affordability.

FINANCING METHODSAlthough there is no significant financial cost to implement UGB policies, DVRPC could provide funding or secure grants to support technical assistance or outreach.

UGB IN THE PORTLAND, OR METROPOLITAN AREAPortland, OR

In 1978, voters within the metropolitan area of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon approved a ballot measure that made Metro the nation’s first elected regional government. Under state land use laws, Metro is responsible for managing the Portland metropolitan region’s urban growth boundary. The UGB is required to contain a 20-year supply of land for future residential development inside the boundary. Every five years, Metro is required to conduct a review of the land supply and, if necessary, expand the boundary to meet that requirement.

A number of reports have suggested that UGBs are generally effective in promoting development within the boundaries in Oregon, especially in the Portland Metropolitan Area.33,34 Other research has confirmed that Oregon’s land use planning program overall has resulted in a measurable degree of forest and farmland protection since it was implemented.35 However, since the effects of UGBs are largely incremental and occur over a long period of time, especially in light of many confounding factors, it is very difficult to measure or estimate the reduction of VMTs or GHG emissions by adopting UGB policies.

AUSTIN, TX METROPOLITAN AREAAustin, TX

A University of Texas study compared five different land use and transportation policy scenarios and concluded that the application of a UGB provides the lowest increase in overall VMT and GHG emissions.32 Specifically, the researchers used microsimulation models to forecast demographic and firmographic characteristics in the Austin metropolitan region and forecasted the change of household locations, vehicle choices, VMT, and household energy demand. The UGB scenario, among all other scenarios, is estimated to provide the lowest daily VMT and carbon emissions, the lowest annual VMT and carbon emissions per capita, and the lowest residential energy demand. Compared with the business-as-usual scenario, the UGB scenario is forecasted to reduce total annual carbon emissions per capita by 1.03 MT CO2-eq GHG (Figure 5).


LOCAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

INTRODUCTIONThis program intends to leverage DVRPC’s technical skills at the local level to createlocal compact development-friendly comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances that align with the goals of Connections 2040.

CURRENT CONDITIONSDVRPC has experience with similar programs, including its Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI). Implemented in 2002, TCDI provides grants and support to municipalities seeking to create plans with goals alligning withW DVRPC’s Long-Range Plan.36 TCDI emphasizes given towards linkages between transportation and land use, increased economic strength and quality of life, improved transit efficiency, and use of existing infrastructure. Funding goes towards planning initiatives in older suburbs and core city areas, which received $12.4 million between 2002 and 2012.

In 2009, the DVRPC had grant funding from PennDOT to administer the Efficient Growth for Growing Suburbs program. This program allocated $320,000 to eight communities towards implementing programs in PennDOT’s and NJDOT’s Smart Transportation Guidebook.37 Single municipalities were eligible for up to $60,000 in grant funds to develop plans, ordinances, and transit demand reduction measures that addressed smart growth principles.38

Concluding in January 2014, DVRPC implemented a related program, the Energy Efficiency Circuit Rider program. This program emphasized “no-cost assistance to local governments...to reduce energy costs in their municipal buildings, outdoor lighting, water/sewage treatment facilities, and vehicle fleets.”39 The program included a lecture series on reducing energy costs in municipal operations, estimates on energy savings in converting traffic signals from incandescent lights to LEDs, and free one-on-one direct technical assistance for reducing energy in municipal operations.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSShort-term local compact development assistance programs have low GHG reduction potentials. However, this could increase to medium-high over the long term, depending on the long-term availability of funding as well as support from both DVRPC and each municipality.

ESTIMATED COSTCosts for local compact development depend on the level of expertise that is provided to each municipality. The 3-year Local Technical Assistance Program developed by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) cost approximately $11.75 million to implement with grants from HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative, the Chicago Community Trust, and in-kind donations.40

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The creation of new community plans and ordinances intersect many of the goals of Connections 2040. Because each municipality has the discretion to tailor their planning efforts to their own needs, most of Connections 2040’s goals could be met through this program. However, because one of the major intents of this program is to support compact development, the ideal outcomes of the program would best support the goals of investing in centers, enhancing community design, preserving open space, historic resources, and cultural landscapes, limiting transportation impacts on the natural environment, and managing stormwater.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSDVRPC could administer this program itself, but would have to work with municipalities. ULI

LOW-MEDIUM IMPACT

MEDIUM-HIGH COST

$$$



would also serve as an ideal funding partner. Outreach could potentially be conducted with help from planning organizations that advocate some of the compact development principles recommended by Connections 2040, including University of Pennsylvania, Temple University, Rutgers University, or New Jersey Future.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSIf consultant-driven, the program frees up finances for other studies at the municipal/county levels, and provides employment in the consulting sector. The program also gives municipalities new skills and precedents that they can use for future planning initiatives, potentially reducing the guidance that DVRPC will need to provide in the future.

FINANCING METHODSFunding mixture: monies from DVRPC, grants from federal, state, or philanthropic sources, with matching funds required from municipalities.

figure 8: Photograph of a CMAP presentation at the Round Lake Village Heights Festival in support of the development of their new comprehensive plan.Source: GO_TO_2040, March 30, 2005, http://www.flickr.com/photos/go_to_2040/7846543448/

Local Compact Development Assistance Program

LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMChicago, IL

The program, which began in 2011, provides staff support and some grant funding to meet demand for local planning where it cannot be filled, with emphasis on housing, land use, and transportation.41 Staff assist in the implementation of CMAP’s Go To 2040 comprehensive regional plan, and issue seasonal or quarterly calls for projects.42 Projects are reviewed and approved or rejected by several committees. Criteria for acceptance into the program include alignment with Go To 2040, local need for assistance, feasibility and ability to implement, collaboration with other groups, and geographic balance (with preference toward multi-jurisdictional projects).

There are now 150 projects with local governments, nonprofits, intergovernmental organizations.They range from comprehensive plans to zoning ordinances to streetscape studies to sustainability plans.43 CMAP is also developing model ordinances and guides in conjunction with these projects in order to guide municipalities. Some examples are for fair housing and aging in place, water conservation, and form-based codes.44

Metro region. In 2005, Metro held these workshops in at least six communities, and also held presentations at their headquarters. It also “assemble[s] the political, financial, and planning tools to create centers,” but no reference is made to what these tools are.46

This program coincided with the designation of approximately 40 regional centers in Metro’s Plan 2040, which recommended growth concentrated in these centers.47 However, it is not as action-oriented as that of CMAP, but it lays the ground for education and networking.


PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION

INTRODUCTION“Service expansion” refers to new public transport initiatives on routes not currently served in any capacity, such as adding a new bus route to a street that presently lacks bus service. Service expansion does not include service “increases”, such as improving headways, or replacing bus service with a street-car.

CURRENT CONDITIONSThere are currently 14 different service expansion concepts in various stages of planning, thirteen of which are included in Connections 2040. While we assumed SEPTA is no longer considering light rail or a streetcar down Market Street, this expansion is discussed in the event of later inclusion in plan updates (Appendix ___).

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSA 2010 US DOT report identified service expansion (defined as a 2.4% to 4.6% annual increase in service) as a moderately effective strategy for GHG emissions reductions, with the potential to reduce CO

2 emissions nationally by 6 to 18 million MT CO

2-eq GHG by 2030.48

The US Public Interest Research Group concluded that investments in already dense locations like the DVRPC region would have the largest emissions reductions from service expansion.49 This result implies that within the DVRPC region, expansion of public transportation would have a reasonable impact on GHG emissions. These impacts can be improved with improved densification around transit nodes and revised car parking policies.

DVRPC has estimated ridership of an extension from Elwyn to West Chester (via Wawa) to be approximately 1000 trips per day. If all of these expansions were delivered simultaneously, and all of these expanded services accounted for similar ridership, they would account for nearly 16 million MT CO

2-eq saved per year.50

ESTIMATED COSTThe cost of fixed-rail public transport is extremely expensive, costing at least hundreds of millions of dollars in design, construction, and annual operations. Bus rapid transit (BRT) has less expensive up-front costs, but the carrying capacity is worse than that of rail cars. While the US DOT report did note that service expansion was a net-positive in terms of cost-benefit,51 it is uncertain that regional service expansion should be a top priority for the DVRPC.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040Service expansion can preserve open space by reducing needed road infrastructure. The initiative can increase investment in the Centers described in Connections 2040 via new investments in public transport in regional centers. Public transport improves accessibility and mobility of those who cannot drive, and the delivery of new transport options helps foster a multimodal transportation system that anyone traveling through the region can use. Reduced VMT due to the shifting of modes to public transport reduces GHG emissions, improves air quality, and mitigates congestion.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSService expansion can increase employment by requiring construction, maintenance, and operation of services workers. Lower VMT in private vehicles can improve public health by reducing vehicle crashes. More time spent on public transit can increase productivity, as more people can focus on their work en route, or can increase leisure time from fewer hours of the week spent on congested roads.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSFederal Transit Administration (FTA), SEPTA, Delaware River Port Authority, New Jersey

MEDIUM-HIGH IMPACT

HIGH COST

$$$



Transit, PennDot, NJDOT, DVRPC, and USDOT can all work with DVRPC to implement this program.

FINANCING METHODSFinancing methods include US DOT TIGER grants, US DOT FTA grants, US federal transportation earmarks, formation of transportation revitalization investment districts (TRIDs), funding from PennDOT, creation of revenue bonds, public-private partnerships.

Public Transit Service Expansion

figure 10: SEPTA bus stopping in dedicated laneEXPOSITION LINE EXPANSION52

Los Angeles, CA

The Exposition (Expo) Line is a light rail line in the Los Angeles metropolitan area that extends south and west from downtown Los Angeles. Phase I of the line, which opened in two stages in April and June 2012, runs 8.7 miles from downtown Los Angeles westward to Culver City, near the junction of the 405 and 10 Freeways. This research project enrolled experimental households, within one half mile of a new Expo Line station, and control households, living beyond one half mile from the station. In the Fall of 2011, those households were asked to track their travel for seven days, recording daily odometer readings for all household vehicles and logging trips by travel mode and day for each household member 12 years or older. In approximately half of the households, an adult also carried a geographic positioning device (GPS) and an accelerometer. These instruments measured travel, via the GPS device’s location tracking function, and physical activity, respectively. The same households were invited to complete the seven-day travel study again in Fall 2012, after the Expo Line opened. In total, 204 households (103 in the experimental neighborhoods, 101 in control neighborhoods) completed the travel tracking before and after the Expo Line opened.

The analysis gives the following results: » After the Expo line opened, the study’s differences-in-differences approach shows that the experimental group reduced their daily household VMT by 10 to 12 miles relative to the control group. That result persists after outlier observations are removed and when alternative statistical methods are used. This is interpreted as evidence that the Expo Line reduces VMT among households living within one half mile of the Expo Line stations. There was no evidence of any systematic reporting biases that would reduce faith in the result that experimental households reduced their VMT by 10 to 12 miles, relative to control group households, after the Expo Line opened.

» In some statistical tests, there is evidence that the Expo Line increased rail transit ridership among experimental households. Control group households also increased their rail ridership, but not by as much as experimental households. On net, the differences-in-differences evidence suggests that the Expo Line resulted in about 0.1 more daily train trips per household in the experimental group, but this result is not nearly as robust as the finding for VMT reduction among experimental group household

» After opening, experimental group households had approximately 30% less vehicle CO2 emissions

than control group households. This difference is statistically significant. » After the Expo Line opened, those individuals living in the experimental neighborhoods who were the least physically active had the largest increases in physical activity relative to control group subjects. The Expo Line opening was associated with increases in physical activity among approximately the 40% of experimental subjects who had the lowest physical activity levels before the line opened. The impact was as high as 8 to 10 minutes of increased daily moderate or vigorous physical activity among those experimental group subjects who were the least active before the Expo Line opened. Note, though, that for more than half of the experimental group subjects (those more physically active before the Expo Line opened), the statistical test suggests that the Expo Line is associated with decreases in physical activity.

» The impact of the Expo Line on VMT and rail ridership was larger near stations with more bus lines and near stations with streets with fewer traffic lanes, suggesting that bus service increases the impact of rail transit and that wide streets (which can be barriers to pedestrian access) reduce the impact of rail transit, at least in the Expo Line corridor.

figure 11: Expositon line expansionSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo/Crenshaw_(Los_Angeles_Metro_station)


PARKING MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTIONThere is a considerable amount of variety within the category of “Parking” as it relates to greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. These include:(1) Pricing: Pricing of unpriced space, such as new meters in previously free municipal lots or streets, or increasing the pricing of already-priced street space.(2) Infrastructure: Real-time availability and information systems, such as signs that direct drivers to parking locations (see Figure 12); and electrified truck parking spaces, which are spaces that are powered so that trucks do not need to idle to maintain optimal temperatures.(3) Regulatory: One strategy is the reduction of parking minimums, such as allowing developers to provide fewer parking spaces as of right. Additional strategies include establishing parking maximums, potentially allocating them by use, and creating Payment In-Lieu of Parking Programs (PILOP), which entails the municipality accepting payment of an established amount to a specific municipal fund, perhaps in escrow, for off-site parking provision at a later date.

CURRENT CONDITIONSPricing: Within the DVRPC region, there are a number of localities that charge for parking within central business districts, including but not limited to Philadelphia, Media, Trenton, Camden, Ambler, Norristown, Lower Merion, Upper Darby, and West Chester. Of these, Philadelphia charges the most for on-street parking, at $2 per hour.

Infrastructure: The Philadelphia International Airport represents the only known real-time parking in the DVRPC region. There are two service stations operated by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority within the DVRPC region, at Valley Forge and King of Prussia. Neither of these have electrified truck parking spaces. There are additionally 3 service stations within NJ along the NJ Turnpike within the DVRPC region, at Hamilton Township (Mercer County), Mt. Laurel (Burlington Country), and Cherry Hill (Camden County). It is not believed that there are any electrified spaces at these stations either.

Regulatory: Philadelphia has recently revised its zoning code, including a revision to parking ratios. There are no parking maximums, however, within the Philadelphia Zoning code. Other municipalities may have revised their parking requirements, but it was not feasible to review their codes for this report. To our knowledge, there is no PILOP scheme anywhere within the region.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSThe quantity of reduction in GHG emissions as it relates to parking depends not only on the intervention but the location of the intervention as well. The 2010 US DOT study found that pricing incentives provide only a minimal reduction in VMT in areas with poor access to public transport.53 However, that same study identified a San Francisco case study whereby rail transit mode shares increased from 14% to 64% if the employee had to pay for parking, indicating that pricing incentives will be most effective where there is already strong public transport access. Other interventions, such as regulatory approaches, will also see the greatest reductions in VMT when coupled with denser development patterns with good public transport access.

ESTIMATED COSTThe outlay of Seattle’s ePark system thus far has been $4 million for 11 garages, representing over 7,000 parking spaces, or roughly a cost of $570 per space.54 Electrified truck parking spaces cost between $6,000 and $17,000, depending on the level of service offered.55 New parking meters - ones that accept credit cards - can cost over $500 per space, plus training and management fees.56 It is noted, however, that these systems can pay for themselves over

LOW TO HIGH IMPACT

LOW-MEDIUM COST

$$$



time via user fees. Regulatory approaches have a low initial outlay, being mostly staff time and legal fees; however, PILOP programs generally require municipalities to deliver parking infrastructure with the collected monies, which can cost tens of millions of dollars.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040These various interventions would help achieve a variety of goals of the Connections 2040 plan. The reduction of land needed for car parking could preserve open space and cultural landscapes, while a reduction of impervious surfaces for parking would address stormwater and water quality concerns. Reduced onsite parking could also support the reuse of historic buildings. Reduced idling, cruising, and mode shifts to public transportation would reduce congestion and GHG emissions, as well as air quality generally. In terms of time savings, the outcome of more efficient parking from some of these programs can also lead to greater economic activity in the region. The use of real-time information infrastructure supports investment in the Centers outlined in Connections 2040. If special programs were used to direct the increased parking revenue suggested in this initiative to public transport infrastructure, the initiative could help rebuild and maintain the region’s transportation infrastructure.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSMunicipalities, Philadelphia Parking Authority, Private lot and garage operators, PA & NJ Turnpike Authorities, PennDOT

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSThis initiative can yield increased free time due to spending less time looking for parking, increased revenue for municipal use, and reduced noise pollution.

FINANCING METHODSMunicipalities, PPA, Private Lot/garage operators, PA & NJ Turnpike Authorities, PennDOT

figure 12: BWI Airport Parking Garage Real-Time Informa-tion Sign Source: Airline Passenger’s Experience Association, Edi-tor’s Blog, blog.apex.aero/inflight-services-2/east-coast-air-ports-show-parking-programmes-evolving-improve-passen-ger-experience/

figure 13: Seattle ePark Information Sign Source: Regional View, http://blog.psrc.org/2013/12/park-ing-inventory-tracks-off-street-parking-data/seattle-epark/)

Parking Management

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY STUDYSan Francisco, CA

On January 6, 2013, SFMTA began operating parking meters throughout the city of San Francisco from 12 to 6 pm on Sundays with four-hour time limits. The SFMTA studied how well this change in parking management achieved the goals of increasing drivers’ ability to find a parking space in commercial areas on Sundays, reducing double-parking and circling, and offsetting the operating costs, finding:

» Between 2012 and 2013, the average parking availability on Sunday doubled during metered hours, increasing from 15% to 31%, meaning that it had become easier to find parking spaces in commercial and mixed-use areas on Sundays.

» Turnover of spaces increased significantly. Prior to operating meters on Sundays, some drivers would park in metered spaces on Saturday evening or Sunday morning and not move their car until Monday morning, reducing turnover and the parking availability in commercial areas on Sundays. This behavior changed following the implementation of parking fees. The number of cars that parked in each space per day increased by at least 20%, from 0.5 per hour to 0.6 per hour during Sunday afternoons. The percentage of spaces occupied on Saturday night through Sunday afternoon decreased by two thirds, from 6% to 2%. Prior to metering on Sundays, half of all cars parked for less than three hours, while half stayed for three or more hours. After metering on Sundays, 76% of cars remained parked for up to three hours, with 50% staying for less than one hour, and less than one quarter of all cars parked stayed for three or more hours.

» Garage occupancy on Sundays from 12 pm to 6 pm increased by 13% » The average search time in the area was cut in half, from four to two minutes. The variability of

parking search time - the consistency or predictability of the parking experience - also improved. The amount of time a driver reasonably should budget to find a parking space, measured by the 95th percentile, decreased from about 14 minutes in 2012 to about four minutes in 2013.

» After taking account of ongoing costs, operating meters on Sundays generated $3,143,000 in FY2013 (January 1 through June 30) and $1,869,000 in the first three months of FY2014 (July 1 through September 30).


PRICING INITIATIVES

INTRODUCTIONPricing initiatives includes measures aimed at altering driving behavior by increasing the cost of operating motor vehicles. These measures include:

(1) Congestion fee: a fee charged for the use of specific streets to reduce driving demand on congested roadways.(2) Cordon fee: similar to congestion fee, it is a fee charged for entering or driving in specific areas, usually city centers.(3) Variably priced lanes: includes express toll lanes and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. On HOT lanes, low-occupancy vehicles are charged a toll, whereas high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), public transportation buses, and emergency vehicles are allowed to use the lanes free of charge or at reduced rates. With variable tolls, flat toll rates on existing toll roads are changed to a variable-toll schedule so that the toll is higher during peak-travel hours and lower during off-peak or shoulder hours.57

(4) Fuel tax: an excise tax imposed on the sale of fuel, usually with credits given to alternative fuel vehicles.(5) VMT fee: mileage-based fee imposed on motorists based on how many miles traveled.(6) Pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) insurance: premiums are based directly on how much it is driven during the policy term.58

CURRENT CONDITIONSCurrently in the DVRPC region, there is no practice of congestion fees, cordon fees, or VMT fees. The closest HOV lane project to the DVRPC region is in northern New Jersey, on the New Jersey Turnpike between Woodbridge and Newark. Several companies have provided pay-as-you-drive insurance in both states, including Allstate, Progressive, and Liberty Mutual.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSThese pricing strategies have shown different effects on reducing traffic. For example, current experience with HOT lanes suggests that variably priced lanes do not generate a shift to public transportation per se,59 but cities with cordon pricing, such as London, Stockholm and Singapore City, experienced significant success in reducing urban congestion and increasing public transportation ridership. However, none of them are very effective in terms of GHG emissions reductions. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined the following nationwide statistics:60

(1) With a VMT fee of 2 to 5 cents per mile, GHG reduction in the transportation sector would be 0.8% to 2.3%.(2) With an intercity toll of 2 to 5 cents per mile on a rural interstate highway, GHG reduction in the transportation sector would be only 0.1%.(3) With PAYD insurance implemented under states’ permits, GHG reduction in the transportation sector would be 1.1% to 3.5%.(4) With a congestion fee of 65 cents per mile applied to 29% of urban and 7% of rural VMT, GHG reduction in the transportation sector would be 0.4% to 1.6%.(5) With a cordon fee of 65 cents per mile on all American metropolitan area central business districts (CBDs), GHG reduction in the transportation sector would be 0.1%.ESTIMATED COSTThe financial costs to implement these strategies vary depending on the technology involved and on existing road infrastructure available. However, politically these projects will be very costly. For example, a proposed congestion fee often arouses public discontent on issues of inequality and economic burden on neighboring communities.

LOW IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$



RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040These initiatives support DVRPC’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas levels within the region, as well as others in Connections 2040. They reduce congestion by reducing regional vehicle trips, particularly single-occupant vehicle trips, as well as VMT. They also encourage practices that spread travel throughout the day and week. The initiatives may also help foster a multimodal transportation system, as road pricing strategies have been proven effective in increasing public transit usage.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARNTERSEfforts could be conducted at the state level, through PennDOT and NJDOT, and at the municipality level, such as with the Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities (MOTU). The DVRPC could provide technical assistance in terms of devising a sound tax scheme, and advocating for public acceptance.

figure 14: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane in UtahSource: flickr.com, CountyLemonade

Pricing Initiatives

CONGESTION PRICING

Stockholm, Sweden

Stockholm implemented its congestion pricing in 2006 as a trial program and was made permanent in 2007. Motorists are charged money on weekdays when entering or exiting the center city, with fees varying based on the time of day. As a result, the city has reduced traffic by 22%, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 14%, and increased transit ridership by 5%, with a 5% increase in sales within the charged zone.

PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE INSURANCE

National General Insurance--a PAYD insurance provider--designed a Low-Mileage Discount program for drivers with no more than a 15,000 annual mileage. According to their policy, when a driver’s annual mileage ranges from 12,501 miles to 15,000 miles, the discount is 13% off the his or her premium, and from there, discounts climb progressively to 54% for people who drive no more than 2,500 miles annually.61

Multiple pilot studies have been conducted to assess PAYD insurance. According to The Impact of Pay-As-You-Drive Auto Insurance in California, research from the Brookings Institution, California drivers would enjoy the following key benefits from a statewide switch to PAYD auto insurance pricing:

» PAYD would result in an 8% driving reduction for light-duty vehicles. Based on 2020 projections, the reduction in VMT would be 33 billion miles cumulatively by 2020, and the reduction in fuel consumption would be 1.3 billion gallons.

» Estimated gross annual social benefits from an 8% driving reduction are $10.8 billion based on current driving levels, and $21.1 billion based on 2020 projections. This is a benefit of $414 and $658 per vehicle, respectively. The California state government would save $60 million annually based on 2020 projections.

» PAYD would generate 7 to 9% of the total CO2 reductions needed to meet California’s

emissions targets for 2020. » Nearly two-thirds (64%) of households in California would have lower premiums under PAYD.

The average savings for that group would be $276 per vehicle per year (in 2007 dollars).

figure 15: Stockholm Congestion Pricing SignageSource: Flickr.com, European Institute for Sustainable Transport


BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTIONImprovement of bicycle and pedestrian amenities provides better transportation options that make it easier to walk and bike. This method is especially effective at reducing automobile trips of less than three miles.

CURRENT CONDITIONSPhiladelphia is a walkable and bikeable city, however, there are still many pedestrian and biking issues in the region. These issues include concerns about traffic safety, lack of connectivity, poor surface quality, lack of bike parking, sidewalk cycling, and wrong-way riding.62

DVRPC is currently promoting improvements in pedestrian and bike planning in various programs, including the Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Program, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Audits, and the Circuit.63 The Circuit is the regional trails program for Greater Philadelphia, and aims to provide connected and multi-use trails in the region, with Philadelphia and Camden as its hubs. Right now, the Circuit consists of more than 250 miles of walking and biking trails, and it is expected to have 750 miles of trails when the program is completed (Figure 16).64

The City of Philadelphia published its Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 2012 as part of an effort supporting Greenworks Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035, and Complete Streets.65 The plan provides recommendations for improvements to the walking and bicycling networks in Philadelphia, as well as a framework of pedestrian and bicycle planning, implementation, and maintenance. The goals of the plan include improving safety, encouraging walking and bicycling, increasing connectivity, promoting the public realm, and garnering recognition for Philadelphia as a leader in pedestrian and bicycle achievement.66

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSOne study of the the Metro Orange Line and parallel bicycle path in Los Angeles examined how combined bicycling and transit trips can reduce automobile use and lower GHG emissions. The study estimated that bicyclists who use the Metro system to facilitate combined bicycle-rail trips would reduce 3.96 million VMT annually, offsetting approximately 2,154 MT CO

2-eq GHG emissions each year.67 As a co-benefit, there would also be reductions in criteria

air pollutants. Figure 17 provides more details on emission reduction estimates. The study also concluded that the total potential impact of a program of coordinated bicycle investments is greater than the sum of its parts.68 As the bicycle network becomes more robust, the true environmental benefits of bicycling improvement strategies are likely to grow over time.

ESTIMATED COSTThe Circuit program in the DVRPC region is estimated to cost about $770 million spread over 30 years, with $248 million from city and state funding and the remainder from grants and bonds.69

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The goal of improving bicycle and pedestrian amenities is to provide a better and safer physical environment to residents so that they are willing to reduce the amount of automobile trips and VMT, ultimately improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions. Additionally, this program recommendation helps meet many of the transportation goals in Connections 2040, such as creating a safer transportation system, increasing accessibility and mobility, and fostering a multimodal transportation system. By concentrating investment in important urban centers and corridors, the recommendation could also meet the goal of ensuring that transportation investments support long-range plan goals, as well as the goal of investing in centers.

MEDIUM IMPACT

HIGH COST

$$$



POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS & IMPLEMENTATION AGENTSDVRPC could help implement bicycle and pedestrian improvement plans by partnering with PennDOT and NJ DOT, transportation and planning departments in local jurisdictions, and regional bicycle advocates, such as the the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS Improving bicycle and pedestrian amenities encourages more bicycling and walking activities, which not only benefits residents’ mental and physical health, but also enhances the public realm in local communities. The Circuit is likely to benefit the local economy by generating activities and adding value to property along the trails.75

FINANCING METHODSFunding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements can come from a broad variety of sources. The physical implementation could mostly come from traditional transportation sources, through the federal surface transportation program and state and city capital programs. For example, the Circuit program is going to be funded by city and state funding, as well as with numerous grants and bonds. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has agreed to fund a major share of Phase 2 of the Philadelphia Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.76

To New Brunswick, Newark, and NYC

To Wilmington, Baltimore, and Washington, DC

To Harrisburg

To Reading, Pottsville &Appalachian Tr.

To Bethlehem

To Easton, the Poconos &Wilkes-Barre

To Bridgeton

CHESTER VALLEYEXTENSION

CHESTER VALLEYTRAIL

BRANDYWINETRAIL

STRUBLETRAIL CYNWYD

TRAILPEMBERTON

TRAIL

DELAWARE RIVERHERITAGE TRAIL

WISSAHICKONTRAIL

LIBERTY BELLTRAIL

EAST BRANCHPERKIOMEN

MERCHANTVILLETRAIL

JOHN HEINZNWR TRAIL

SKIPPACKTRAIL

CROSS COUNTYTRAIL

FORGE TO REFUGE TR.

CHESTER VALLEYTRAIL

DOYLESTOWN-NEW HOPECONNECTOR

TIDAL SCHUYL TR

COBBS (ECG)

MONROE TWP.BIKE PATH

GLOUCESTER COUNTYLIGHT RAIL W/ TRAIL

COOPER RIVERTRAIL

EAST ALANTICBIKEWAY

RANCOCASGREENWAY

KINKORATRAIL

D&R CANAL (ECG)D & RTOWPATH

NESHAMINYCREEK

STRUBLETRAIL

UWCHLANTRAIL

SCHUYLKILLRIVER TRAIL (SRT)

PERKIOMENTRAIL

LIBERTY BELLTRAIL

D & L TRAIL

EAST COASTGREENWAY

DELAWARE RIVERHERITAGE TRAIL

BRIDGETON RAIL TRAIL

LAWRENCE-HOPEWELL TRAIL

BLACKWOODRAIL TRAIL

OCTORARATRAIL

DARBY CREEKTRAIL

RADNOR TRAIL

EAST COASTGREENWAY

TOOKANY-TACONY

PENNYPACKTRAIL

POWER LINETRAIL

202 PARKWAYTRAIL

D & L TRAIL

D & L TRAIL (ECG)

SRT

SRT ECG

SRT/ECG

the

CHESTER CREEKTRAIL

CRESHEIMVALLEY

NEWTOWN SQRBRANCH TRAIL

M a y 2 0 1 2

0 105

PHOENIXVILLE

POTTSTOWN

DOWNINGTOWN

DOYLESTOWN

NEW HOPE

QUAKERTOWN

GLASSBORO

BURLINGTON

TRENTON

PRINCETON

MT. HOLLY

BURLINGTON

CAMDEN

MERCER

BUCKS

DELAWARECHESTER

Exis t ing Tra i l s

P lanned Tra i l s

Tra i l s in Progress

figure 16: Map of the Circuit’s existing and planned multi-use trails in the region.Source: DVRPC The Circuit connectthecircuit.org/uploads/media_items/updated-circuit-map.original.pdf

Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Programs

COMPLETE STREETSBoulder, CO

The City of Boulder, Colorado, is known for its multimodal transportation system and robust bicycle network. The League of American Bicyclists recognizes the city as a leading “Platinum” level bicycling community. Boulder currently has 159 center-line miles of bike facilities, in comparison to the 305 centerline miles of roads in the city.72 In addition, the core network of Boulder’s biking and walking paths is virtually complete. From 1990 to 2012, bicycle trips have been increased by about 10%, pedestrian trips increased by 2%, and single-occupancy vehicle trips reduced by 8% (Figure 20).73 Yet, Boulder is still working on further improving its bicycle and pedestrian amenities and facilities. The latest update to the city’s Transportation Master Plan in 2013 has included a focus on “Complete Streets” with work programs centered on a variety of bicycle and pedestrian innovations.74

GOING TO THE RIVER PROJECTPortland, OR

The Going to the River Project is a multimodal project that includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements to optimize access to Swan Island in North Portland, one of the largest employment centers in the region.70 The project is administered by the Portland Bureau of Transportation and received $2.3 million in funding from the Federal Flexible Funds program. The project includes an expansion of Portland’s bike network, trail and sidewalk extension, building a shared-use path, and completion of sidewalk gaps, all of which aim to build more accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Swan Island area. According to a transportation analysis, the project is estimated to result in a 4.5% reduction in daily auto vehicle trips and a 1.8% reduction of daily VMT per GHG emission in the project’s impact area, which is about 2,800 daily auto trips and 6 MT CO

2-eq GHG emissions (Figure 19).71

figure 19: Estimated VMT and GHG reduction summary for the Going to the River project.Source: http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2012/JB12EA42.pdf.


CAR-SHARE & BIKE-SHARE PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTIONCar-share and bike-share are two emerging urban transportation concepts based on collective paid use of a distributed supply of short-term public vehicle and bicycle rentals.

CURRENT CONDITIONSAccording to the most recent American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the DVRPC region has a 0.7% bicycle mode share, only slightly better than the national 0.6%. Nevertheless, compared to Portland, Oregon at 6.1%, Minneapolis at 4.5% and Seattle at 4.1% the City of Philadelphia’s high 2.3% cycle commuters seems small and could be improved.76 In 2013, Philadelphia was upgraded to a Silver level Bicycle-Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists.77 Given the strong market demand for a bike-share program, DVRPC helped conduct a feasibility study of a bike-share program in Philadelphia.78 Currently the bike-share program in Philadelphia is in progress and will start in summer 2014. The system will include 150 to 200 bike share stations and 1,000 to 2,000 bikes, serving an area that stretches from the Delaware River into West Philadelphia, from the Navy Yard through Center City to North Philadelphia beyond Temple University’s main campus (Figure 21).

Car-share activities in the region are largely operated by privately-owned car sharing companies, such as Zipcar and Enterprise CarShare (previously PhillyCarShare). DVRPC is promoting car-sharing and carpooling behaviors by offering the Share-A-Ride program and the RideECO program. In the five-county Southeastern Pennsylvania region, Share-A-Ride offers employees free computerized information that could potentially match people with convenient commute traveling alternatives, such as transit, carpool, vanpool, walking and bicycling, or even working from home, instead of driving alone to work.80 RideECO is an employer-offered commuter benefit program that helps commuters reduce the cost of getting to work on public transportation and vanpools.81 Starting from 2013, commuters using RideECO enjoy more discounts on car sharing because of the partnership between RideECO and Enterprise CarShare.82

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSIn 2008, two transportation researchers at University of California - Berkeley conducted a survey of carsharing members across North America and asked respondents about past and current vehicle holdings and shifts in travel patterns in order to estimate the effects of car sharing on reducing GHG emissions. The researchers concluded that car sharing can reduce 0.58 to 0.84 MT CO

2-eq GHG per year per household, and reduce the average observed

VMT per year by 27%.83 The mean “observed impact” is 0.58 MT CO2-eq GHG per year,

per household, which includes the emission changes that actually happen and are physically measurable. The mean “full impact” is 0.84 MT CO

2-eq GHG per year, per household, which

includes what physically happened with car sharing, as well as what would have happened otherwise in the absence of carsharing.

ESTIMATED COSTMayor Nutter has committed $3 million of the city’s capital budget to deploy an initial bike-share service. The Philadelphia Bike Share program is expected to cost $14 million to purchase, install, maintain, and operate over the first five years of the system (2014-2019),84 with money raised from from state and federal grants as well as from private sponsors.79 Maintenance and replacement costs will begin to escalate starting in the program’s sixth year.85 Therefore, expanding the bike-share program in the DVRPC region will cost even more. However, there is no significant financial cost to the DVRPC to support car-share programs.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The goal of setting up bike-share and car-share programs is to provide an alternative to public

LOW-MEDIUM IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$



figure 21: Philadelphia Bike Share Program Initial Service Area 2014-2015

Source: Bike Share Philadelphia http://bikesharephiladel-phia.org/.

Car-Share & Bike-Share Programs

transportation in a convenient manner. Bike-share and car-share offer an alternative means of transportation for short trips that might otherwise have been made by privately-owned cars, ultimately improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions. The program recommendation helps achieve many of the transportation goals in Connections 2040, such as creating a safer transportation system, increasing accessibility and mobility, reducing congestion, and fostering a multimodal transportation system. By concentrating investment in important urban centers and corridors, the recommendation also meets the goal of ensuring that transportation investments support long-range plan goals, as well as that of investing in centers.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSBoth car-share and bike-share programs help people save a significant amount of travel costs by freeing people from the hassles of owning or storing a car. More car-sharing means fewer car sales; a report released by consulting firm alixPartners in February 2014 concludes that the presence of each car in the car-sharing fleet means 32 lost vehicle sales.92 Bike-share also enhances residents’ mobility by filling the critical gap between the station and residents’ final destinations. It is much less expensive to the local jurisdiction than extending public transport service. In addition, bike-share can improve the physical and mental health of the residents.93

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSA potential partnership of bike-share programs could include participating city and county governments. For example, the Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities (MOTU) in the City of Philadelphia is responsible for the administration of the Philadelphia Bike Share program. Other partners could include program operators and sponsors. For car-share, the DVRPC could work with the major car-sharing companies in the region, such as Enterprise CarShare and Zipcar.

FINANCING METHODSBike-share programs can be funded by city capital improvement plans, state and federal transportation grants, and private funding. Car-share programs can be internally financed by car sharing companies. Possible financial incentives could be provided by DVRPC to increase the share of efficient-fuel and/or alternative fuel vehicles in the car-share fleet.

CAPITAL BIKESHARE PROGRAM

Washington, D.C.

Capital Bikeshare is a multi-jurisdictional bike-share program that provides more than 2,500 bicycles at more than 300 stations in the greater Washington, D.C. area (Figure 22).86 It first started in downtown D.C. in August 2008, and quickly expanded to Arlington County and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, and Montgomery County in Maryland.87 The program is owned by the participating jurisdictions and operated by Alta Bicycle Share, Inc. Over the past five years since it was launched, the program has offered many travel benefits to its members, as well as considerable impacts on the reduction of VMTs. According to the 2013 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Report, bikeshare members have increased their use of bicycling since joining the program and have shifted some trips from driving, taxi, transit and walking.88 The estimated annual VMT reduction per member was about 200 miles in 2012, which equaled to about 4.4 million VMT reductions in total considering there were about 22,000 members in 2012.89

figure 22: A bike docking station for Capital Bike-share program in Washington, D.C.

Source: Flickr User Eric Allix Rogers


GREEN BUILDINGSOverview and Recommended Strategies...................34Building Benchmarking, Auditing, & Retrocommisioning...................................................36Retrofits.......................................................................40Green Buildings............................................................42University/Business Partnerships.................................44


Buildings


OVERVIEWThe following section explores various strategies related to Buildings, including:

Benchmarking: Although policies across the country are too new to establish meaningful predictors, low-cost benchmarking policies not only make it possible to track progress toward-s greater energy efficiency, they more importantly make it possible to learn how far we must go.

Retrofits: Because building retrofits can be implemented on a greater portion of the region’s aging building stock than can any new construction policy, the potential for greenhouse gas emissions reductions is large even with small-scale improvements. The biggest hurdle to widespread implementation is financing projects with a longer payback period.

Green Buildings: Green Buildings, defined as those buildings meeting LEED (or similar) certification, may be more expensive than standard construction, but they have the potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions in the building sector over the long term.

University/Business Partnerships: Green building operations and maintenance partnerships with universities, businesses, and other private-sector entities have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 7 to 15%.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIESStrategies under “Strongly Recommended” are those strategies that are both considered to be effective and relatively easy to implement. Strategies that are “Moderately Recommended” are those that are either effective or inexpensive, but not both.


Strongly Recommended: » DVRPC forming green building operations partnerships with universities, businesses, and other private-sector entities, as this program has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 7 to 15%, with minimal cost to DVRPC.

» Retrofits are strongly recommended because even low-cost interventions, such as replacing lighting fixtures and sealing windows, can be cost-effective improvements for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Larger projects incur substantial upfront capital costs, but emerging financial models may aid in their implementation.

» While their greatest impact will be observed far into the future, Green Buildings



have significant potential to reduce GHG emissions due to their cumulative effect when implemented on a large scale over time.

Moderately Recommended:

» Building benchmarking, auditing, and retro-commissioning are inexpensive methods to track energy intensity and suggest practical improvements, but as of yet it has not proven how much greenhouse gas emissions they can reduce.


BUILDING BENCHMARKING, AUDITING & RETROCOMMISSIONING

INTRODUCTIONBenchmarking is the process of measuring and comparing energy use performance in buildings. This energy feedback mechanism provides customers with detailed and contextual information about performance not typically found in basic utility bills. Measuring the operational performance of the building can help property owners assess their own energy expenses and compare their buildings relative to their market competitors. The addition of disclosure of benchmarking data to the public puts market pressure on property owners to implement improvements when potential buyers or tenants can weigh energy efficiency into their decisions. As of 2011, over fifty national, regional, and local governments had passed mandatory benchmarking and disclosure ordinances.94

Feedback policies not only make it possible to track progress, more importantly they make it possible to assess where the region stands at the outset. Without a baseline against which changes can be measured, there is no way to judge how far we’ve come.

As benchmarking provides performance feedback at steady intervals, periodic energy audits and retrocommissioning measures can be combined to suggest clear implementable investments to increase energy efficiency. Energy audits are inspections conducted by specially-trained contractors (often licensed engineers) that identify energy flows in a building and recommend cost-effective operational or equipment improvements that maintain or improve the comfort, health, and safety for building occupants. The service records characteristics of the building, including the building envelope, age, uses, system design, insulation, material resistance to heat flows, etc. and is often required to meet professional ASHRAE standards. Due to these standards, audits are typically far more expensive than benchmarking.

Retro-commissioning, on the other hand, is the process of reviewing and fine-tuning a building’s equipment and control systems (such as HVAC operations) to ensure that all systems are working as designed and at optimal efficiency years after construction.95

CURRENT CONDITIONSCurrently, DVRPC is tracking energy use, energy expenditures, and greenhouse gas emissions by keeping its Regional Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Inventory.96 Emissions associated with the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, waste management, agricultural processes, fuel systems, and land use change are all included in the inventory conducted every five years. The most recent year of study was 2010. According to the inventory, residential energy made up 22% of regional emissions sources, or 18 million MT CO

2-eq GHG.97 Despite the extensive inventory, calculating stationary emissions from

residential, commercial, and industrial sectors is difficult, and DVRPC does not have a program that specifically focuses on building benchmarking and energy audits in the region (See Figure 24).

DVRPC’s Circuit Rider for Energy Efficiency in Local Government Operations program assists local governments in the four Pennsylvania counties of the Metropolitan Caucus to reducr energy costs in municipal buildings, outdoor lighting, water/sewage treatment facilities, and vehicle fleets. The free quarterly seminar series targeted toward municipal operations highlights cost-effective energy efficiency activities, primarily in lighting. In Lower Merion Township in the summer of 2012, DVRPC discussed best practices for tracking energy use, implementing improvements, and tracking progress over time. Partners at this meeting included The Reinvestment Fund and Practical Energy Solutions.

Individual counties in the region also have energy efficiency programs. Chester County

UNKNOWN IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$

Buildings


Municipal Energy Audit Program provides audits for all municipalities that applied and recommends operational and capital upgrades. Delaware County has an Energy and Environmental Plan and Action Strategy with model ordinances and a grant program for assessments and technical support.

The City of Philadelphia passed a benchmarking and disclosure ordinance in 2012, following the example of nine cities nationwide and two states, California and Washington98 The legislation requires owners of nonresidential spaces of 50,000 square feet or more to use the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Portfolio Manager tool to track and report energy and water use annually to the City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, which will compile and analyze the data.99 Thus far, the data has not been made available to the public, but as of 2014, more than 250 municipal buildings and facilities in Philadelphia has been benchmarked, sectors including offices and courthouses, museums, libraries, medical offices, prisons, and fire stations.100

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSDisclosure legislation is relatively new as a policy in cities across the country, and not enough data has been collected or analyzed yet to make reasonably confident analyses on the effectiveness and impact of benchmarking, auditing, and retro-commissioning requirements on increasing energy efficiency investments. Tracking trends and key predictors is not yet possible. Despite the limited data availability, reporting subsequent investments made is not required and nearly impossible to track.

ESTIMATED COSTThe low implementation cost of benchmarking disclosure strategies, particularly in comparison with other energy efficiency policies, is supported by several reports.101 Additionally, most jurisdictions with benchmarking, auditing, and retrocommissioning policies utilize the EPA’s Portfolio Manager software to report building energy performance, a free service for anyone with an account.

Figure 24: This map from the Institute for Market Transformation and the NRDC shows the status of building energy disclosure regulations across the country. There are 36 cities, counties, or states in various stages of implementation.

Building Benchmarking, Auditing & Retrocommissioning

EEB HUB ENERGY AUDIT TOOLPhiladelphia, PA

To address the problem of variability among energy auditing practices on the market and uncertainty about impacts, the EEB Hub at the Philadelphia Navy Yard is developing a flexible, user-friendly Energy Audit Tool that offers information about how various retrofit strategies can reduce energy usage. The Tool models a building’s future energy usage based on hypothetical retrofit choices. This tool could trim the time it takes technicians to perform an audit, while increasing the accuracy of the results. The partners – Penn State, United Technologies Research Center, IBM, and Balfour Beatty Construction – are drawing on their combined academic, building technology, information technology, and construction experience to create a tool that will close the gap between the current and the ideal energy auditing process.106 As a first test of the Energy Audit Tool, Building 101 in The Navy Yard, the current home of the EEB Hub, underwent an audit. The Tool’s predictive model was extremely accurate in capturing the building’s operational characteristics and therefore could be expected to reliably help auditors predict energy savings through retrofits. The successes in Building 101 illustrate possible applications of the Tool to commercial buildings currently on the market for retrofits.107


RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The goal of adopting benchmarking and auditing in large buildings in the region is to promote greater energy efficiency and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the transparency of how energy is being used. Being able to compare similar buildings across use and form types can inspire a competitive atmosphere between property owners to attract tenants. Benchmarking activities tie to the long-term goals stated in Connections 2040, which include “reducing greenhouse gas emissions”102 and “developing a more energy-efficient economy.”103 According to the plan, some key strategies to accomplish these goals include promoting energy efficiency104 and local governments taking the lead in reducing energy use in daily operations.105 Building benchmarking and auditing serves as a vital step towards a more energy-efficiency economy in the region.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSCurrently, the EEB Hub is serving as a marketing, education, and data analysis partner for the City of Philadelphia with its benchmarking initiatives and can partner with the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, which hosted the most recent international Greenbuild conference and expo. Utility companies are essential partners for many auditing activities; for example, New Jersey has worked with utilities in its “Pay for Performance” program for existing buildings and new construction.108

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS The need for accurate building energy data should increase demand for professionals who have the training to collect and verify it, such as building managers who organize and deliver consumption data and engineers who can perform audits to verify the self-reported data and ensure compliance.109 For example, EEB Hub has estimated that the benchmarking and disclosure legislation for Philadelphia would create between 2,630 and 5,250 new jobs, as well as a total of between $96.5 million and $192.9 million in economic activity.110

In addition, utility companies may also benefit from benchmarking because by empowering building owners, a benchmarking program can be a gateway to performing well in other utility energy efficiency programs. Benchmarking scores can also be used to analyze the effectiveness of programs offered by a utility. Moreover, benchmarking provides utilities with an understanding of where, and in what sectors, the lowest-performing buildings concentrate, thereby allowing the utilities to target and maximize savings.111

Jurisdiction Year Passed Reporting Audits Retrocommisioning

Non-Residential Multi-Family On Public Website To Local Gov't To Tenants Sale Lease Financing

Austin 10,000 5+ units 2008 ✓ ✓ ✓

Boston 35,000 35,000 and/or 35+ units 2013 ✓ ✓ ✓

California State 5,000 2007 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Chicago 50,000 50,000 2013 ✓ ✓

D.C. 50,000 50,000 2008 ✓ ✓

Minneapolis 50,000 2013 ✓ ✓

New York City 50,000 50,000 2009 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Philadelphia 50,000 2012 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

San Francisco 10,000 2011 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Seattle 10,000 20,000 2010 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Washington State 10,000 2009 ✓ ✓ ✓

Portland, OR 20,000 20,000 Proposed ✓

Massachusetts State 10,000 10,000 Proposed ✓

Benchmarking Disclosure

figure 25: This chart is adapted from the one created by the Institute for Market Transformation and the Na-tional Resource Defense Council summarizing differ-ent benchmarking and disclosure policies passed in legislation to date. Currently nine cities and two states have laws on the books, with several others across the country considering their own bills. Building sizes are measured in square feet.

Buildings


Building Benchmarking, Auditing & Retrocommissioning

BENCHMARKING New York City, NY

Building energy use currently makes use 75% of total citywide GHG emissions in New York City. As part of the Greater, Greener Buildings Plan, New York City passed its Local Law 84 in 2009 which requires all privately-owned buildings, including multi-family residential buildings of over 50,000 square feet or composed of multiple buildings with a combined square footage over 100,000 square feet, to annually measure and disclose their energy and water use to the public. These large properties cover 48% of the energy used in New York City and represent half of the city’s total square footage, while only burdening 2% of the number of properties in the City. The 2.6 billion square feet of space covered by the law is more than twice the total built square footage of San Francisco or Boston, two other major cities with benchmarking and disclosure laws. Additionally, public buildings larger than 10,000 square feet began benchmarking in 2010.

Benchmarking is to be conducted with the EPA’s Portfolio Manager software and filed with the NYC Department of Finance. Failure to submit reports results in a $500 per quarter of delay.112

New York City’s Local Law 87, enacted in 2009, is another component of the Greater, Greener Buildings Plan. It requires auditing and retro-commissioning every 10 years and generally applies to the same building stock as described previously, with the exception of Energy Star and LEED-rated buildings or those that perform 25% better than the average of their type.113

The program’s benchmarking data was first available in 2011. The most recent report published in 2013 by the City reveals that between buildings with similar uses, energy use intensity varies by a factor of three to six, and office and retail sectors have a larger range. These sectoral differences suggest opportunities to target programs to building types that have the most to gain from efficiency improvements. The reports also evaluate factors that contribute to energy consumption, including age, geographic distribution, subsidized and market rate housing, and fuel mix. The New York City analysis also investigates compliance, indicating potential changes to enforcement or outreach policies.114


RETROFITS

INTRODUCTIONRetrofits are the replacement or upgrade of old building systems with new, energy-saving or cleaner-fuel technology in existing building stock. Retrofit projects and incentive programs can be applied to a greater portion of the region’s building stock than can any new construction policy, due to the simple fact that the DVRPC region is already substantially built-out.

Retrofit improvements can be either physical or operational and typically come in four categories: a) replacement of equipment; b) new optimization controls; c) integrated design across systems; and d) active management capabilities. Different types of retrofit from simple to more complex technology cover the range of carbon-emitting building serviced. Individuals can decide which technology is most appropriate for them on the basis of their finances, expectation of payback period, and ambition. More invasive projects typically require larger upfront costs, but may have a greater return. Besides monetary concerns, these varied projects help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to different degrees.115

Auditing and benchmarking are important steps in motivating retrofits in large numbers across the region.116 In essence, the act of measuring and tracking energy performance can not only demonstrate to property owners the need to invest in improvements to save money or stay competitive, they also show where retrofits may be most effective. In New York City, about 35% of those who conduct audits continue on to doing energy retrofits.117 These measures are discussed in more depth in the “auditing and benchmarking section” of this report.

CURRENT CONDITIONSAs buildings age and depreciate, they are more likely to have outdated mechanical systems or materials, increasing the potential returns of retrofits. The Real Estate Roundtable’s 2011 Annual Report notes that nearly 75% of US commercial buildings are more than 20 years old and can be described as “ready for a retrofit.”118 Within the DVRPC region, there are 2,027,581 housing units, 92% of which were built before 2000.119 While some of these structures are not yet 20 years old, the vast majority are poised for retrofits to improve their energy efficiency according to the latest technologies. Accordingly, the City of Philadelphia set a goal of retrofitting “15 Percent of Housing Stock with Insulation, Air Sealing and Cool Roofs” as part of its Greenworks plan.120 In 2011, the city’s average energy expenditure was the fourth highest in the United States, nearly 30 percent higher than the national average, burdening low-income residents.121

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSStudies over the past ten years have demonstrated the vast benefits to reducing GHG emissions with building retrofits. A study conducted by the Deutsche Bank in 2012 found that multifamily low-income housing saw, on average, a 19% fuel consumption reduction and a 7% electricity reduction.122 These results indicate a significant impact on GHG emissions if the program were implemented at a larger scale. The US Department of Energy completed a study in cities across the county to understand what combination of retrofit measures could result in varied reductions. The most comparable city to Philadelphia studied was Washington, D.C., with reduction measures causing up to 45% reductions in building GHG emissions.123 According to DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis Spreadsheet, a 45% residential energy reduction would lead to a 6% reduction in projected GHG emissions. If commercial buildings were also to see a 45% reduction, total GHG reductions from building retrofits would be 11%. While this value is large it is likely overestimated as it assumes all buildings start at equal inefficiency, in truth there are fewer buildings eligible for retrofits, therefore making a lower GHG emission reduction value more plausible.

ESTIMATED COST

HIGH IMPACT

MEDIUM COST

$$$

Buildings


Retrofits

Simple retrofits often cost around $2-$7 per square foot, depending on factors such as age, design, and purpose.124 According to a pilot study conducted by National Grid on 60 housing units in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, energy-related costs for deep energy retrofit projects - which are targeted toward integrated design improvements rather than focusing on upgrading individual systems and are meant to provide energy savings of greater than 50% - ranged from “just over $36,000 to almost $255,600. The reported energy-related portion of the project costs ranged from just over $31,500 to approximately $194,350.”125 Energy-related costs ranged from $7.83 to $26.47 per square foot of enclosure, with an average of $16.51 per square foot of enclosure. Total projects costs often raised the price per square foot slightly.126 A 2011 report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy notes that the retrofit financing market has not yet established guidelines for assessing the potential risks and benefits of loans, increasing the transaction costs of obtaining financing and raising the overall cost of projects.127

Although the implementation cost of retrofits is high upfront, the savings in energy lead to a medium cost. The US Department of Energy study mentioned previously looked at a package of measures which would provide the lowest cost. They found for Washington, D.C. that a 30-percent reduction package had the lowest cost, with an incremental equivalent annual cost (IEAC) of -388, and a 43-percent reduction package to be closest to neutral with an IEAC of -114.128 Figure 28 shows the packages of measures in greater detail.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The Connections 2040 plan contains goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a more energy-efficient economy, noting that “high, rising, and volatile energy prices have a tremendous impact on our economy.”131 Being able to provide the same services with less energy or with cleaner energy will not only produce economic savings, but will also work towards the DVRPC’s target of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Retrofits have the potential to promote affordable housing by decreasing energy costs for residents.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSThe Energy Coordinating Agency (ECA) is a non-profit organization in Philadelphia that serves low-income households across Philadelphia through its network of 14 Neighborhood Energy Centers. Its primary service includes bill payment assistance, but ECA also runs conservation programs and educational outreach on home retrofit services. To design, and often implement, retrofits local energy service companies and contractors should cooperate with residents, utilities, and banks.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSAccording to a 2011 report commissioned by the EEB Hub and conducted by Econsult, energy efficiency retrofits in Philadelphia could spur $618 million in local spending and support another 23,500 area jobs. Additionally, studies have found that there is a 3% increase in worker productivity, on average, from greater comfort after retrofits.132 Lighting quality and control over thermal systems are the two attributes with the most statistical significance in this regard.Replacing fixtures and installing optimization controls for HVAC systems can greatly affect both comfort and energy efficiency. Moreover, tenants can pay as much as $250 per square foot in employee costs on top of rent, and thus increasing productivity is a mechanism to reduce rent.133

FINANCING METHODSThe availability of capital and high transaction costs are among the most cited hurdles from owners for installing retrofits. Split incentives also hinder retrofits in rental units. Many property owners have portfolios with buildings fully mortgaged for the value of the building, preventing additional on-balance-sheet debt for financing improvements. Nevertheless, retrofits can find funding through a number of mechanisms. Examples include: energy service agreements, Property Assessed Clean Energy programs, on-bill energy efficiency tariffs, on-bill energy efficiency loans, energy performance contracts, revolving loan funds, and traditional lending.

ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA,

Norristown, PA

Built in 1973, One Montgomery Plaza is a 205,000-square foot office building in downtown Norristown, and contains many Montgomery County activities. In need of significant repairs to the building structure and envelope in order to remain structurally sound and usable, the EEB Hub and Montgomery County joined forces to make the building an example of deep energy retrofits for local leaders. The building’s age, size, and condition were typical of the region. Montgomery County does not have a specific energy savings goal, but it is currently under an energy service performance contract to increase energy efficiency; a private company provides the up-front capital and is paid back through saved funds resulting from the improvements.129 The energy savings of the project are estimated at greater than 40%.130

Figures 27 & 28: : One Montgomery Plaza in Norristown, owned by Montgomery County, underwent a deep energy retrofit as part of a demonstration project with the Energy Efficient Buildings Hub. Photo credits: EEB Hub.


GREEN BUILDINGS

INTRODUCTION“Green buildings” refer to those buildings that meet or exceed the industry established benchmarks, such as LEED or Energy Star Certified buildings. Because the use of the building can drastically affect the amount of energy consumed within it, the term “green building” only refers to the construction process and final built form, not the operational performance of the building.

CURRENT CONDITIONSPhiladelphia had 174 Energy Star Certified buildings (comprising over 33.3m square feet) in 2012, placing it 11th nationally, ahead of Denver but behind Boston. Those 174 buildings accounted for an estimated cost savings of $26.7 million and prevented the equivalent of 23,700 homes-worth of emissions.134 Conversely, Philadelphia was also outside of the top 10 cities for the total number of LEED projects in 2012. However, Pennsylvania was the fifth in the state rankings.135 The City of Philadelphia has passed pieces of legislation that incorporate green building practices, including reflective roofs and the requirement that any building paid for with public funds be LEED Certified. Burlington Township, in Burlington County, has adopted a similar policy. Other municipalities may have enacted green building policies; however, these plicies were not readily available.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSCurrently, buildings represent 39% of CO

2 emissions in the U.S.136 Green buildings significantly

outperform their contemporary counterparts in terms of energy efficiency. The average LEED certified building uses 32% less electricity and saves 350 metric tons of CO

2 emissions

annually.137 Green buildings represent a substantial proportion of non-residential development activity (38%) and are a growing component of residential development activity (17%) nationally.138 Though their growth is strong and projected to continue, Green buildings are more expensive to build and take longer to deliver than standard construction. Therefore, their short-term benefits will be low. Nevertheless, over the longer term, if green building becomes the standard, then the reductions could be quite substantial.

ESTIMATED COSTAlthough green buildings cost more to produce than standard construction, the costs are almost exclusively borne by the private sector. Public entities engaging in green construction for their new facilities will pay an upfront premium for these buildings of anywhere from 5-17%.139 However, according to a 2009 study, the payback period is somewhere around 9-10 years, which is a relatively short period of time for government buildings.140 The real cost to the public sector would be via incentives for green buildings, including tax-credits, deductions, abatements, grants, low-interest loans, permit fast-tracking, etc. Even with incentives, anything that is not a grant is not an out-of-pocket expense by local municipalities, and thus incentivizing green buildings has minimal immediate cost impacts on local budgets.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The recommendation of green buildings helps achieve several goals in the Connections 2040 plan. Improving energy efficiency in buildings reduces GHG emissions in the region. Air quality may also improve, because green buildings usually have internal air quality monitoring. Green buildings help promote affordable and accessible housing since they are more affordable over the long term due to lower utility bills. The design of green buildings can be controlled by design and review boards, or other regulatory bodies, so that it helps meet the goal of enhancing community design. Since the construction industry is a key sector within the DVRPC region, encouraging green building activities helps the local sector be more competitive in this emerging market, supporting and promoting the growth of key economic sectors in the region.

LOW TO HIGH IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$

Buildings


POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSThe following agents and organizations could help implement green building initiatives: local municipalities, US Green Building Council, EPA Energy Star, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED).

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSWithin commercial sites, green buildings may motivate people who live in non-green buildings to consider retrofitting their homes. Coupled with location proximate to public transport and with a green travel plan, green buildings may encourage greater use of public transport infrastructure. In addition, reduced water and electricity usage allows for more to be put to use elsewhere or stored for later use.

ONE CRESCENT DRIVE141

Philadelphia, PA

One Crescent Drive is a 76,300 square foot Class A office building designed by architect Robert A.M. Stern, and was the first developer/investor owned LEED-CS Platinum building in the world. During construction, material and process selection reduced waste and transportation emissions, while simultaneously improving efficiency by using over 40% of materials from local suppliers. Air pollution was reduced by 40% by using recycled concrete. Over 30% of the total construction material consisted of recycled content, and 95% of the total construction waste was recycled. In order to maintain optimal internal conditions, a green housekeeping program maximizes indoor air quality. Its heating and cooling systems use 50% less energy than a typical office building of this size.

figure 29: One Crescent Drive at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia.

source: http://www.ramsa.com/en/projects-search/office/one-crescent.html.

Green Buildings


UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS

INTRODUCTIONOver the past decade, businesses, universities, and a wide range of private-sector institutions have reduced the environmental impact of their operations. Whether for ethical, fiscal, or branding purposes, the end result has often included reductions in GHG emissions. Initiatives have formed to promote and further these efforts at the national level, in the case of the US Green Building Council’s LEED for Existing Buildings program, and within the DVRPC region, in the case of the Greater Philadelphia Green Business Program. DVRPC can partner with private-sector entities within the region, help build upon existing enthusiasm, and scale the program up to the regional level to yield greater reductions in GHG emissions.

CURRENT CONDITIONSDVRPC: Between 2009 and 2011, DVRPC participated in EPA’s Sustainable Skyline Initiative, a public-private partnership to reduce air emissions within the region. DVRPC received $3.5 million towards five projects, the most relevant being the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Campaign, which entailed conducting energy audits of municipal buildings and creating case studies as guides for other municipalities seeking to reduce their energy consumption.142

Energy Efficient Buildings Hub: The current efforts of university and business partnerships on building energy efficiency in the region are represented by the work coordinated by Energy Efficient Buildings Hub (EEB Hub). EEB Hub was established in Philadelphia by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as an Energy-Regional Innovation Cluster in 2011 with a dual mission of improving energy efficiency in buildings and promoting regional economic growth and job creation.143 EEB Hub is a public-private partnership led by Pennsylvania State University, with members and partners including University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, University City Science Center, Pennsylvania College of Technology, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, PECO Energy Company, and some other universities and businesses in the Delaware Valley region.144

Greater Philadelphia Green Business Program (Philly Green Biz): Currently, this program is no longer being implemented. While in operation, it was a voluntary program, led by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) and a committee of business leaders. It resembles the format of the LEED rating system, but for business operations rather than for buildings.145 The program website lists 104 companies as participants, including Campbell Soup Company, Philadelphia Zoo, and Independence Blue Cross.146 Each company was required to implement seven Mandatory Measures and at least 20 additional Elective Measures; depending on the number of measures earned, the company achieved Basic, Silver, Gold, or Platinum ranking.147 Each year, participating businesses filled out a greenhouse gas calculator and submitted it along with an updated list of the Mandatory and Elective measures they had achieved. It was the responsibility of the business to self-report regularly and with integrity. For those businesses that remained up-to-date with their reporting, the program was beneficial for monitoring energy consumption, and was (and perhaps still remains) useful for participants’ self-promotion.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSThe estimated reductions of GHG emissions is low. As a voluntary program, it requires buy-in from businesses and institutions. In the short-term, many do not have the interest or funding to substantially reduce GHG emissions in their buildings.

The City of Philadelphia produced 22.33 million tons of CO2-eq gases in 2010. If the NYC Carbon Challenge results are repeated in Philadelphia, the city could see a 0.4% reduction in the city’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.157 The participants in the New York City Carbon Challenge have large facilities, and the net annual reduction of greenhouse gases

MEDIUM IMPACT

LOW-MEDIUM COST

$$$

Buildings


for them would be higher than for a typical office building, but if a coalition of the 10 largest regional employers and all of the hospital networks and universities within the DVRPC region reduced their emissions at the same rate (6 businesses at 90,000 MT CO2-eq per year), they could offset 1.65 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, or 2.0% of the region’s greenhouse gas production.

The participating businesses in Pittsburgh’s Green Workplace Challenge are not necessarily representative of those in any given municipality in the DVRPC region, but if each of the 351 municipalities in the DVRPC region achieved an average savings of 18,000 MT CO2-eq GHG emissions, the region would achieve a reduction of 6.32 million MT CO2-eq GHG, which is 7.7% of the region’s 81.6 million MT CO2-eq emissions.161 This program is new, and as more businesses participate and increase their capacity, the returns could become substantially higher. Overall, as of 2011, there were 134,826 businesses in the DVRPC region.162 If all businesses were ultimately to participate, and had similar results to those in the Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge, they would achieve a GHG reduction of over 48.5 million MT CO2-eq GHG, which is about 59% of the region’s GHG emissions. More realistically, if the top quartile of businesses were to participate - those with more funds, staff time, and enthusiasm to support changes to their operations - this participation would yield a reduction of 14.9% in GHG emissions.

ESTIMATED COSTPrivate entities would fund their GHG programs internally, but initial monies might be required to manage program and/or offer incentives.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040The intent of this program ties into the goal of Connections 2040 to develop a more energy-efficient economy by devoting less money towards energy purchases.152 One strategy that Connections 2040 recommends is for municipal government to serve as an exemplar by adopting energy-efficiency and green building policies, but entities in the private sector can also contribute to this effort.153 In forming partnerships with businesses in major regional industrial clusters to increase their energy efficiency, the program also contributes to supporting and promoting the growth of key economic sectors, which, through this partnership, will save money in the long term through their energy savings.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS » 79 universities and colleges in the DVRPC region163

» 21 hospital systems in the DVRPC region164

» 16 energy companies and energy suppliers in the region165

» Leading employers in the region, including Merck & Company, Inc, Wal-Mart, UPS, Comcast Corporation, Aramark Corporation, Bank of America Corporation, Supervalu

2010 BASELINE EMISSIONS

+ 9%+ 1.3%100%

- 30%

2030 PROJECTED EMISSIONS

2030 DESIRED EMISSIONS

2030 DESIRED EMISSIONSWITH PARTNERSHIPS

figure 30: Shows the potential 7.7% GHG reduction from busi-nesses across the DVRPC region if rsimilar esults from the Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge can be achieved.

Data sources: Sustainable Pitts-burgh, Connections 2040

University/Business Partnerships

CARBON CHALLENGENew York City, NY

PlaNYC’s Carbon Challenge (2007-present) is a program that partners the City with private-sector entities that agree to match the city government’s own GHG emissions reduction goals (reduction of 30% by 2017).154 Participants include 17 universities, 11 hospitals, 12 global companies, 10 residential management firms, and 40 Broadway theaters, all of whom agreed to measure and reduce their own GHG emissions.155 The current average emissions reduction from these organizations is 17%. The six universities and hospitals that have already met the Carbon Challenge goal have cut their emissions by 90,000 metric tons per year, with a resulting total of $20 million worth of savings, but it is expected that current participants will reduce citywide emissions by over 700,000 metric tons of CO

2-eq and save over $100 million.156


Inc. (ACME), El Du Pont de Nemours & Co, Verizon Communications Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, and others166

» The 104 businesses participating in the Greater Philadelphia Green Business Program and large companies in the Sustainable Business Network directory as they have already participated in green business practices167

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSOver time, the businesses and institutions save money from energy savings, which they are able to allocate into other programs. A positive reputation for participating companies yields positive reputation for the region, increasing its desirability.

FINANCING METHODSThe program will be internally financed by companies and institutions, but it may need some initial external funding, as well as staff time to promote, run, and monitor it. This could come from grant funding.

Buildings

GREEN WORKPLACE CHALLENGEPittsburgh, PA

In this competition program, run by the nonprofit group Sustainable Pittsburgh since 2011, businesses, nonprofits, municipalities, and universities track their performance in energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions.158 They also achieve points for performing certain actions pertaining to environmentally-friendly business operations.159 The results from each year are divided by general building type and tracked in a “leaderboard” visible on the program website, which provides some transparency to the participants, their peers, and the Pittsburgh community as to how private-sector buildings are taking action to improve their operations and how they could improve. In 2012, the 50 companies that participated in the program saved about 18,000 MT CO

2-eq GHG.160


University/Business Partnerships

figure 31: This chart is one example of the “lea-derboard” that Sustainable Pittsburgh puts on its website to track the sustainability initiatives of different business types and sizes, and shows number of points achieved (Y axis) for different nonprofit organizations (X axis). Businesses can earn points through other initiatives besides ener-gy savings, but these other categories can indi-rectly yield energy savings.

Source: Sustainable Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge http://gwcpgh.org/lead-er-board/small-nonprofits


FUEL & ENERGYOverview and Recommended Strategies..................50Alternative Fuel Vehicles..............................................52District Heating, Cogeneration, and Combined Heat and Power............................................................54Food Waste & Methane.................................................56Solar Production in the Region.......................................58Utility Partnerships.......................................................60


Fuel Sources


OVERVIEWThe following section explores various strategies related to Fuel Sources, including:

Alternative Fuel Vehicles have a very high potential to help achieve the 30% reduction goal; however, without sufficient demand or infrastructure support, they are not economically viable.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP): Though facing financing and technical barriers to implementation, combined heat and power systems have the potential to greatly increase the energy efficiency of electrical generation and space heating, which would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the region.

Recapturing Methane (food waste) can reduce current emissions and convert these emissions to fuel sources; however, preliminary research indicates that this strategy has limited overall potential for GHG reduction.

Regional Solar Production: While solar energy may seem like a perfect solution, the potential for the sun to supply enough electricity for the region is severely limited.

Utilities: Partnerships with utility companies, beneficial in the short term for allowing the DVRPC to address some of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the region, are more likely to reach their full potential in conjunction with longer-term legislative action.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIESStrategies under “Strongly Recommended” are those strategies that are both considered to be effective and relatively easy to implement. Strategies that are “Moderately Recommended” are those that are either effective or inexpensive, but not both. “Not Recommended” strategies are those that are considered ineffective, too costly, or too difficult to implement in the timeframe allotted.


Strongly Recommended: » While DVRPC would need to increase infrastructure capacity and induce market demand for alternative fuel vehicles, they are extremely effective in lowering GHGs emissions.

» Partnerships with utility companies are particularly valuable in the short term for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through building retrofits, monitoring of energy use, and replacement of older appliances; however, this recommendation is tempered with the caveat that these partnerships are more likely to reach their greatest potential in the long term, in conjunction with legislative action.



Moderately Recommended: » Recapturing Methane (food waste): Although food waste proves to have minimal impact, possibilities in capturing methane from both animal byproducts and other waste could make this measure worthwhile. Further research will be done on these topics.

» Combined Heat and Power is a much more efficient system to supply energy to buildings without as much waste, but requires extensive retrofits in existing buildings and costly machinery even in new construction.

Not Recommended » Solar: The space requirements for solar installation are too large to make this endeavor feasible


ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES (AFVs)

INTRODUCTIONAlternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) use combinations of vehicle fuels and technologies to reduce the use of gasoline in on-road vehicles. These include low-carbon fuels (sometimes blended with petroleum), electricity, and hybrid technologies combining internal combustion engines (ICEs) with electric motors.168

CURRENT CONDITIONSAlthough there are existing natural gas distribution systems and electric grids that distribute energy across the DVRPC region, the infrastructure for alternative fuels is still very limited. According to the DVRPC, there are only 38 public refueling stations in the region for alternative fuels as of January 2010, which is less than 2% of the number of gasoline stations in the region (2 for biodiesel, 5 for compressed natural gas, 4 for ethanol, and 11 for liquefied petroleum gas, 1 for electric).169

Pennsylvania mandates in-state production and sale of cellulosic ethanol fuel, as well as biodiesel, through the Biofuel Development and In-State Production Incentive Act of 2008. Eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, are developing the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Low Carbon Fuels Standard Program (LCFS). The current proposed LCFS is a market-based program that would require Northeast and Mid-Atlantic fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels supplied to the region over time.170

In 2013, the DVRPC developed Ready to Roll! Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Regional Electric Vehicle Action Plan that provides guidance for municipalities in the region to create suitable infrastructure and policy environment to accommodate the projected future increase in demand and usage of electric vehicles. Also on 2013, Philadelphia Gas Works, a city-owned utility, was awarded $240,000 to purchase 50 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to demonstrate the financial viability of CNG as a fleet fuel. Greater Philadelphia Clean Cities and its partners were awarded $250,000 to purchase 50 propane school buses for school districts and private bus companies.171 In addition, the City of Philadelphia planned to install 20 new charging stations in the city by using a $140,000 Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2011.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSA successful transition toward a broader use of AFVs will help the DVRPC region reduce its dependence on diesel fuel in the transportation sector, which could also lower the total greenhouse gas emissions across the area. Specifically, compared to conventional diesel fuel and gasoline, natural gas vehicles can produce lower level of emissions. Hybrid electric vehicles emissions vary by vehicle model and type of hybrid power system. For example, all electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles produce no tailpipe emissions when in all-electric mode. Vehicles fueled by hydrogen or fuel cells are emission-free. However, the specific method of fuel production greatly affects its lifecycle emissions.172 In other words, the energy used and greenhouse gas emissions generated to produce and distribute the fuel should be taken into account when computing the environmental impacts of that fuel. Therefore, the estimated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of AFVs should be considered a medium level.

If the 4,000 taxis in Philadelphia achieved the same conversion rate as in San Francisco’s case (see next page), it would reduce gas consumption by 7.6 million gallons and 92,000 tons of GHG emissions per year.

ESTIMATED COSTThe costs related to AFVs consist of two major categories- the cost of fuel and the cost of

MEDIUM IMPACT

HIGH COST

$$$

Fuel Sources


Alternative Fuel Vehicles

vehicles. Appendix 4 shows the cost of each fuel type. According to DVRPC, in order for an AFV to be competitive with traditional gasoline- or diesel-powered ICEs, the fuel must be competitive on a cost-per-mile basis.174 Currently, this means that renewable fuels must be able to achieve a range of $2.00 to $3.00 per gallon gasoline equivalent (untaxed).175 Moreover, because of new technologies and a smaller scale of production, many AFVs currently are much more costly to own and operate than their conventional gasoline-powered counterparts.176 As of 2008, fewer than 700,000 of all 229,000,000 vehicles (about 0.3%) in use in United States are AFVs. Many of these are fleet vehicles, fueled at a central facility run by the fleet operator.177 Although future developments in technology may lead to reduction in cost of AFVs, such reduction might be negated because alternative fuels have lower energy density than conventional gasoline. Furthermore, additional investment is needed to building new infrastructure for AFVs, such as refueling stations, due to the fact that the existing infrastructure is very limited.

Nevertheless, tax credits are provided both at the Federal and state level to lower the cost of implementing alternative fuel projects and purchasing of AFVs. For example, fueling equipment for alternative fuels installed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013, is eligible for a Federal tax credit of 30% of the cost, not to exceed $30,000. Consumers who purchased qualified residential fueling equipment prior to December 31, 2013, may receive a Federal tax credit of up to $1,000. PA DEP initiated Natural Gas Vehicle Program to help pay for the incremental purchase and conversion costs of heavy-duty natural gas fleet vehicles.

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040Transitioning to AFVs contributes to the goals set in Connections 2040. First of all, because AFVs are low-level emission vehicles, converting to the use of AFVs could result in the reduction of GHG emissions, as well as limiting transportation impacts on the natural environment. Since extensive research and development is required to achieve technology innovation in both fuels and vehicles to make AFVs more affordable and feasible, advocating AFVs would motivate industry innovation and new business formation.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS Similar to what the DVRPC has laid out in Ready to Roll! , several Pennsylvania state agencies, including PA DEP, PennDOT and PA PUC could take a leadership role in the development of AFV policies and deployment initiatives in the region, proving funding, and technical assistance. The DVRPC should support the planning efforts of local government and administrative authorities (MOS, MOTU, PPA, SEPTA, PGW, etc.) in various approaches. Additionally, generators and distributors, such as PECO, and property owners and operator are all important stakeholders. Municipalities in Clean Cities Coalitions could also provide lessons and assistance to each other in the process of planning and implementation.

Figure 32: Electric Vehicle Charging Station. Source: Glen Wallace Inverness Trucker www.flickr.com

MULTI-FUEL APPROACH178

Fort Collins, CO

The City of Fort Collins fleet includes nearly 700 AFVs out of its total fleet of 1600. The AFVs include heavy-duty compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, biodiesel vehicles, light-duty propane vehicles, flex fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and plug-in vehicles. In 2012, the Fort Collins fleet used approximately 490,000 gasoline and diesel gallon equivalents of alternative fuels (about 55% of its total fuel purchases), averting more than 800 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

CITY CARSHARE INCORPORATING FUEL EFFICIENCY IN CAR-SHARE BUSINESSSan Francisco Bay Area, CA

Launched in 2001, City CarShare is the largest nonprofit car sharing organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its mission is to improve environmental quality by promoting innovative mobility options. In December 2013, City CarShare announced that more than 50% of its fleet was comprised of hybrids, plug-ins, and electric vehicles, which makes it the greenest car-share organization among those offering a variety of vehicle models to its members.90 The high percentage of electric vehicles helps City CarShare’s fleet reduce at least 80 million pounds (36,000 metric tons) of CO

2 emissions each year.91

TAXI CABS GO GREENSan Francisco, CA & New York City, NY

San Francisco introduced hybrid taxis in 2005. In 2008, Mayor Gavin Newsom sponsored a green taxi law requiring San Francisco cab companies to lower their GHG emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2012. By March 2010, more than 50% of the city’s taxis had converted to alternative fuel, including hybrids and compressed natural gas, and the city had reduced gas consumption by 2.9 million gallons and GHGs by 35,000 tons annually.179 By 2012 the conversion rate reached 87%.

Also in 2005, New York City amended its Administrative Code to approve one or more hybrid electric vehicle models for use as a taxicab, and required that the approved vehicle models be eligible for immediate use by all current and future medallion owners.180 According to the 2011 update to PlanNYC, over 30% of the city’s 13,237 yellow cabs are hybrid or clean diesel vehicles, giving New York City the largest fleet of clean vehicle taxis in the country. These vehicles have proven themselves able to provide reliable service with dramatically lower emissions and fuel costs.181 By September 2012, the ratio of “green taxis” increased to 45%.182


DISTRICT HEATING, COGENERATION, & COMBINED HEAT AND POWER

INTRODUCTIONDistributed energy resources are localized and often smaller-scale systems to centrally generate energy for nearby residential and/or commercial buildings. This supplied energy can consist of both the electricity and heat resources that buildings consume in large amounts to meet modern standards of living.

Typically, buildings get their electricity by connecting to the larger power grid that carries electrons from natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, and solar plants to end use consumers across hundreds of miles of distribution cables. This network design wastes a lot of energy in transmission, and therefore produces excess greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, buildings typically get their heat from individual furnaces, specific to each structure. These miniaturized power plants also waste energy by not operating at the most efficient scale of production.

While generating power with cleaner fuel sources is one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, another solution that addresses the efficient size dilemmas of electricity and heat is cogeneration, also known as combined heat and power (CHP) or district heating systems. Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of electricity and usable heat with one power source. This can be both renewable or fossil fuels. Although microturbine generators may be less efficient than large central power plants, by generating electricity in or near the building where it is used, the system can capture the extra byproduct waste heat and use it for space heat or hot water and in some cases evaporative cooling. This can potentially reduce fuel use in buildings by as much as 50%.183 If implemented across the 9-county region, cogeneration can reduce line losses on the electricity grid, thereby reducing the need for new power plants.

There are four main types of CHP systems -- industrial, micro, district heating, and packaged (for medium-sized buildings) -- that face few geographic limitations. Packaged and district heating systems often incorporate elements of microgrids. But since CHP systems are sized to meet the user’s baseload demand, meaning they are optimized to individual needs, there has been a proliferation of designs using a variety of fuels.

CURRENT CONDITIONSAccording to ICF International’s (formerly Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.) Combined Heat and Power Installation Database, as of July 2013, there are 66 CHP systems installed within the DVRPC region.184 Altogether, these systems have the capacity to produce an

LOW IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$

Fuel Sources

ONE MARKET PLAZASan Francisco, CA

One Market Plaza is a 1976 commercial and office complex totalling nearly 1.5 million square feet of space in the financial district of San Francisco, California. After overcoming initial concerns from Pacific Gas and Electric about interoperability with the grid, the property’s management installed a 1.5 MW CHP system at the complex in 2003 that utilizes waste heat from its three 500 KW natural gas generators to produce 1800 KG of steam per hour that heats the building. The system covers close to 30% of the annual electricity demand at One Market and displaces 85% of the natural gas needed for steam heat. California’s Public Utility Commission’s Self-Generating Incentive Program covered 30% of the initial capital costs when the system proved to match at least a 62% combined electrical and thermal efficiency. The expected payback period was 5 to 6 years with the state incentives.187


estimated 1,804,495 KW of power. Forty-nine of the installations utilize natural gas as a fuel source, while five use waste heat, wood, or biomass. As a result, approximately 1.3 million of the KW capacity is generated with natural gas.

The largest CHP system in DVRPC’s Pennsylvania jurisdiction is in Marcus Hook at Sunoco Inc.’s refinery and was constructed in 1987. It produces more than 800,000 KW of capacity, the largest system by far in the region. The second largest in the region produces 225,000 KW from coal at the Monsanto plant in Logan Township, New Jersey. The majority of the CHP plants in the region, however, produce only a few hundred KW at maximum capacity. These are found at private households, office buildings, hotels, nursing homes, multi-family buildings, universities, and other non-industrial sites. The only district heating application in the database is for the Philadelphia Gas Works, which uses a 200 KW microturbine running on natural gas and was installed in 2010. The median year of all installations reported is 1993.185

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSBased on the vastly improved efficiency of the CHP systems and their tendency to use natural gas or other lower-carbon fuel sources, the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is large if all buildings utilize this technology. Typical systems operate at at least 75% efficiency.

ESTIMATED COSTInstalling combined heat and power plants in one’s home, workplace, or in new construction amounts to a deep energy retrofit and a major project. The case studies in the following sections represent projects that cost millions of dollars. Small-scale cogeneration, such as the micro-CHPs, produce between 1 and 5 KW and can be placed in residential buildings. However, these devices cost around $3,000-5,000 per kilowatt, according to a 2012 study done in the U.K.186

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040Replacing old power generating plants typically reduces the carbon content of the fuel source, and combined heat and power plants are well suited to utilize biomass, natural gas, and landfill gas. The greater efficiency of using both the electricity and the waste heat can increase innovation when households and businesses spend less of their energy bills.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSThe following agents and organizations could help implement combined heat and power improvements: PECO, Veolia Energy, Practical Energy Solutions, PGW, The Reinvestment Fund, local universities and hospitals, and refineries in the region.

District Heating, Cogeneration, & Combined Heat & Power

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT AMHERSTAmherst, MA

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst installed a natural gas and ultra low sulfur diesel cogeneration and central heating plant in 2008 that covers nearly all of the electricity demand on campus. The plant replaced a coal-fired facility operating since 1918, reducing emissions by 26,600 tons of CO

2 per year and is estimated to save

the University $1 million per month. The plant has a 75% efficiency, and uses 18% less fuel than the average power plant. Additionally, with the installation, SOx, NOx, and CO emissions were reduced by 97%. The facility covers 10 million square feet to produce 16 MW of power and steam for space heating, process, domestic hot water, food processing, and laboratory autoclaves. Rather than using drinking water for steam, the plant recycles nearly 200,000 gallons of effluent per day from the local wastewater treatment system.190 Overall, the system costs $127 million.191

Figure 34: The central heating plant at UMass Amherst was completed in 2009.Source: University of Massachsetts at Amherst.

CO-OP CITYBronx, NYC, NY

Co-Op City in the Bronx is a 340-acre complex housing around 60,000 people and several retail, school, and community services facilities. It is the largest residential development in the United States and is composed of 35 towers and several townhouse clusters. Built between 1966 and 1973, Co-Op City reconstructed its crumbling central district energy plant, steam and chilled-water piping, and electrical circuits in the mid-2000s into a combined heat and power plant. Combined with window replacements, the system would be able to isolate from the larger electric grid, partially needed after pressure following the 2003 blackout.188 The system capacity is 38 MW and efficiency reaches 90% lower heating value (LHV).189 The plant produces annual revenues of $15-25 million from selling excess electricity to Con Edison.


FOOD WASTE & METHANE

INTRODUCTIONFood waste is the number one contributor by weight of landfill waste in the United States. While food waste methane is only a small portion of the DVRPC region’s emissions,193 it represents a sector of waste that is easily avoided. Food waste diverted to landfills creates higher GHG emissions than waste allowed to naturally decompose. While naturally decomposing food waste releases small amounts of CO

2, when placed in landfills, decomposers convert and emit

methane, a far more hazardous GHG.194

Food waste GHG reduction measures consist of either reducing consumption, or capturing methane to produce energy. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), and English research group, suggests a six-tiered approach to reducing food waste GHG emissions, (Figure 35) each with potential to lower GHG emissions.195

(1) Reduce waste: Reducing waste includes decreasing the amount of produced and distributed food. These changes lead to GHG reductions through decreased production energy and transportation fuel use.(2) Divert edible food waste to those in need: DVRPC’s food plan includes goals of increasing access to healthy foods. Although much food waste is thrown out due to quality issues, much edible food still ends up in landfills. Through creating systems to redistribute edible waste, DVRPC residents could obtain affordable and healthy produce.(3) Feed livestock with food not fit for human consumption: DVRPC could also assist in lowering production of food and supporting the local livestock economy by redistributing food waste to livestock. This would allow for cheaper feed for animals, therefore supporting local farmers.(4) Recapture methane emissions to produce energy and fertilizer: Multiple systems exist to capture food waste methane and convert it into a power source. Methane collected can be used to create energy, steam, or heat, as an energy source for alternative energy vehicles, or to be sold as a renewable power or gas.196 The majority of landfill gas-to-energy projects use the methane to create electricity that is used by the power plant or sold to other consumers. Others use the methane directly to replace non-renewable fuel sources, use cogeneration to produce both thermal energy and electricity, or use pipeline gas. These methods have additional benefits of creating revenue through selling the electricity, and creating additional green jobs.197

(5) Compost: Composting returns food waste to a natural decomposition, lowering GHG emissions through returning to CO

2 and not methane emissions. Additionally, composting allows

for fertilizer, which could be returned to local farmers.(6) Use landfill and incineration as a last resort: Landfill and incineration lead to GHG emissions and should be used minimally.

While steps (1) through (3) should be priorities in the DVRPC region, they require large systematic changes, which are limited by individual consumers’ actions, and national regulations. Creating systems to process food waste, with methods to capture methane emissions or compost, provides a more implementable alternative.

CURRENT CONDITIONSCurrently, the majority of the region’s solid waste is deposited in landfills. Food waste-specific GHG emissions data is unavailable; however, waste emissions account for at least 1.9 million MT CO

2-eq GHG in 2005, with additional emissions due to the inventory including emissions

from processing under other sectors.198 The DVRPC region has recognized the food waste GHG challenge and has worked to reduce food waste GHG emissions. In the DVRPC region, fifteen landfill gas-to-energy projects currently exist at eight landfills, with a emissions reduction of 2.17 million MT CO

2-eq GHG per year.199 Appendix 2 provides additional details on these sites.

LOW IMPACT

HIGH COST

$$$

Fuel Sources


Food Waste & Methane

These and other steps that the region has taken to decrease methane emissions from landfills have led to an estimated recovery of 42% of the region’s landfill methane emissions.200

Additionally, Philadelphia has recognized food waste as a challenge for the city, and in the Greenworks Philadelphia plan, the City has aimed to divert as much food waste as possible from landfills. In 2012, the City of Philadelphia partnered with the Philadelphia Water department to launch the Clean Kitchen/Green Community program, which subsidized garbage disposals for households.201

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSOne tonne of food waste in landfills generates 0.4 tonnes of CO

2. Philadelphia produces around

70,000 tons of food waste annually.202 Currently, 42% of GHG emissions are avoided each year in the DVRPC region; therefore, if all of Philadelphia’s food waste was diverted, 162,439 tons of CO

2 could be avoided annually. Additionally, the methane produced from gas-to-energy

systems could be used to provide additional renewable electricity to the region. In California, the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s pilot program found that digesting 100 tons of food waste five days a week provided enough electricity to power 800 to 1,400 homes a year.203

Using a conservative value of 1,000 homes, Philadelphia’s food waste could power homes in the region. This accounts for only 0.45% of Philadelphia’s total occupied housing units according to the 2012 American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Assuming the waste-creation-to-occupied-housing ratio is the same at larger scales, the DVRPC’s region’s total food waste would create only enough electricity to power 0.45% of the region’s occupied housing units.

ESTIMATED COSTThe numbers obtained for estimated carbon emissions are derived from from the East Bay Municipal Utility District pilot project. As the project uses new technologies, these have not yet been mass-produced to achieve lower costs, leaving the cost of the gas-to-energy system high. Additionally, other costs, such as putting systems in place for the collection of food waste, would drive up the expense. Despite this barrier, focusing only on steps (1) through (3) of the WRAP hierarchy, and simply reducing emissions from food waste as opposed to harnessing energy, would only require the implementation of systems, making food waste reduction a medium-cost option overall.

1# 2# 3# 4# 5# 6#

REDUCE DISTRIBUTE FEED REUSE COMPOST INCINERATEtotal amount of food waste

to those in need livestock waste not suitable for human consumption

to create energy and fertilizer

unavoidable food waste

as a last resort

figure 35: WRAP’s food waste hierarchy

WASTE-TO-ENERGY PIOLOT PROJECT204

East Bay Area, CA

The East Bay Municipal Utility District piloted a project in Oakland’s wastewater treatment plant to turn food waste into usable energy. Their facility converts post-consumer food scraps to energy using an anaerobic digester. During this process, first the food scraps are converted to a slurry, then methane is released as a byproduct of bacteria breaking down food waste. This methane is then captured and used as energy to power the plant.

The pilot project saw promising results, providing 3 to 3.5 times more methane production than did solid digestion. Researchers of the project estimate that digesting 100 tons of food per day, five days a week ,could provide enough energy to power 800 to 1,400 homes for a year. Additional benefits of the project included increased biodegradable solids, decreased residual, shorter required digestion times, and decreased cost of new digesters.


SOLAR PRODUCTION WITHIN THE REGION

INTRODUCTIONThis section explores the possibility of installing different solar technologies within the region to produce electricity or fuel for the region. A free and renewable resource, solar energy provides a method of producing power with low GHG emissions that can transform sunlight into either electricity or heat. Various technologies exist to harness solar energy, including photovoltaic (PV) panels, passive solar building design, concentrated solar power (CSP), and solar hot water. For more information on these technologies, refer to Appendix 3.

CURRENT CONDITIONSThe region currently hosts multiple solar projects and a few solar farms. For example, the Crossing Vineyards and Winery utilizes solar power and has installed a high-efficiency geothermal heating and cooling system in one of its buildings;210 the Maximuck’s Farm Market in Doylestown now operates with electricity from solar panels installed on the property. Exelon-EPURON Solar Center, a 3 MW solar electricity generation plant located in Bucks County. The $20 million project features 16,500 solar panels on a 16.5-acre tract of land adjacent to Waste Management’s GROWS landfill.

Within the region, many counties have also set solar goals. For example, the City of Philadelphia has a goal of purchasing 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2015.211 The Camden County Renewable Energy Program has a goal to install approximately 7 MW of PV panels throughout the County on rooftops, ground mounts and canopies over parking stalls at county facilities, estimated to reduce the County’s “carbon footprint” associated with the use of electricity by 500 metric tons in the first year.212

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSThe DVRPC region has a low capacity for producing its own solar power. The Northeast has fewer sunny days per year than the majority of the country (Figure 37). We canculated space requirements based on Philadelphia’s Greenworks 20% solar energy goal. As mentioned, Pennsylvania’s Renewable Portfolio Standards call for using renewable energy sources to count towards 8% of the state’s energy needs.213 These values are used as base values, along with higher values, to determine the space requirements for producing solar power within the region. The remaining methodology and calculations can by found in Appendix 1.

The results of these calculations show that the DVRPC region have limited solar capacity. To reach the 20% goal just for residential use, which would lead to a 2% reduction of future GHG emissions, would require 459 billion square feet. This amount is equal to about 1000 times of Philadelphia’s building footprint. Solar farms do not fare better, requiring a minimum of 33 sqauare miles to produce 20% of the region’s electricity. For a complete set of space requirement values please refer to Appendix 1.

Currently, solar power has limited ability to provide large percentages of the region’s energy. However, this could change with new technologies not accounted for in the Renewable Energy Laboratory’s report.

ESTIMATED COSTThe estimated cost of using solar technology to produce fuel and electricity within the region is high for individuals. While the cost of solar PV panels, CSP, solar hot water, and passive solar designs has decreased in recent years, the cost to implement sufficient solar infrastructure across the region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be large. Costs to the DVRPC likely includes grant programs aiming to reduce financing barriers for individuals.

LOW IMPACT

HIGH COST

$$$

Fuel Sources


RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040Although solar is not suggested in the region, it could have benefits matching the DVRPC’s Connections 2040 plan in addition to reducing GHG emissions. Mainly, installing solar within the region would increase the amount of green infrastructure in the region. Solar has the potential to promote affordable housing by decreasing energy costs for residents. This is seen in the Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha’s 2011 affordable green housing project in North Philadelphia, which utilized green infrastructure including solar hot water to decrease costs for residents.217 Investing in solar energy could also help to develop a more energy-efficient economy, as installing solar would help promote the multiple solar manufacturers in the region, as well as create jobs in installation and maintenance of solar.

However, the space required to produce solar directly interferes with some of the other goals in Connections 2040. For example, the DVRPC aims to preserve historic resources and cultural landscapes, but the addition of solar, especially solar plants, would require the use of much of the natural and cultural landscape that the region is attempting to preserve.

figure 37: Sunny days per year in the U.S, Spain, and Germany, as calculated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2009. The DVRPC region has fewer sunny days per year than the majority of the country.

Solar Production Within the Region

IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEMCA

Covering five square miles of land, the world’s largest power plant produces enough electricity to power 140,000 homes in California, or about 392 megawatts of power, currently 30% of the U.S. total solar production.218 The solar power plant uses 300,000 mirrors controlled with computers, each measuring seven by ten feet. The plant uses solar power to convert water to steam that powers its turbines.219 The project is a partnership between Google, NRG, and BrightSource Energy. The project saw additional benefits in job creation, estimating around 3,000 workers during construction.220

figure 38: displays figures from DVRPC’s 2010 green house gas inventory. Source: www.dvrpc.org/EnergyClimate/Inventory.htm

Source Energy Use (BBTU) Percent of Total

Stationary Energy Consumption: Commercial & Industrial 582,679 45.20%

Stationary Energy Consumption: Residential 363,812 28.20%

Mobile Energy Consumption 342,009 26.50%

Total 1,288,500 100%


UTILITY PARTNERSHIPS

INTRODUCTIONA report by Living Cities and the Institute for Sustainable Communities noted that cities, should partner with investor-owned utility companies to “enhance efficiency programs and adapt them to specific needs or conditions in their cities.” Utilities can be involved in supply-side programs that help customers reduce their energy consumption. These programs include utility bill feedback, audits and retrofits (discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report), and appliance rebate programs. Utilities can also support fuels with lower global warming potential by changing their purchased fuel mixture, or by building alternative fuel sources.

CURRENT CONDITIONSDVRPC is working with Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) and PECO to promote natural gas-fueled vehicles in the region’s Pennsylvania counties.222 Their role as partner and advocate could be expanded to a wider range of initiatives, and towards helping to determine how utilities across the region could develop a unified vision for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The role of advocate is critical, because it has been determined that many energy efficiency programs reach under 1% of their potential customers from lack of information, as well as from choosing the wrong voices to communicate that information.223 The Living Cities and the Institute for Sustainable Communities report indicates that community groups can outperform private subcontractors and utilities in terms of cost, energy savings, and response rate, “perhaps because of the level of mutual trust and familiarity homeowners had with the community groups.”224

Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey have laws that guide DVRPC utilities’ actions concerning renewable energy sources. Pennsylvania Act 129 requires that major electric distribution companies in Pennsylvania reduce their energy consumption by approximately 2.3% in total between 2014 and 2016.226 The Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard requires that state electric distribution and generation companies supply 18% of their electricity from alternative sources by 2020.227 As of 2013, the fuel mix that arrives in Philadelphia via PJM Interconnection’s grid system changes daily, but is typically from coal and nuclear sources.228

In its 2008 Energy Master Plan, New Jersey intends to reduce energy savings 20% below the projected 2020 levels. Unfortunately, as the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) notes, “these goals are advisory and lack consequence if they are missed” and “utilities have not formulated any plans to achieve intermediate targets.”230 The State of New Jersey is more successful in its Clean Energy Program, which is supported through a surcharge that utilities require of their customers.231

Publicly owned utilities: There are ten publicly-owned utilities in the DVRPC region. Publicly owned utilities are generally less profit-driven than private utilities, are more willing to pay for energy-saving programs, and are a “natural fit” for partnering with municipalities.232 The majority of these utilities participate in a thematically similar mixture of programs but with variations in the exact nature of these programs. Many utilities also offer free auditing and upgrading programs for households at the poverty level. Overall, there seems to be a range of quality, and exemplary programs have a smaller impact in the context of the DVRPC region because they are implemented within only a portion of that region.

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTIONSAccording to DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis model, every 10% reduction in electricity use yields a 9.0% reduction in expected greenhouse gas emissions for the region. Switching to lower carbon fuels for stationary sources, conversely, yields a 6.4% greenhouse gas emissions reduction for every 10% reduction in the source’s carbon content. These results, particularly when employed in concert, are among the highest of the sources included in the model.

MEDIUM IMPACT

LOW COST

$$$

Fuel Sources


Nevertheless, implementation can be limited by risk aversion, conflicts of interest, limited information, and improperly allocated funding. An oversupply of funding towards renewable energy certificates has dropped their price and reduced their commercial viability. Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) in Pennsylvania, for example, have dropped from a peak of $654 in the 2009/2010 “vintage” to $218 presently.233 Additionally, the profits of utilities need to be severed from the amount of energy that they sell, and the cost of building alternative energy sources has to be made competitive with conventional sources in the region for energy providers to become more enthusiastic. DVRPC can advocate and lobby for these changes, but may not see their maximum potential by 2030.

ESTIMATED COSTThere is a large range based on program implemented; at the cheapest is printing neighborhood comparisons on customers’ monthly utility bills. Constructing new alternative fuels sources is much more costly. In relative terms, a 2009 ACEEE report found that the average cost to a utility of delivering energy efficiency programs in the United States is $0.03 per kWh, while supply-side options tend to be higher.234 The report found that natural gas cost utilities between $0.07 and $0.10 per kWh, wind cost utilities between $0.04 and $0.09 per kWh, and conventional coal and nuclear cost utilities about $0.10 per kWh.235

RELATIONSHIP TO CONNECTIONS 2040One of the goals of Connections 2040 is to “develop a more energy-efficient economy” in order to address the influence that “high, rising, and volatile energy prices” have on the regional economy.236 The plan’s strategies towards this goal - providing goods and services with less energy - do not explicitly mention the role of utilities, but utilities can and do support these

Utility Partnerships

UTILITY BILL FEEDBACKOpower of Arlington, VA

Opower has partnered with 21 utilities nationwide to incorporate neighborhood comparisons into energy and gas bills. In total, the utilities reach about 1 million households, Customers who saved energy beyond that of their peers received a smiley face. Customers in the program reduced their average annual energy usage by 2.8%, or about 280 kWh per year.244 This program is inexpensive, and though it is unproven in the long term, it can yield reasonably high results for a low fiscal input.

If the previously mentioned success rate is applied to households in the DVRPC region, of which there are approximately 2.3 million, the outcome is 644 GWh in savings.245 This value, in turn, would yield a reduction of over 450,000 MT CO2-eq GHGs, or 0.6% of the region’s total emissions of 81.6 million MT CO2-eq GHGs.246 PPL Electric and New Jersey Natural Gas are two local utilities that maintains similar programs online.

figure 40: OPower’s utility bills tap into neigh-bors’ competitive spirits by comparing a house-hold’s energy use to its peers. Good per-formance is rewarded with a smiley face, and utility customers respond.

Source: Tucker Fort, “4 Rules to Design Our Lives to Use Less Energy,” FastCoEx-ist, March 26, 2012, http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679538/4-rules-to-design-our-lives-to-use-less-energy

3.8%

6.8%

8.4%

9.2%

12.0%

3.8%Enhanced

billingHousehold-specific info,

advice

Estimated feedbackWeb-based

energy auditswith info on

ongoing basis

Daily/Weekly

FeedbackHousehold-specific info,advice on daily or

weekly basis

Real-TimeFeedbackReal-time

premise level info

Real-TimePlus

FeedbackReal-time infodown to the

appliance level

“Indirect” Feedback(Provided after Consumption Occurs)

“Direct” Feedback(Provided Real-Time)

Average Household Electricity Savings by Feedback Type

Annu

al P

erce

nt S

avings

figure 41: The figure shows that households, on average, tend to save more electricity when they use in-house meters that provide data in real-time and track more appliances.

Source: Karen Erhardt-Martinez et. al., Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Econ-omy, June 2010, iii.


initiatives in the region. As required by state law, they are also promoting GHG reduction by transitioning away from fuels that have less global warming potential.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS » Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities » Electricity distributors: Atlantic City Electric, Jersey Central Power and Light, Met-Ed

(Metropolitan Edison), PSE&G (Public Service Enterprise Group), PPL Electric Utilities. » Electricity and gas distributor: PECO (Pennsylvania Electric Company). » Gas distributors: Philadelphia Gas Works, South Jersey Gas, Elizabethtown Gas, New

Jersey Natural Gas.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITSFuel efficiency programs save money for home- and business-owners. The creation of a more varied portfolio of fuels, both on large and small scales, makes individuals and utility corporations alike less vulnerable to changes in the availability and pricing of any one fuel source.

FINANCING METHODSMuch of the cost would come internally, from the utilities, but they would require incentives to implement programs that sometimes may be at odds with their main mission of selling more energy and electricity to more people. DVRPC could provide funding in the form of grants or loans to develop new energy infrastructure, as could state or federal sources.

Fuel Sources

DECOUPLING REVENUE FROM SALESSeventeen States Across the Country

Utilities are often reluctant to conduct efforts to reduce energy use by customers, since these actions reduce utility revenues and do not simultaneously reduce the fixed costs of providing service in the short term.237 Utilities often pass the fluctuating costs of commodities to customers as a cost adjustment,238 but fixed costs are recouped through fixed monthly customer charges and consumption-based rates, so a decline in energy sales can reduce or eliminate that month’s profit.239

As of 2013, seventeen states, such California, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, use policies to decouple sales from revenues.240 In this scenario, the policies allow utilities to recover losses from fixed costs through an extra charge to the customers, though this upcharge has been small: approximately 2% on average for the 1,269 rate adjustments made between 2005 and 2013.241

Utilities are guaranteed more financial stability, freeing them to support loss of energy use per capita. DVRPC cannot create decoupling laws, but it can advocate for their use. 9New Jersey already has gas decoupling laws, but its other utilities are unrestricted, and there are no such laws in Pennsylvania.


Utility Partnerships

ADVANCED METERING

Several utilities in the DVRPC region are beginning to consider implementing smart metering, and have many options of variable success in reducing energy consumption. A 2010 ACEEE study evaluated these options and determined which might provide better opportunities for saving electricity. The study determined from its analysis of 36 other studies that average households achieved annual savings of between 4 and 12% from metering feedback, but that meters that supplied real-time information down to the appliance level, with details on energy use beyond total consumption, were the most successful - albeit for a small sample size.247 More successful programs included services such as including data compilation and tailoring recommendations to households.248

FUEL COMPOSITION CHANGES

The Greenworks Philadelphia 2013 update noted that the largest GHG emissions decrease in both municipal and citywide inventories came from power plants decreasing the use of coal for electricity generation.249 Philadelphia and other cities cannot entirely control the fuels that power them, as the mixture varies daily, and is often derived predominantly from nonrenewable sources. The utility Atlantic City Electric has partnered with PJM Interconnection, which is to a great extent responsible for the region’s fuel mixture, to increase its renewables makeup beyond 5% of its total transmitted energy (value as of December 2012).250

The DVRPC and local utilities could continue to partner with PJM to add more renewables and natural gas to its mix. A study of different life-cycle assessments indicated that swapping natural gas for coal decreases GHG emissions by an estimated 389 MT CO2-eq GHG produced monthly for each GWh produced.251 Alternative sources were even more effective, with hydroelectric and wind reducing GHG emissions by 862 MT CO2-eq GHG produced for each GWh produced.252 However, this strategy would require substantial funding and negotiation to fulfill, and would be more successful as a long-term proposal.

figure 42: The figure shows the average intensity of greenhouse gas emissions from different fuel sources over their life cycle, from extraction to consumption. Increasing the replacement of coal, a common fuel source in the DVRPC region, with natural gas or renewables, could substantially reduce greenhouse emis-sions, albeit at a potentially high political and monetary cost.

Source: World Nuclear Association, Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Elec-tricity Generation Sources, July 2011.

BEN

CH

MA

RKIN

G

& A

UD

ITIN

G

RETR

OFI

TS

GRE

EN B

UIL

DIN

GS

UN

IVER

SITY

/BU

SIN

ESS

PART

NER

SHIP

S

LOW IMPACT

MEDIUM IMPACT

HIGH IMPACT

FOO

D

WA

STE

AFV

CH

P

SOLA

R PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

SOLA

R PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

UNKNOWN

LOW IMPACT

MEDIUM IMPACT

HIGH IMPACT

UNKNOWN

TOD

TDR

URB

AN

GRO

WTH

BO

UN

DARY

LOC

AL

CO

MPA

CT

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T

TRA

NSI

T SE

RVIC

E EX

PAN

SIO

N

PARK

ING

MA

NAG

EMEN

T

PRIC

ING

INIT

IATI

VES

BIC

YCLE

& P

EDES

TRIA

N

IMPR

OV

EMEN

TS

CA

R &

BIK

E S

HA

RE P

ROG

RAM

S

LOW IMPACT

MEDIUM IMPACT

HIGH IMPACT

UNKNOWN


IMPACT & COST SUMMARYThe chart to the left summarizes the ratio of po-tential impact on GHG emissions to cost for each initiative in this report. For initiatives that have a wide potential range of costs or impact, the highest possibility was chosen for those falling between two options (for example “high” for “me-dium to high”), and the medium for those which spanned all three. Several initiatives were found to have low costs for the DVRPC individually, yet high potential returns in reducing GHG emissions. The most promising initiative when comparing cost to benefit is TOD, which holds a low-cost, high-benefit potential. Retrofits provide the next most cost-efficient option, with a medium cost and a high impact. Many additional initiatives provide a low cost and medium impact for the DVRPC. Other initiatives may provide high returns at a low cost, but their emissions and or cost could not be verified with easily accessible data.


DVRPC ROLE

BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENT

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION X X X X X

CAR SHARE/BIKE SHARE X X

X URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES

X

X X

DRIVING REDUCTION PROGRAM

X X

X LOCAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE X

X X

TOD X X X X X PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION X X X X X

TDR X X X X X PARKING PRICING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM X X X X X

BUILDINGS BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING

X X UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS

PARTNERSHIP

X X

X

RETROFITS

X X GREEN BUILDINGS

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GREEN BUILDINGS

RETROFITTING

BENCHMARKING/AUDTING


BUILDING BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

TDR

CAR SHARE/BIKE SHARE

TOD

PARTNERSHIP UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS

EXPANSION PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS PARKING PRICING AND

ASSISTANCE LOCAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT DRIVING REDUCTION PROGRAMS


FINANCING ADVOCACY ORGANIZING GROUPS PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

ENERGY ALTERNATIVE -FUEL VEHICLES

COMBINED HEAT & POWER

UTILITIES

FOOD WASTE

SOLAR


DVRPC ROLE


LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION X X X X X

CAR SHARE/BIKE SHARE X X

X URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES

X

X X

DRIVING REDUCTION PROGRAM

X X

X LOCAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE X

X X

TOD X X X X X PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION X X X X X

TDR X X X X X PARKING PRICING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM X X X X X

BUILDINGS BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING

X X UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS

PARTNERSHIP

X X

X

RETROFITS

X X GREEN BUILDINGS

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GREEN BUILDINGS

RETROFITTING

BENCHMARKING/AUDTING


BUILDING BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING BENCHMARKING AND AUDITING

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

TDR

CAR SHARE/BIKE SHARE

TOD

PARTNERSHIP UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS

EXPANSION PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS PARKING PRICING AND

ASSISTANCE LOCAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT DRIVING REDUCTION PROGRAMS


FINANCING ADVOCACY ORGANIZING GROUPS PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

ENERGY ALTERNATIVE -FUEL VEHICLES

COMBINED HEAT & POWER

UTILITIES

FOOD WASTE

SOLAR


Conclusion

This report explored potential measures to reduce GHG emissions under the categories of transportation and land use, buildings, and fuel sources. Based on data from case studies and reports, we have estimated reductions for these initiatives in the DVRPC region. Figure 43 shows the results of current calculations. Looking only at initiatives with calculated figures, public transit service expansion has the highest GHG reduction potential (16.5%), followed by university/business partnerships (14.9%), building retrofits (11%), and TDR (4.4%). TOD, green buildings, and food waste show lower, but not negligible, GHG reduction potential with 1.2%, 1%, and 0.5% respectively. The total estimated GHG reduction potential for these initiatives is 40.5%.

Although this value exceeds the DVRPC goal of 30%, we must acknowledge that the data contributing to this value are imprecise for multiple reasons. First, many of the initiatives double count potential reductions. While both retrofits and university/business partnership programs yield high potential reductions, many of the measures used by universities and businesses in these programs are retrofit initiatives. Second, many of the values assume conditions which are not realistically feasible. The service expansion value assumes that all potential rail lines are built and gain 1000 riders. Food waste calculates potential methane recapturing based on total Philadelphia food waste, when much of this food waste would be redirected to other uses. Third, these values are based on case studies which may vary regionally. Retrofit values were calculated based on conditions in Washington, D.C.; however, much of the DVRPC region is not comparable. For these reasons, our calcuations only provide broad estimates of GHG reduction potential.

While the estimated potential GHG reduction values are important, they can not be compared without also considering factors such as cost, political feasibility, usage, stakeholder buy-in, and timeframe of reductions. Additionally, we were unable to find specific GHG emissions data for several initiatives that otherwise seemed very promising. Based on these two points, of the ongoing initiatives outlined in this report, the nine initiatives that we currently believe would yield the greatest benefit include:

» Land Use & Transportation » Buildings » Fuel Sources » TOD » Green Buildings » Alternative Fuel Vehicles

CONCLUSION


Conclusion

2010 BASELINE EMISSIONS

2030 PROJECTED EMISSIONS

2030 EMISSIONS GOAL

EMISSIONS REDUCTION GOAL

100%109%

70%

?

EMIS

SIO

NS

RED

UC

TIO

N G

OA

L

-30%

-45%

UNIVERSITY/BUSINESS PARTNERSHPS

RETROFITS

FOOD WASTE

SERVICE EXPANSION

OTHER UNCALCULATED

GREEN BUILDINGS

TODAFV

TDR

.5% 1.2%1.2%

???%

5.4%

11%

14.9%

16.5%

4.4%

figure 43: preliminary calculations yield an estimated possible GHG reduction of 40.5%


Conclusion

» Parking » Retrofits » Utilities » Pricing (PAYD Insurance) » University/Business Partnerships » CHP

The studio seeks additional input from the DVRPC regarding the initiatives that they believe to be the most promising, and recommendations for the analysis of other programs if they detect topical gaps in the research. The studio will next generate a second report that will better define the potential GHG emissions savings and examine the feasibility of the initiatives in this refined list. This report will outline how they could be implemented, the cost and implementation agents required to deliver them, and will conclude by proposing a set of initiatives that will yield the greatest return.


Conclusions


A 2011 study conducted by the Sightline Institute in Washington modeled neighborhood-level GHG emissions in King County, Washington based on household location. It only had access to natural gas consumption data in developing emissions results; different fuel mixes would yield higher emissions results.

Conclusions from the study included the following: » Restricting development at sites in “low-density areas where transportation

emissions were significantly higher than the county average...reduced transportation-related GHG emissions by 53 metric tons per household over 30 years” and also yielded a “per household reduction of 24 metric tons of CO2 per household for electricity, and 5 metric tons for natural gas.”

» Simultaneously, “locating a new household in a compact urban neighborhood reduces household transportation emissions by 89 metric tons over 30 years,” with additional reductions depending on fuel mix for electricity and energy.

» Purchases of TDRs in low-density suburbs, creating additional single-family housing, and using lower-density suburbs as receiving areas did not result in substantial GHG reductions.

» Thus: “the Seattle-King County TDR agreement...may have reduced regional GHG emissions by 19,000 tons over 30 years.”

In 2010, the DVRPC region produced 81.6 million MT CO2-eq GHG. Based on the above study, TDRs can offset 171 MT CO2-eq GHG per household over 30 years, equivalent to 5.7 MT CO2-eq GHG per household annually. According to the 2010 Decennial Census, the average household size for the counties in the DVRPC region was 2.56 persons. For these calculations, assume that residents form households at a similar rate throughout the DVRPC region, and will continue to do so over the next several decades.

Using the results from the Sightline study, to offset 100 percent of GHG emissions in the DVRPC region by 2030, the region would need 894,737 households to relocate to urban areas with a reasonably high density. To offset 10 percent of GHG emissions regionwide, the region would need 89,474 households to relocate.

It can take over a decade to establish a TDR program, but focusing on existing dense communities where programs would not have to be constructed from scratch (where average density is more than 3 households per acre, approximately what would be required to support a rail system) would help kick-start the program. Using the Centers outlined in Connections 2040, there are 42 municipalities that meet that criteria. Between 2010 and 2030, these municipalities are expected to grow by 101,080 individuals, or approximately 39,484 households given the median formation size for these counties. Thus, TDRs yielding similar results to those in the Sightline study would decrease GHG emissions in the DVRPC region by 4.4 percent.

Appendix 1: Transfer of Development Rights

Appendix 1


Appendix 2: Service Expansion

Proposal Type Responsible Authority In Connections 2040?Regional Rail SEPTA Yes

Regional Rail SEPTA Yes



King of Prussia Regional Rail SEPTA Yes

West Trenton Line Regional Rail NJ Transit Yes

Delaware Ave Line Light Rail SEPTA Yes

Light Rail DRPA Yes

Light Rail DRPA No

Broad St Line Subway SEPTA Yes

Roosevelt Blvd Line Subway SEPTA Yes

Cultural Connector BRT SEPTA Yes

South Jersey BRT BRT NJ Transit Yes

US 1 BRT BRT NJ Transit Yes

Wawa Line

Atglen Line

Pennridge Line

Pottstown Line

Glassboro-Camden

City Hall – Penn’s Landing



Appendix 3

Land

fill N

ame

Land

fill C

itySt

ate

GR

OW

S LF

Buck

sPA

34,0

87,8

5019

7020

10O

pera

tiona

l1/

1/19

99El

ectri

city

Stea

m T

urbi

ne14

.30.

604

GR

OW

S LF

Buck

sPA

34,0

87,8

5019

7020

10O

pera

tiona

l1/

1/20

07El

ectri

city

Stea

m T

urbi

ne2.

50.

106

GR

OW

S N

orth

Buck

sPA

2,54

3,96

420

0820

19O

pera

tiona

l8/

31/2

010

Elec

trici

tyG

as T

urbi

ne0.

530

0.04

0

Mon

tgom

ery

PA10

,586

,848

1973

2005

Ope

ratio

nal

1/1/

2008

Elec

trici

tyG

as T

urbi

ne3.

11.

960

0.13

1

Wes

t Gro

veC

hest

erPA

1,92

1,93

719

8620

13O

pera

tiona

l1/

15/2

007

Elec

trici

ty0.

40.

730

0.01

8

Wes

t Gro

veC

hest

erPA

1,92

1,93

719

8620

13O

pera

tiona

l9/

22/2

008

Elec

trici

ty0.

50.

022

Wes

t Gro

veC

hest

erPA

1,92

1,93

719

8620

13O

pera

tiona

l9/

1/20

10El

ectri

city

0.8

0.03

4

Buck

sPA

35,8

39,7

1019

8820

14O

pera

tiona

l1/

1/19

97El

ectri

city

Stea

m T

urbi

ne11

.018

.700

0.46

5

Buck

sPA

35,8

39,7

1019

8820

14O

pera

tiona

l1/

1/20

07El

ectri

city

Stea

m T

urbi

ne2.

20.

093

Buck

sPA

35,8

39,7

1019

8820

14O

pera

tiona

l10

/1/2

007

Elec

trici

tyG

as T

urbi

ne3.

32.

160

0.13

9

Burli

ngto

nN

J3,

875,

822

1989

2022

Ope

ratio

nal

1/1/

1996

Dire

ctG

reen

hous

e0.

216

0.01

8

Burli

ngto

nN

J3,

875,

822

1989

2022

Ope

ratio

nal

11/1

/200

7El

ectri

city

7.2

3.96

00.

304

Burli

ngto

nN

J3,

875,

822

1989

2022

Ope

ratio

nal

1/1/

2008

Elec

trici

ty0.

30.

144

0.01

1

Glo

uces

ter

NJ

7,25

9,98

519

6019

87O

pera

tiona

l1/

1/20

04El

ectri

city

1.5

0.95

00.

063

Cam

den

NJ

3,01

1,98

620

17O

pera

tiona

l12

/31/

2004

PPL

Cor

pora

tion

Elec

trici

ty2.

81.

200

0.11

7

Glo

uces

ter

NJ

2,88

9,94

719

8520

12C

andi

date

Burli

ngto

nN

J19

89La

ndfil

l Own

erPo

tent

ial

Land

fill

Cou

nty

Was

te In

Pl

ace

(tons

)

Year

La

ndfil

l O

pene

d

Land

fill

Clo

sure

Ye

arLa

ndfil

l Ow

ner

Org

aniz

atio

nPr

ojec

t St

atus

Proj

ect

Star

t Dat

e

Proj

ect

Shut

dow

n D

ate

Proj

ect D

evel

oper

O

rgan

izat

ion

LFG

E U

tiliz

atio

n Ty

pe

(Dir

ect-U

se v

s El

ectr

icity

)LF

GE

Proj

ect

Type

MW

C

apac

ity

LFG

Flo

w to

Pr

ojec

t (m

msc

fd)

Emis

sion

R

educ

tions

(M

MTC

O2E

/yr)

Mor

risvi

lleW

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.,

Exel

on P

ower

Mor

risvi

lleW

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.,

Exel

on P

ower

Mor

risvi

lleW

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

Potts

town

LF

Potts

town

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.W

M R

enew

able

Ene

rgy,

LL

C

Secc

ra L

F

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity (S

ECC

RA)

, PA

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity

(SEC

CR

A), P

AR

ecip

roca

ting

Engi

ne

Secc

ra L

F

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity (S

ECC

RA)

, PA

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity

(SEC

CR

A), P

AR

ecip

roca

ting

Engi

ne

Secc

ra L

F

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity (S

ECC

RA)

, PA

Sout

heas

tern

Che

ster

C

ount

y R

efus

e Au

thor

ity

(SEC

CR

A), P

AR

ecip

roca

ting

Engi

ne

Tully

town

LF

Tully

town

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

, Ex

elon

Pow

er

Tully

town

LF

Tully

town

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

, Ex

elon

Pow

er

Tully

town

LF

Tully

town

Was

te M

anag

emen

t, In

c.W

aste

Man

agem

ent,

Inc.

, Ex

elon

Pow

erBu

rling

ton

Cou

nty

SLF

Bord

ento

wn

Burli

ngto

n C

ount

y Bo

ard

of C

hose

n Fr

eeho

lder

s

Burli

ngto

n C

ount

y SL

FBo

rden

town

Burli

ngto

n C

ount

y Bo

ard

of C

hose

n Fr

eeho

lder

sD

CO

Ene

rgy,

LLC

, M

arin

a En

ergy

Rec

ipro

catin

g En

gine

Burli

ngto

n C

ount

y SL

FBo

rden

town

Burli

ngto

n C

ount

y Bo

ard

of C

hose

n Fr

eeho

lder

sR

utge

rs U

nive

rsity

, Bu

rling

ton

Cou

nty

Cog

ener

atio

n

Kins

ley'

s LF

Sewe

llKi

nsle

y's

Rec

ipro

catin

g En

gine

Penn

sauk

en L

FPe

nnsa

uken

Pollu

tion

Con

trol

Fina

ncin

g Au

thor

ity

of C

amde

n C

ount

y,

NJ

Rec

ipro

catin

g En

gine

Glo

uces

ter C

ount

y SL

FSw

edes

boro

Glo

uces

ter C

ount

y,

NJ

Park

land

s R

ecla

mat

ion

Proj

ect

Bord

ento

wn


SOLAR POWER TECHNOLOGIESPV technologies create direct current electricity directly from sunlight through semiconductors when sunlight excites electrons in the semiconductors which then travel through electrical circuits to power devices, charge batteries, or send energy to the grid.205 PV systems can either be placed directly on the ground, or on top or the side of buildings.206

Architecture with passive solar design takes advantage of thermodynamic and fluid mechanics principles and site-specific climate conditions without mechanical or electrical devices. Passive homes make use of large south facing windows, sun-spaces acting like greenhouses, and trombe walls with thermal massing that absorb heat during the day and release it slowly overnight.207

CSP technology utilizes mirrors or lenses with smart tracking systems to focus sunlight onto a small area, whose energy can then be used for heat or as a heat source for a more conventional power plant design.208

Similar to PV systems, solar water heating systems include a solar collector with tubes of water or another fluid that absorbs heat and a storage tank for the warmed liquid. More often than not, systems use active pumps to circulate water, but they can be designed for passive use of gravity and natural convection. Commonly, the gathered heat is used for domestic uses or building heating.209

ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTION METHODOLOGYThe National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States provides acreage requirements for solar farms (Figure 39). DVRPC’s energy inventory calculated the energy use by source, combining to be a total of 1,288,500 billion BTUs per year (Figure 38).214 The Pennsylvania Housing Research Center estimates that for PV systems placed on top of or on the side of buildings, 1 W of PV power can produce an average of 1,300 Wh/yr, with 1000 W of capacity requiring around 55-70 square footage of space.215 The space requirement to produce solar within the region is calculated based on these values and can be found in the tables on the following pages.

Solar water heating GHG reduction possibilities are also negligible. According to to the U.S Department of Energy, water heating in an average U.S. household accounts for around 18% of its energy bill. Based on DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis, reducing “per capita residential energy use” by 18% only lowers the total projected GHG emissions by 2%.216 Although this 2% of reduction would contribute to the total 60% as required, the value proves to be insignificant when considering the following two factors.

First, the DVRPC’s Regional Energy Analysis estimates GHG reductions based on per capita residential energy use, whereas solar water heating GHG reductions are seen at a household level. This discrepancy leads to an over estimation of GHG reductions. Second, the 2% reduction is estimated based on a best case scenario, which would require solar water heater installation for every single household in the DVRPC region, an unrealistic outcome. For these reasons, solar heating does not represent a promising solution for lowering GHG emissions in the region.

Appendix 4: Solar Power

Appendix 3


figure 39: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Land -Use Requirements by type of solar

Source: Vision 2020 Roadmap, ReFood

Solar Space Requirements


1. Transportation’s Role in Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions, Report to Congress, US Department of Transportation, April 2010.

2. Robert Cervero and G.B. Arrington, “Vehicle Trip Reduction Im-pacts of Transit-Oriented Housing”, Journal of Public Transpor-tation, Vol 11, No. 3, 2008.

3. Pennsylvania Transit Oriented Development, Case Studies, http://www.ppta.net/todtoolkit/casestudies.html.

4. Robert Cervero and G.B. Arrington, “Vehicle Trip Reduction Im-pacts of Transit-Oriented Housing”, Journal of Public Transpor-tation, Vol 11, No. 3, 2008.

5. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 56.6. DVRPC, Maps: Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance,

DVRPC, http://www.dvrpc.org/Environment/NaturalResource-ProtectionTools/maps.htm.

7. New Jersey Future, Realizing the Promise: Transfer of Devel-opment Rights in New Jersey, August 2010, 13.

8. Buckingham Township, Land Preservation in Buckingham Township, http://www.buckinghampa.org/general-information/land-preservation.aspx.

9. Brandywine Conservancy, “Preserving Farmland and Manag-ing Growth: The Honey Brook Example,” Environmental Cur-rents, Winter 2006, Vol. 30, No. 2.

10. DVRPC, Transfer of Development Rights, http://www.dvrpc.org/TDR/.

11. DVRPC and the Salem County Regional Task Force, Assess-ing the Potential for a Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program in Salem County, NJ, http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=11051.

12. Ibid., 313. Ibid., 414. Ibid15. Ibid16. Ibid., 517. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 39.18. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 54-55; DVRPC, Regional, County,

and Municipal Population Forecasts, 2010-2040, March 2013, Appendix A; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, GCT-PH: Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - State -- County Subdivision for New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

19. Ibid, 38, 47.20. Clark Williams-Derry and Erik Cortes, Transfer of Development

Rights: A tool for reducing climate-warming emissions: Esti-mates for King County, Washington, Sightline Institute, August 2011, 1.

21. Rick Pruetz and Noah Standridge, “What Makes Transfer of Development Rights Work?”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2009, Vol. 75, No. 1, 80.

22. Rick Pruetz and Noah Standridge, “What Makes Transfer of Development Rights Work?”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2009, Vol. 75, No. 1, 80.

23. New Jersey Future, Realizing the Promise: Transfer of Devel-

opment Rights in New Jersey, August 2010, 5.24. New Jersey Future, Realizing the Promise: Transfer of Devel-

opment Rights in New Jersey, August 2010, 13.25. New Jersey Future, Realizing the Promise: Transfer of Devel-

opment Rights in New Jersey, August 2010, 16.26. DVRPC, Assessing the Potential for a Regional Transfer of De-

velopment Rights Program in Salem County, NJ, June 2011, 7-8.

27. Ibid.28. Jae Hong Kim, “Measuring the Containment and Spillover Ef-

fects of Urban Growth Boundaries: The Case of the Portland Metropolitan Area”, Growth and Change, 2013, Vol. 44, No. 4, 650-675.

29. DVRPC, Smart Growth Project Database, http://www.dvrpc.org/webmaps/SGPD/.

30. Natural Land Trust, Growing Greener: Conservation by Design, http://www.natlands.org/publications/publications/?did=108.

31. Steve Hankey and Julian D. Marshall, “Impacts of Urban Form on Future US Passenger-vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Energy Policy, 2010, Vol. 38, 4880-4887.

32. Sumala Tirumalachetty and Kara M. Kockelman, Forecasting Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Regions: Microsim-ulation of Land Use and Transport Patterns in Austin, Texas, 2010, http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB10microsimulationCO2.pdf.

33. Jae Hong Kim, “Measuring the Containment and Spillover Ef-fects of Urban Growth Boundaries: The Case of the Portland Metropolitan Area”, Growth and Change, 2013, Vol. 44, No. 4, 650-675.

34. Judith A. Dempsey and Andrew J. Plantinga, “How Well Do Urban Growth Boundaries Contain Development? Results for Using A Difference-in-difference Estimation”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2013, Vol. 43, 996-1007.

35. Hannah Gosnell et al., “Is Oregon’s Land Use Planning Pro-gram Conserving Forest and Farm Land? A Review of the Evi-dence”, Land Use Policy, 2010.

36. DVRPC, Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI), http://www.dvrpc.org/tcdi/.

37. DVRPC, 2009 Efficient Growth for Growing Suburbs in South-eastern Pennsylvania [EGGS] Program, http://www.dvrpc.org/EGGS/, 1.

38. Ibid., 2.39. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Circuit Rider

for Energy Efficiency in Local Government Operations, http://www.dvrpc.org/EnergyClimate/CircuitRider/.

40. HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative, Chicago, Illinois: GO TO 2040 Local Technical Assistance Program, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=ChiCaseSt2013_10_28.pdf, 1.

41. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Over 30 new local GO TO 2040 implementation projects help communities devel-op and deploy their own plans, November 7, 2013, http://www.

References

REFERENCES


cmap.illinois.gov/about/for-media/press-release-11-7-13.42. Bob Dean , “Local Technical Assistance (LTA) Project Selec-

tion, linked from LTA Call for Projects, October 2, 2013, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/programs-and-resources/lta/call-for-projects.

43. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Local Technical As-sistance, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/programs-and-resourc-es/lta.

44. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Local Ordinances and Toolkits, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/programs-and-re-sources/local-ordinances-toolkits and Housing, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/livability/housing.

45. Karen Kane, Metro hosts Get Centered! event in historic Hol-lywood district, Oregon Metro, October 24, 2005, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=16133.

46. Eliot Rose and Rex Burkholder, “CO2 Reduction Through Bet-ter Urban Design: Portland’s Story,” Reducing Climate Change Impacts in the Transportation Sector, Daniel Sperling and James Spencer Cannon, eds., (Springer, 2009), 151.

47. John Foyston, “Dense Canadian suburb gives Tigard an an-ti-sprawl antidote,” The Oregonian, August 8, 2007, http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/envy-in-oregon/.

48. US Department of Transportation, Transportation’s Role in Re-ducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report to Congress, April 2010.

49. Ibid.50. US EPA, Calculations and References, http://www.epa.gov/

cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html.51. Ibid52. USC Price, The Exposition Light Rail Study, http://priceschool.

usc.edu/expo-line-study/.53. US Department of Transportation, Transportation’s Role in Re-

ducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report to Congress, April 2010.

54. City of Seattle Department of Transportation, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/epark/faq.htm.

55. US Department of Transportation, Transportation’s Role in Re-ducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report to Congress, April 2010.

56. Park & Go, New Smart Parking Meters are now Installed in Downtown Lincoln, http://parkandgo.org/about/news/article/new-parking-meter-information/.

57. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin-istration, Tolling and Pricing Program, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09015/cp_prim7_04.htm.

58. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm.

59. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin-istration, Tolling and Pricing Program, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09015/cp_prim7_04.htm.

60. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2010, 3-31.

61. National General Insurance, National General Insurance Low-Mileage Discount, http://www.nationalgeneral.com/au-to-insurance/smart-discounts/low-mileage-discount.asp.

62. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia Pedestri-an and Bicycle Plan, 2012, 12-20, http://phila2035.org/wp-con-

tent/uploads/2012/06/bikePedfinal2.pdf. 63. DVRPC, Bicycle Planning, http://www.dvrpc.org/Transporta-

tion/BicyclePedestrian/bicycle.htm; DVRPC, Pedestrian Plan-ning, http://www.dvrpc.org/Transportation/BicyclePedestrian/pedestrian.htm.

64. DVRPC, The Circuit, http://connectthecircuit.org/. 65. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia Pedes-

trian and Bicycle Plan, 2012, http://phila2035.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bikePedfinal2.pdf.

66. Ibid., 6. 67. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

Bicycle Rail Trip Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Focused Study, June 2011, 26, http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/Sustainability_Re-port_Bicycle.pdf.

68. Ibid., 2869. Sarah Stuart Clark, “First Stretch of Delaware River Bicycle

Trail Opens,” The Circuit Blog, http://connectthecircuit.org/blog/2013/06/18/first-stretch-of-delaware-river-bicycle-trail-opens-inquirer.

70. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Going to the River Project Description, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/ar-ticle/370924.

71. Mingsheng Zhou and Paul B. Smith, “Estimated VMT and GHG Emission Reductions Associated with the Going to the River Project,” ITE Journal, May 2012, 42-47, http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2012/JB12EA42.pdf.

72. City of Boulder, Complete Streets, https://bouldercolorado.gov/transportation/complete-streets.

73. City of Boulder Transportation Division, Modal Shift in the Boul-der Valley 1990 to 2012, 2013, https://www-static.bouldercolo-rado.gov/docs/modal-shift-report-1990-2012-1-201305291129.pdf.

74. City of Boulder, Transportation Master Plan Update, https://bouldercolorado.gov/transportation/transportation-mas-ter-plan-update.

75. The Circuit, The Benefits of the Circuit, http://connectthecircuit.org/vision/benefits.

76. http://iqc.ou.edu/2013/10/23/modeshare2012/ 77. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia Pedestri-

an and Bicycle Plan, 2012, 93, http://phila2035.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bikePedfinal2.pdf.

78. Toole Design Group & Foursquare ITP. Philadelphia Bike Share Strategic Business Plan, 2013, 1.

79. JZTI and Bonnette Consulting with DVRPC, Philadelphia Bike-share Concept Study, 2010, http://bikesharephiladelphia.org/PhilaStudy/PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudyfeb2010.pdf.

80. Bike Share Philadelphia, http://www.bikesharephiladelphia.org/home/.

81. DVRPC, Share-A-Ride, http://www.dvrpc.org/SAR/. 82. DVRPC, RideECO, http://www.dvrpc.org/RideECO/. 83. Delaware County Transportation Management Association,

RideECO and Enterprise CarShare Offering Exclusive Dis-counts to Members, http://www.dctma.org/2013/07/17/new-ways-to-save-on-your-commute-and-travel/.

84. Elliot W. Martin and Susan A. Shaheen, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America”, Transporta-tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2011, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1074-1086.

References


85. Toole Design Group & Foursquare ITP. Philadelphia Bike Share Strategic Business Plan, 2013, 54.

86. Ibid. 87. Capital Bikeshare, http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/. 88. Ibid. 89. Capital Bikeshare, 2013 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Re-

port Executive Summary, 2013, vi, http://capitalbikeshare.com/assets/pdf/cabi-2012surveyreport-execsum-5-15-13-revtitle.pdf.

90. Ibid, vii. 91. City CarShare, https://www.citycarshare.org. 92. Clean Technica, 44% of San Francisco’s City CarShare Fleet

Is Electric, http://cleantechnica.com/2012/11/29/44-of-san-fran-ciscos-city-carshare-fleet-is-electric/.

93. CBS News, More Car-sharing Means Fewer Car Sales, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-car-sharing-means-fewer-car-sales/.

94. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), The Bike-share Planning Guide, 2013.

95. A.C. Burr, C. Keicher, and D. Leipziger, Building Energy Trans-parency: A Framework for Implementing U.S. Commercial En-ergy Rating and Disclosure Policy, Institute for Market Transfor-mation, Washington, D.C., 2011, http://www.buildingrating.org/sites/default/files/ documents/IMT-Building_Energy_Transpar-ency_Report.pdf.

96. SEE Action, Energy Audits and Retro-Commissioning: State and Local Policy Design Guide and Sample Policy Language, July 2013, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/pdfs/com-mercialbuildings_audits_rcx_policy_guide.pdf

97. DVRPC, Regional Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Inventory, http://www.dvrpc.org/energyclimate/Inventory.htm.

98. Ibid99. EEB Hub, Benchmarking and Disclosure, http://www.eebhub.

org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/benchmark-ing-and-disclosure.

100. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Greenworks Philadelphia Mu-nicipal Benchmarking Report, 2014, 1.

101. Ibid., 3.102. David Hsu, “How much information disclosure of building en-

ergy performance is necessary?,” Energy Policy, Volume 64, January 2014, 263-272, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513008987, and A.C. Burr, C. Keicher, and D. Leipziger, Building Energy Transparency: A Framework for Implementing U.S. Commercial Energy Rating and Disclosure Policy, Institute for Market Transformation, Washington, D.C., 2011, http://www.buildingrating.org/sites/default/files/ docu-ments/IMT-Building_Energy_Transparency_Report.pdf.

103. DVRPC, Connections 2040 Plan for Greater Philadelphia, 2013, 39.

104. Ibid., 66.105. Ibid., 40.106. Ibid., 66.107. EEB Hub, Reaching Consensus Faster on Retrofits, http://

www.eebhub.org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/en-ergy-auditing-tool.

108. EEB Hub, A Case Study of Navy Yard Building 101, http://www.eebhub.org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/vari-ation-in-energy-audits/.

109. New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program, Pay for Performance, http://www.njcleanenergy.com/commercial-industrial/pro-

grams/pay-performance. 110. EEB Hub, Benchmarking and Disclosure, http://www.ee-

bhub.org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/benchmark-ing-and-disclosure.

111. Ibid. 112. EEB Hub, How to Bridge the Gap between Utility Companies

and Building Owners, http://www.eebhub.org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/utility-data-access-in-the-philadel-phia-region.

113. Bright Power, Inc. and EnergyScoreCards, NYC Local Law 84 Violations and Fines, http://www.nycbenchmark.com/lo-cal-law-84-violation.

114. Local Laws of the City of New York, 2009 ,No. 87.115. PlaNYC, New York City Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report,

September 2013, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/ll84_year_two_report.pdf.

116. European Commission, Economic Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction in the Household and Services Sectors in the EU, Executive Summary, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/climate_change/pdf/households_execsum_update.pdf.

117. Steven Winters Associates and HR&A Advisors, Recognizing the Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Multifamily Underwriting, Deutsche Bank, January 2012.

118. New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Green Jobs-Green New York 2013 Annual Report, New York State Energy Research Development Authority, October 2013.

119. The Real Estate Roundtable, 2011 Annual Report, http://www.rer.org/2011-Annual-Report.aspx.

120. U.S. Bureau of Census, 2008-2012 American Community Sur-vey Table B25034, Year Structure Built.

121. Mayor Michael A. Nutter, Greenworks Philadelphia, City of Phil-adelphia, 2009, http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/pdf/Greenworks_OnlinePDF_FINAL.pdf.

122. Lindsey Geisler, “Energy Innovation Hub Report Shows Philadelphia-area Building Retrofits Could Support 23,500 Jobs”, Energy.Gov, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-inno-vation-hub-report-shows-philadelphia-area-building-retro-fits-could-support-23500.

123. Steven Winters Associates and HR&A Advisors, Recognizing the Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Multifamily Underwriting, Deutsche Bank, January 2012.

124. B. Polly, M. Gestwick, M. Bianchi, R. Anderson, S. Horowitz, C. Christensen, and R. Judkoff, A Method for Determining Optimal Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Packages, National Re-newable Energy Laboratory, April 2011.

125. Charles Lockwood, Building Retrofits, Urban Land, November/December 2009.

126. Cathy Gates and Ken Neuhauser, “Performance Results for Massachusetts & Rhode Island DER Pilot Community”, Building Science Press, January 2014, http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/bareports/ba-1401-performance-results-massachu-setts-rhode-island-der-pilot-community/view?topic=resources/retrofits.

127. Cathy Gates and Ken Neuhauser, “Performance Results for Massachusetts & Rhode Island DER Pilot Community”, Building Science Press, January 2014, http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/bareports/ba-1401-performance-results-massachu-setts-rhode-island-der-pilot-community/view?topic=resources/retrofits.

References


2013, 66.154. Ibid155. The City of New York, The New York City Carbon Challenge,

http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/challenge/mayor-car-bon-challenge.shtml.

156. Ibid.157. Ibid.158. The City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Green-

works Philadelphia 2013 Progress Report, 2013, 11.159. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge, About the Pittsburgh

Green Workplace Challenge, http://gwcpgh.org/overview.160. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge, 2013-2014 Competi-

tion Guidebook Version 2.1.0, http://gwcpgh.org/images/GWC-CompetitionManual10.22.13e.pdf, 2.

161. Sustainable Pittsburgh, Sustainable Pittsburgh announces the winners of the 2011-2012 Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge!, http://gwcpgh.org/images/GWC_Finaleventre-lease101812_resultsFINAL.pdf, October 8, 2012, 1.

162. DVRPC, Connections 2040 Plan for Greater Philadelphia, 2013, 66.

163. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, US States and Counties, http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/.

164. Welcome to Greater Philadelphia, Colleges & Universities, http://welcometophila.com/education/colleges-universities.

165. Welcome to Greater Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Hospi-tal Systems, http://welcometophila.com/medical-health/great-er-philadelphia-hospital-systems.

166. Select Greater Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia: A Leader in Energy Resources, http://www.selectgreaterphiladelphia.com/industries/energy/.

167. Select Greater Philadelphia, Leading Employers, http://www.selectgreaterphiladelphia.com/industries/leading-employers/.

168. Sustainable Business Network of Greater Philadelphia, Directo-ry of Sustainable Businesses, http://www.sbnphiladelphia.org/membership/member_directory/.

169. DVRPC, Ready to Roll?: Overview of Challenges and Oppor-tunities for Alternative Fuel Vehicles in the Delaware Valley, 2013, 2.

170. Ibid, 11.171. Ibid, 7-8.172. Government Fleet, Penn. Grants Enable Alternative Fuels.

http://www.government-fleet.com/channel/green-fleet/news/story/2013/11/penn-pushes-for-alt-fuels-with-incentive-grants.aspx?prestitial=1.

173. Lifecycle GHG emissions are the aggregate quantity of GHGs related to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and feed-stock production and distribution, from feedstock generation and extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel. (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Re-newable Fuels, last modified January 12, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09024.htm.)

174. U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Reports, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html.

175. DVRPC, Ready to Roll?: Overview of Challenges and Oppor-tunities for Alternative Fuel Vehicles in the Delaware Valley, 2013, 11.

176. Ibid.

128. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, What Have We Learned from Energy Efficiency Financing Programs, 2011, http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/re-searchreports/u115.pdf.

129. B. Polly, M. Gestwick, M. Bianchi, R. Anderson, S. Horowitz, C. Christensen, and R. Judkoff, “A Method for Determining Opti-mal Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Packages”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 2011.

130. EEB Hub, Energy Efficient Buildings Hub Case, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/casecompetition/documents/2013/EEB-HUB-case-study.pdf.

131. EEB Hub, “A Case Study in Montgomery County, PA”, EEB Hub Research Digest, http://www.eebhub.org/research-digest/research-digest-reports/one-montgomery-plaza.

132. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 66.133. Charles Lockwood, Building Retrofits, Urban Land, November/

December 2009. 134. Ibid.135. “Top Cities with the Most ENERGY STAR Certified Buildings

in 2012”. 136. US Green Building Council, Top 10 US States Ranked by Total

Number of LEED Projects. 137. US Green Building Council, Buildings and Climate Change.138. 2012 Construction Outlook. McGraw-Hill April 26, 2012.139. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Green Building in

North America: Opportunities and Challenges, 2008.140. Ibid.141. Saqib Rahim, “Can Green Buildings Pass Payback Tests?”,

New York Times, online, Feb 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/27/27climatewire-can-green-buildings-pass-payback-tests-9910.html.

142. Delaware Valley Green Building Council, One Crescent Drive at the Navy Yard, http://www.dvgbc.org/green_resources/proj-ects/one-crescent-drive-navy-yard-philadelphia-pa.

143. DVRPC, Sustainable Skylines Initiative, http://www.dvrpc.org/SSI/.

144. EEB Hub, Re-energizing Buildings For the Future, Starting Now, http://www.eebhub.org/about-eebhub.

145. EEB Hub, Consortium Member Organization, http://www.ee-bhub.org/about-eebhub/members/; EEB Hub, Partners, http://www.eebhub.org/about-eebhub/partners/.

146. Pennsylvania Environmental Council, PEC Launches Green Business Program, March 24, 2009, http://www.pecpa.org/node/636.

147. Greater Philadelphia Green Business Program, Members, http://phillygreenbiz.com/members.

148. Ibid.149. University of Pennsylvania, Power Down Challenge, http://www.

upenn.edu/sustainability/programs/power-down-challenge.150. buildingdashboard, University of Pennsylvania, http://building-

dashboard.net/penn/#/penn.151. University of Pennsylvania, Power Down Challenge Competition

Archive, http://www.upenn.edu/sustainability/power-down-chal-lenge/competition-archive.

152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/en-ergy-resources/calculator.html#results.

153. DVRPC, Connections 2040 Plan for Greater Philadelphia,

References


196. ReFood, Vision 2020: UK Roadmap to Zero Food Waste to Landfill, 2013 http://www.vision2020.info/about/

197. Energy Systems Group, Waste-to-Energy, http://www.energy-systemsgroup.com/landfills.asp

198. ibid.199. DVRPC, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, De-

cember 2010, http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/09038A.pdf200. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Proj-

ects and Candidate Landfills, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj-ects-candidates/index.html#map-area

201. DVRPC, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, De-cember 2010, http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/09038A.pdf

202. John Mc Donald, Philadelphia Throws the Kitchen Sink at Food Waste Issue, John McDonald’s Blog, September 2012, http://lower-providence.patch.com/groups/john-mcdonalds-blog/p/bp--phil-adelphia-throws-the-kitchen-sink-at-food-waste-issue

203. PhillyEcoCity, The Frontiers of Philadelphia’s Recycling Program: Food Waste, March 2013, http://phillyecocity.com/act-philly/green-initiatives/the-frontiers-of-philadel-phia%E2%80%99s-recycling-program-food-waste/

204. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Turning Food Waste into Energy at the East Bay Municipal Utility Distrct, http://www.epa.gov/region09/foodtoenergy

205. ibid.206. Solar Energy Industries Association, Issues and Policies, http://

www.seia.org/policy/solar-technology/photovoltaic-solar-elec-tric.

207. Pennsylvania Land Trust Association, Introduction to Solar and Wind Energy Technologies, http://conservationtools.org/librar-ies/1/library_items/869

208. National Renewable Energy Library, Learning About Renew-able Energy, http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_passive_solar.html.

209. U.S Department of Energy, SunShot Initiative, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/csp.html.

210. National Renewable Energy Library, Learning About Renew-able Energy, http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_solar_hot_water.html.

211. Visit Bucks County, Crossing Vineyards and Winery, http://www.visitbuckscounty.com/listings/Crossing-Vineyards-and-Win-ery/1636/.

212. Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia Greenworks, City of Phil-adelphia, 2009, http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/pdf/Greenworks_OnlinePDF_FINAL.pdf.

213. Camden County Improvement Authority, Alternative Energy Sollutions, http://ccia.camdencounty.com/alternative-ener-gy-solutions.

214. Solar Energy Industries Association, RPS Solar Carve Out Pennsylvania, http://www.seia.org/research-resources/rps-so-lar-carve-out-pennsylvania.

215. DVRPC, Regional Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Inventory, http://www.dvrpc.org/energyclimate/inventory.htm.

216. Andy Lau, On-Site Energy Generation, Pennsylvania Housing Research Center, February 2010.

217. Energy.Gov, Tips: Water Heating, http://energy.gov/energysav-er/articles/tips-water-heating.

218. Cherri Gregg, Latino-Based Organization Funds Affordable Green Housing in N. Philadelphia, CBS Philly, November 2011.

177. Ibid, 13. 178. Ibid, 7.179. U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, Al-

ternative Fuels Supports Sustainability in Fort Collins, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/case/1566.

180. James Martin, “San Francisco’s Taxis Go Green”, CNET News, March 22, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-30252_3-20000939-246.html.

181. New York City Council, Legislative Research Center, http:// legistar.council .nyc.gov/LegislationDetail .aspx-?ID=444567&GUID=0BFE6154-ED5F-4F5D-9BDC-0D7BC-5D450AB&Options=&Search=&FullText=1.

182. The City of New York, PlanNYC, April 2011 Update, http://nytelecom.vo.l lnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report.pdf, 127.

183. Ted Mann, “New Cab Plan Curbs Hybrids”, The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/news/arti-cles/SB10000872396390444165804578006723461956146?-m o d = g o o g l e n e w s _ w s j & m g = r e n o 6 4 - w s -j&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10000872396390444165804578006723461956146.htm-l%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj.

184. Bruce.W. Wilkinson and Richard W. Barnes, Cogeneration of Electricity and Useful Heat (CRC Press Inc., 1980).

185. ICF International, Combined Heat and Power Installation Data-base, http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/index.html.

186. Ibid.187. Iain Staffell and Richard Green, The Cost of Domestic Fuel

Cell Micro-CHP Systems, Imperial College London Busi-ness School, July 2012, https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bit-stream/10044/1/9844/6/Green%202012-08.pdf.

188. Pacific Region CHP Application Center, One Market Plaza 1.5 MW CHP System Project Profile, http://der.lbl.gov/sites/der.lbl.gov/files/dercam_casestudy_onemarket.pdf.

189. RiverBay Corp, Maintaining Continuity of Energy Services Through A Prolonged Period of Renovation, Plant Expansion, http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/CHP_Case_Studies/CoopCityCentral.pdf.

190. New York State Energy Research and Development Authori-ty, Corp City-Riverbay Corp. One Steam and Two Combustion Turbines for Power and Heating Loads, http://dataint.cdhener-gy.com/Fact%20Sheets/Coop%20City%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

191. U.S. DOE Clean Energy Application Center, Project Profile: University of Massachusettes Amherst 16-MW CHP & District Energy System, http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/Universi-ty-of-Massachusetts-Amherst-Case-Study.pdf.

192. International District Energy Association, District Energy Case Studies, http://www.districtenergy.org/case-studies.

193. U.S. DOE Building Technologies Program, Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/alliances/hea_dell_business_case.pdf.

194. DVRPC, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, De-cember 2010, http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/09038A.pdf

195. US Composting Council, USCC Position Statement: Keeping Organics Out of Landfills, http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Keeping-Organics-Out-of-Land-fills-Position-Paper.pdf

References


219. NRG, World’s Largest Solar Thermal Power Project at Ivanpah Achieves Commercial Operation, http://phx.corpo-rate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticleN-RG&ID=1899656.

220. ATTILA NAGY The World’s Largest Solar Plant Started Creat-ing Electricity Today, February 2014.

221. NRG, World’s Largest Solar Thermal Power Project at Ivanpah Achieves Commercial Operation, http://phx.corpo-rate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticleN-RG&ID=1899656.

222. Living Cities and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scaling Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities, v1.0, 16.

223. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 2013, 81.224. Living Cities and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scaling

Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities, v1.0, 32.225. Living Cities and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scaling

Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities, v1.0, 32.226. Living Cities and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scaling

Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities, v1.0, 32.227. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, State En-

ergy Efficiency Policy Database: Pennsylvania, http://www.aceee.org/energy-efficiency-sector/state-policy/pennsylva-nia/210/all/191

228. The City of Philadelphia, Greenworks Philadelphia 2013 Prog-ress Report, 13.

229. The City of Philadelphia, Greenworks Philadelphia 2013 Prog-ress Report, 13, 14.


231. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “New Jer-sey,” State Energy Efficiency Policy Database, http://www.aceee.org/energy-efficiency-sector/state-policy/new%20jer-sey/202/all/191#tabset-tab-3.

232. US EPA, Utilities and Other Energy Efficiency Program Spon-sors, http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/topics/munici-pal-utilities.html

233. Living Cities and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Scal-ing Up Building Energy Retrofitting in U.S. Cities, v1.0, 64.

234. Pennsylvania Public Energy Commission, Alternative Energy, http://www.puc.state.pa.us/consumer_info/electricity/alterna-tive_energy.aspx.

235. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency Holds Steady At 2.5 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour Even As Costs of New Power Generation Rise, September 23, 2009, http://www.aceee.org/press/2009/09/energy-efficiency-holds-steady-25-cents-kilowatt-hour-ev.

236. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency Holds Steady At 2.5 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour Even As Costs of New Power Generation Rise, September 23, 2009, http://www.aceee.org/press/2009/09/energy-efficiency-holds-steady-25-cents-kilowatt-hour-ev.

237. DVRPC, Connections 2040, 2013, 66.238. Dan York et al., Making the Business Case for Energy Efficien-

cy: Case Studies of Supportive Utility Regulation, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, December 2013, iii.

239. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Decoupling Policies: Options to Encourage Energy Efficiency Policies for Utilities, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46606.pdf, 2.

240. Ibid.

241. Dan York et al., Making the Business Case for Energy Efficien-cy: Case Studies of Supportive Utility Regulation, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, December 2013, 2.

242. Ibid.243. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Decoupling Policies:

Options to Encourage Energy Efficiency Policies for Utilities, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46606.pdf, 3.

244. Ibid.245. Bloomberg Businessweek, Energy Use: Neighbor vs. Neigh-

bor, http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2009/id2009115_475766.htm.

246. DVRPC, Our Region, http://www.dvrpc.org/OurRegion/247. US Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equiv-

alencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/ener-gy-resources/calculator.html; DVRPC, Connections 2040, 2013, 39.

248. Karen Erhardt-Martinez et. al., Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, June 2010, iii-iv.

249. Karen Erhardt-Martinez et. al., Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, June 2010, v.


251. PJM, Renewable Energy Dashboard: Renewables Today, http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/renewable-dashboard/renew-ables-today.aspx

252. World Nuclear Association, Comparison of Lifecycle Green-house Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sourc-es, July 2011, 6.

253. Ibid.

References

Climatechangestudio vol1

Documents

Transcript of Climatechangestudio vol1