Green Roof Resource

To update from a previous post, not only did US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit rule that the clean air mercury rule violated the Clean Air Act in February, but in July the District of Columbia Circuit also vacated the clean air interstate rule (CAIR). While the court vacated the CAIR rule, the NOx State Implementation Plan is still valid. However, as the NOx Budget Trade Program (BTP) was set to expire prior to the 2009 ozone season to make way for CAIR, state regulators have been urged to revise their programs to extend the NOx SIP call. Meanwhile, on September 24th the US filed a petition to the court for a rehearing of the CAIR case.

So why should we care about CAIR or the NOx BTP? The NOx BTP has effectively reduced NOx emissions by 74% between 1990 and 2006 [1]. The ozone season NOx emissions have dropped from 1.86 million tons in 1990 to 491 thousand tons in 2006. During the same period, the 8-hour average ozone concentration decreased across all states participating in the program with significant reductions occurring in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia [1]. While there remain areas that are not in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, most areas within the NOx BTP have shown improvement suggesting that there is a benefit to implementing such a program whether the CAIR ultimately is accepted or the NOx BTP is extended.

Reference:
[1] US EPA. Office of Air and Radiation. NOx Budget Trade Program: 2006 Program Compliance and Environmental Results. EPA-430-R-07-009. 2007.

Yesterday the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (part of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) held a hearing focusing on building energy efficiency as one method of tackling CO2 emissions. The subcommittee is presently developing and understanding various potential mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80% by 2050 in a manner that limits costs to the economy and maximizes the efficiency of a mandatory climate change program. They have produced a white paper that analyzes cap-and-trade program options. While developing cap-and-trade programs will most likely focus on large-scale stationary sources and transportation, yesterday’s hearing demonstrated that members of Congress recognize and are exploring the significant reductions that can occur through improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. Wahoowa!

One of the facts that was mentioned multiple times during the hearing is that building stock represents 40% of total US greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce emissions by 60-80% by 2050, improvements in building efficiency must be made. The committee recognizes that sizable reductions can be made through improved building energy efficiency. Last year the committee and the House passed a new building code to states to advance energy efficiency, but the legislation was stopped by Senate action. The witnesses spoke of several different programs and efforts to formulate a national building energy efficiency policy. The challenge appears to be to create incentives to further energy efficiency without setting standards that are unachievable or of limited use depending upon the location of a building project.

Here are a few of programs and efforts that were mentioned in the hearing:
The 30% solution: The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition has launched a campaign to improve residential energy efficiency standards by 30% from the 2006 international energy code standards. In September, this will be decided at the International Code Council Annual Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The 30% solution is designed to be achievable, affordable, and enforceable. This is the most promising effort for enforceable change in building construction at the moment, but we’ll see where this stands in two months time.

“Beyond code”: This was another often used phrase yesterday. This refers to voluntary program such as EnergyStar. I’ve mentioned EnergyStar before, but another source for energy efficiency ideas is EnergySavers, which provides energy information and tips from DOE, EPA, and HUD.

With representatives talking about efficiency targets and executive agencies and departments collaborating, change is certainly coming. Who knew that “state of the shelf” technologies could be so exciting?

The WEF Sustainability Conference was held this week in Washington, DC. During the conference, a multitude of available resources were recommended to learn more about green infrastructure and sustainable water management. Below is a brief list of the resources in no particular order that I found interesting. I’ve included links where appropriate. I’m still trying to track down a book that was mentioned during the opening session, Sustainable Watershed Management. Any additional information on it would be helpful.

1. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has taken significant efforts to reduce energy and water consumption through water conservation and recycling programs. Their efforts are summarized in a 2007 report entitled
From Watts to Water.

2. With climate change affecting the frequency and magnitude of storm events, JP Morgan has recently published a guide to evaluating corporate risk with a focus on water. The report, Watching Water, provides tools for assessing impacts on companies due to decreased water quantity and quality.

3. The Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL) is an awards scheme for acknowledging excellent environmental quality on civil projects. CEEQUAL was developed in the UK and is based upon a points system.

4. The Pacific Institute has developed two water to air models. These models provide information on the energy and air quality effects of water management projects in urban and agricultural water districts.

BBC News yesterday reported that Beijing plans to ban building activities prior to the Olympics to improve air quality for the games. As part of the The National Building Museum’s series For the Greener Good, on April 22nd there will be a discussion on this and similar actions that China is taking to green the games.

After reading the article, I was immediately struck with this question: how much pollution is emitted from the construction of buildings? This isn’t a highly researched area due to the challenges of measuring the emissions, which are assumed to be primarily particulate matter. The US EPA does have a method for estimating particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Depending on the soil moisture and silt content, single family homes produce 0.032 tons
PM10/acre/month while apartment construction produces 0.11 tons PM10/acre/month.

In 2005, an article by Muleski et al, in the Journal of Air and Waste Management, sampled emissions from various construction activities. The focus was on earthmoving operations although other activities were also considered. It was found that the estimating methods for emissions by other similar industries (AP-42) underpredicted the emissions on site due to earthmoving activities suggesting a need for improved estimation methods.

Specific activities that contributed to construction emissions included truck loading and dumping, with loading activities contributing 100 times more particulate matter than dumping activities. This is due to the type of equipment used and the height at which fill material is loaded into dump truck. Unloading material is completed at a lower height with less risk to dispersal by winds.

In addition to loading activities, trackout on roadways was also responsible for significant emissions. The authors stated that the PM10 emissions due to trackout of 1400 ft of roadway was equivalent to total emissions found on 6 miles of normal roadway (without construction activities).

With this in mind, it appears that ceasing construction activities should have some impact. However, with the magnitude of the air quality problem, it is unclear whether this is the most effective method for improving air quality at the games.

Recently the Associated Press reported that the Bush administration appealed a court ruling on the clean air mercury rule (CAMR), a rule that established a market based cap and trade program mercury emissions similar to those in practice in sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides.

In February, the US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the CAMR violates the Clean Air Act. Essentially, the ruling states that EPA cannot delist electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) from section 112 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7412 as they emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). As a result, cannot set performance based standards pursuant to section 111, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, which established the market based emission program under the CAMR.

The administration presently argues that the court misinterpreted the law and that forcing EPA to draft a new rule will delay mercury emission reductions. The Utility Air Regulatory Group, which served as intervenors in the initial case and represent a group of electric utilities have also filed for review.

While I recognize and applaud the benefit of market-based approaches for effectively reducing sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, I’ve had mixed feelings on the inclusion of mercury with these contaminants due to its hazardous characteristics. Expanding market based approaches to hazardous compounds presents its own set of challenges, and it’s exciting to see how the judicial and executive branches wrestle with these issues.