AGENDA: 5 M ARIN C O UNT Y L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E O RDINANC E Alic e Za nmille r Pla nne r Co unty o f Ma rin Clima te Pro te c tio n Co mmitte e Me e ting De c e mb e r 2, 2019
This work is funded through a Climate Protection Grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the District. The District, its officers, employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, expressed or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report. 2
L O C AL C LIMAT E A C T IO N C O NT EXT – W HAT ’ S M ISSING ? 4% 1% 0.4%0.02% Transportation 8% Residential Energy Nonresidential 13% Energy Agriculture Waste Off-Road Wastewater 22% 52% https://www.flickr.com/photos/viennacafe/5865602500 3 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YM_Wealth_(ship,_2004)_002.jpg
E MBO DIED VS . O PERAT IO NAL C ARBO N E MISSIO NS IN B UILDING S CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS Embodied CARBON Emissions Net Zero Construction Operations 1 -2 years 20 years TIME Source: Larry Strain, Siegel & Strain Architects 4
Source: Architecture 2030 5
B AY A REA L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E C O DE • Funded by BAAQMD’s 2018 Climate Protection Grant Program under “Fostering Innovative Strategies with long-term impacts in reducing GHG emissions.” • A first-of-its-kind effort to address embodied emissions in an area of local government control. • Partnership with local government, engineers, and academia, as well as a robust stakeholder group. 6
B AY A REA L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E C O DE • Formation of a Bay Area Concrete Working Group as an extension of the Embodied Carbon Network A RCHITECTS B UILDERS / L OCAL N OT - FOR - C ONCRETE A CADEMIA & O WNERS G OV ’ TS P ROFITS M FG . E NGINEERS 7
B AY A REA L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E C O DE • Model code language for adoption by local governments • Low embodied-carbon concrete specifications for residential and non- residential applications • Ad Adopted u unanimously b by Co County o of Marin o on November 19, 19, 201 2019 • Opportunity for these standards to be adopted across Bay Area jurisdictions; and for the framework to be replicated beyond our region. 8
B AY A REA L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E C O DE Cement limits Embodied Carbon limits Minimum specified Maximum ordinary Portland cement Maximum embodied carbon content, lbs/yd 3 (2) kg CO 2 e/m 3 , per EPD compressive strength f’ c , psi up to 2500 362 260 3000 410 289 4000 456 313 5000 503 338 6000 531 356 7000 594 394 7001 and higher 657 433 up to 3000 light weight 512 578 4000 light weight 571 626 5000 light weight 629 675 9
B AY A REA L O W C ARBO N C O NC RET E C O DE • Four pilot projects receiving technical assistance to apply the specifications. These projects will: • Serve as case studies for other projects • Provide more granular GHG emission savings estimates • Help refine specifications as needed. Source: LMS Architecture 10
N EXT S T EPS • Working to develop resources for other jurisdictions to support adoption • Template Ordinance • Template Staff Reports • Develop overview of process for other regions • Monitor implementation, refine process, and share lessons. Interested in adopting a similar policy in your jurisdiction? Reach out! 11
B ARRIERS , O PPO RT IES , & Q UEST UNIT IO NS • How can this process expand to other building materials? • How can we support innovative building materials without burdening applicants (both cost & process)? • What is the right role for local government to play in materials regulations? • How should we prioritize embodied carbon policy models in built out communities vs. places that are still growing? • How do we address consumption emissions in an economy rooted in consumption and growth? 12
T HANK Y OU A LICE Z ANMILLER , P LANNER AZANMILLER @ MARINCOUNTY . ORG 13
AGENDA: 6 Building Electrification Trends and Opportunities Panama Bartholomy Building Decarbonization Coalition Climate Protection Committee December 2, 2019
2
3
50+ CA Local Governments Actively Exploring Zero-Emissions Reach Codes Northern California Southern California Bay Area Central Coast • City of San Luis Obispo • Alameda County : Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland Santa Barbara • Marin County • Santa Barbara, Goleta • Santa Clara County : Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Ventura Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale • Ojai, Thousand Oaks • San Mateo County : Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Portola Valley, Redwood Los Angeles City, San Mateo City and County • City and County of LA, Santa Monica, • San Francisco West Hollywood, Malibu • Sonoma County : Cloverdale, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Windsor, Healdsburg San Diego Central Valley • Carlsbad (adopted!), Chula Vista, Encinitas, Escondido • Sacramento, Davis Humboldt: Arcata Mendocino: Fort Bragg, Point Arena, Willits Santa Cruz: City of Santa Cruz 4 * Have staff and/or Council exploring a 2019 zero-emissions reach code
California’s GHG emissions today – Buildings 24% 5
Electricity is getting cleaner, moving toward 100% carbon-free by 2045 Source: CA Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ 6 ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf
7
8
Electric Heat Offers Pathway To Zero Emissions Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use of Title 24 2019-Compliant Building Gas-heated building Electric-heated building 6 5 Elec- tricity Elec- Metric tons CO2e/year 4 tricity 3 2 Gas Gas Gas Elec- Zero emissions! tricity 1 Elec- tricity 0 2020 2030 2045 2020 2030 2045 2020 2030 2045 9 NRDC analysis, climate zone 13 (Fresno) with rooftop solar. Including methane leakage
California top state for new gas connections from 2013 to 2017 New Natural Gas Customers, 2013-2017 Residential and Commercial Sectors, thousands of customers California 252 Texas 218 New York 123 New Jersey 106 North Carolina 101 Michigan 96 Colorado 90 Illinois 79 Pennsylvania 78 Washington 75 10 Source: EIA
Gas Infrastructure Costs $6,000-$15,000 $270-$850 $7,000 X 9,897 = ~60,000 families priced out $750-$2,400 Every $1,000 increase in house price prevents 9,897 California families from affording -NAHB, 2019 11
..electric appliances have similar or lower costs than natural gas appliances.. 12
Gas prices are increasing faster than electricity prices CA gas prices increased 3x faster Trend expected to continue: than electricity prices from 2012 to • SoCalGas was approved for 25% 2018 revenue increase 2018-2021 ( 8% p.a. ) CA Gas and Electricity Prices • PG&E filed for a 26.6% increase for +4.6%/y gas distribution over 2018 ( 6% p.a. ) 134 131 Gas 128 In comparison: 126 123 110 109 109 • SCE filed for 14% by 2020 over 2018 107 106 106 Electricity 102 100 100 +1.4%/y ( 7%/y ) 2012 = 100 • PG&E filed for a 24% increase for electric generation and distribution over 2018 ( 6%/y ), in part due to costs associated with wildfires 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Source: EIA 13 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010ca3m.htm https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=2,0,1&geo=g&freq=M
Rising Gas Costs Lead to Downward Spiral of Gas System California’s Gas System in Transition: Equitable, Affordable, Decarbonized, and Smaller 14
NOx in California 118 Tons a 107 Tons a Day Day 18 Tons a Day Power Plants Light Duty Buildings Vehicles 15 https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm
NOx in BAAQMD 20.30 Tons a 20.34 Tons a Day Day 2.23 Tons a Day Power Plants Buildings LDV 16 https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm
Stock Turnover 17
Electric Buildings can be … Cheaper More Equitable Healthier More Climate Friendly Safer 18
CPUC Decarbonization Plans 1. All Electric Building Rates 2. Resource Acquisition: • Incentives (eg Rebates) • Financing (eg Loans for all-electric customers) • Emerging Technology 3. Market Transformation Overall: Focus goals on GHG emission rather than energy reduction. 19
Title 24 2022 - Time Dependent Source Energy 20
21
Food Service is Energy Intensive! Source: www.energy.ca.gov/2006pub lications/CEC-400-2006- 7 times more 5 times more 005/CEC-400-2006-005.PDF 22
That means that a 3000 sq. ft. restaurant can have the same energy bill as a 30,000 sq. ft. retail store 23
The Energy Use Intensity Challenge 24 Source: 2014 Getting to Zero Status Update , New Buildings Institute, January 2014
The Challenge for Food Service EUI for Quick Service Restaurant = 800 AVG EUI for Commercial Food Service = 350 25 Source: 2014 Getting to Zero Status Update , New Buildings Institute, January 2014
How much energy does the food service industry buy? $43 Billion a Year * Equipment, Supply, Tabletop and Furniture = $13 Billion** 26 **Source: MAFSI 2019 Source: Based on 5% of NRA 2019 Industry Revenue*
27
Recommend
More recommend
