Green Roof Resource

Here’s an update on NYC green roof policy incentives as discussed previously. According to an article in Greener Buildings, bill A 11226 passed the state assembly on June 23rd. The senate had previously passed the bill on June 11th. For buildings that green at least half of the roof surface, they may receive a one-time tax credit of $4.50 per square foot (up to $100,000) of green roof.

So how does $4.50 per square foot compare with the cost of a green roof? In our study on the costs and benefits of extensive green roof systems, which included costs to install the conventional components in addition to the green components, we found that 4 inch systems were on average $22 per square foot. An intensive system would certainly cost more, and there are certainly variations in this price. Assuming this price per square foot, the incentive covers about 20% of the cost. By reducing the upfront cost with an incentive, the time required for a return on investment (ROI) is reduced considerably. Considering only energy savings and a reduced stormwater fee, typically the average green roof takes 20 years before ROI can be reached. With the additional incentive, this can reduce the time required for an average roof to 12 years. Not a bad deal.

Last week I attended the Smart Growth speaker series at the National Building Museum. Two speakers presented on green infrastructure strategies.

The first speaker, Nancy Stoner of that Natural Resources Defense Council, presented a summary and update from the 2006 NRDC report, Rooftops to Rivers: Greening Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. I enjoyed the definition of green infrastructure that she presented:

“Green infrastructure uses soil and vegetation in urban and suburban areas to manage and treat precipitation naturally rather than collecting it in pipes.”

The majority of Stoner’s talk focused on the efforts to promote green infrastructure technologies by cities. Cities that were highlighted in the talk include Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, New York, and Washington, DC.

Jennifer Malloy from EPA’s water quality permitting program stated that EPA supports green infrastructure (as noted in a previous post). To effectively tackle stormwater management and improve our surface waters, Malloy encouraged the idea of “rain as a resource, not a waste.” This may be apparent to gardeners, but this is a radical idea to those involved in large-scale stormwater infrastructure projects.

Green infrastructure is easy to adopt in eastern states, but under western “use it or lose it” water law, adoption is more complicated. Water that is not immediately used cannot be retained for future used. However, prior to development, a greater percentage of rainfall infiltrated the ground and a smaller percentage ran off to surface waters. Urbanization has shifted this balance sending more water downstream. Green infrastructure could serve as means of restoring this balance, but this depends upon how the laws are written in western states. Will the courts be determining the fate of green infrastructure?

This year’s Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities conference was held April 29th through May 2nd in Baltimore. Treehugger summarized the award winning projects here. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities has provided detailed descriptions of the winners.

The sessions were held on Thursday and Friday, and I focused my attention on the policy and research tracks. On Thursday morning, Dr. Hamid Karimi from DC’s Department of Environment presented the District’s efforts to encourage green roofs and other green infrastructure. While San Francisco has received a lot of press concerning a new ordinance that would require most new commercial and residential buildings to be LEED certified, DC’s Green Building Act of 2006 is the first major US city to require LEED for private projects. By 2009 publicly financed buildings within the District must achieve LEED Silver Certification, and by 2012 privately owned buildings must also achieve LEED Silver Certification.

In addition to establishing green building standards, the District is also tackling water quality and erosion issues. For soil erosion and sediment control, sites must retain a 0.5 inch in 24 hours storm event onsite, and those sites along the Anacostia River must retain 1.0 inch in 24 hours storm event. The Department of Environment is currently revising stormwater fees to provide financial incentives for low impact development (LID) technologies. The current fee is associated with water usage while the new system should focus on impervious surface area. This fee structure will aid incentives such as the green roof grant within the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits. Expedited permit reviews for green projects are also under consideration.

A different approach to encourage green roofs is under development in New York State. Amy Norquist of Greensulate LLC spoke of a green roof tax abatement for $6.75 per square foot of green roof. The New York State Senate bill S07745 refers to a credit of 55% of expenditures up to $5000. The New York State Assembly bill A10234 provides greater detail. These have yet to be approved but are a clear example of states beginning to direct cities toward innovative LID technologies.

The federal government is not silent on this issue either. Dov Weitman spoke about EPA’s efforts to promote green infrastructure within the framework of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. EPA’s green infrastructure site provides a wealth of information describing various technologies (including green roofs), research activities, policies, and case studies.

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.

The cover story of the latest issue of The Next American City concerns Las Vegas and its growing thirst for water (over 70,000 new residents each year). With Lake Mead at 55% capacity (having dropped an additional 48 feet since these photos were taken), the Southern Nevada Water Authority is planning to diversify its water portfolio.

To diversify, SNWA is proposing a multi-billion dollar project to pump 58 billion gallons of from groundwater aquifers in the northern part of the state. However, with Las Vegas residents using sixty percent more water per capita than another desert city (Tucson, Arizona), perhaps water efficiency should first be considered? Without efficiency improvements, the 58 billion gallons is only enough to supply 600,000 Las Vegas residents for one year. This and the economic and environmental consequences to northern Nevada due to expected groundwater drawdowns of over 200 feet, makes it difficult to see how diversifying the portfolio will solve the water dilemma in the state. What strategies exist for improving water use efficiency?

Tucson has raised water rates among other strategies to improve water use efficiency. For example, usage charges in Tucson are $1.10 for the first 15 ccfs, and then increase to $3.82 up to 30 ccf. This tiered approach provides incentives for saving water without depriving lower-income families, and is a standard in many communities (including my own town of residence, Ann Arbor, MI). Compared to more water affluent areas, the initial price is similar ($1.02 for the first 7 ccfs in Ann Arbor), but the water rates for Tucson jump considerably at the next tier (compared to only $2.13 per ccf from 8 to 28 ccfs in Ann Arbor). The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada determined that 50 billion gallons could be saved annually by implementing efficient technologies on faucets, toilets, and washers and by eliminating watering lawns. That may be a bit extreme for some in the city where anything goes, but with 70% of Las Vegas’s water being used for outdoor watering, a little less green could mean a lot more water.