$20.5 million from DOE helps communities turn trash into cash

 

The Department of Energy has just announced funding $20.5 million for several community-scale renewable energy projects.

UC Davis & West Village

One of the recipients is West Village, next to UC Davis, which generated a bit of criticism among Green Journey readers the last time we covered them. In partnership with UC Davis, they’ve now received $2.5 million in funding for a waste-to-renewable energy (WTRE) system. The DOE provides an explanation of how the new system should work:

The system would generate power from a renewable biogas-fed fuel cell.  The organic waste will enter a digester to produce biogas from organic wastes. The biogas will power a 300-kW fuel cell, which will work in combination with an advanced battery system to provide power to the campus’

Montpelier, VT

A second community level energy system of interest is the funding of $8 million to the City of Montpelier, Vermont, for a combined heat and power district heating system that will burn sustainably-sourced wood chips and provide 1.8 million KWh to the grid.

The CHP system will be sized to provide heating to the Vermont Capitol Complex, city owned schools, the City Hall Complex, and up to 156 buildings in the community’s designated downtown district for a total of 176 buildings and 1.8 million square feet served.

We follow these announcements with lots of interest, since we work with partners to identify the best combination of financing streams for achieving community-level sustainability.

As we continue to study eco-districts and similar low-carbon neighborhoods in various stages of design and planning around the world, district-level renewable energy infrastructure  — particularly waste-to-renewable-energy comes up time and time again within the case studies of the more successful communities.

A more in depth discussion of the ’success factors’ within green communities will definitely make for an exciting post in the near future as we consolidate our findings.

Video explains value of district energy

Some of these technical terms might be outside of the typical real estate finance and investment discussion, so I found a 40 second video that explains how district energy saves buildings money. Email subscribers should click on this link to go to the video.

Yudelson: ‘You should be tougher’ on non-LEED West Village

 

Your input is requested on a very important matter!

Yesterday, I highlighted the UC Davis West Village student/faculty housing development getting a $2 million grant from the California Energy Commission.

I also noted the project not adhering to LEED guidelines or any other third-party rating standard for that matter.

That definitely caught the attention of none other than Jerry Yudelson — a Green Journey reader with regular comments — who took me to task on not going deeper on the lack of third-party rating standard for the project.

His point:

Like this story, but you have to be tougher in your commentary. Not only is LEED not mentioned, thus no third-party accountability, but CEC did not require it as a condition of the grant, going against a clear requirement for all new state buildings. Also, there are no clear sustainability objectives: e.g., housing to use no more than 5 kWh/sq.ft./year for heating, cooling, hot water and lighting, no more than 50 gals/capita/day water, 100% use of certified wood, no use of PVC, etc. Without these touchstones/benchmarks, the so-called “sustainable design” is not ground-breaking at all, just a grab bag of technologies and design approaches.

I gotta admit: Jerry’s making a big point. It is true that not even the most minimum standard for energy and water saving guidelines were agreed for the project, despite it being a deal controlled and co-sponsored by the University of California (sponsorship from ground lessor relationship). Adding to that, the project received funding from the California Energy Commission, a big proponent of green building in general.

Here at Galley Eco Capital, we’re aware of several large developments in California that have gone through an extensive environmental review and entitlement process taking many years. The sustainability requirements that they were required to adhere to were baked into the deal years ago, somewhere during the process.

Should the developer feel compelled to achieve LEED-certification anyway?  I know that we USGBC supporters would want them to do so.

They finally achieve entitlements now, years later, during a new era that expects more vigorous, sustainable land use, transportation, environmental and building policy. I am not 100% sure about whether this is the case for West Village, but it fits the fact pattern.

Other developments, such as the Catellus Mission Bay project here in San Francisco, encountered a similar situation with their entitlements. In Mission Bay’s case, the master developer did not have to require LEED-certification from vertical developers, but some — Alexandria and McCarthy Cook, for example — built buildings to LEED-Silver, anyway.

In their case, these vertical developers needed LEED-certification from a marketability standpoint, to remain competitive with UC San Francisco or the large biotech and pharma companies on the prowl for new space. The West Village developers are marketing the units at below market prices, so assuming the pent up demand remains strong, they will not face any marketing risk associated with the fact that their product is essentially “self-certified”. Here the real estate story could trump the broader trend towards going green.

Your turn: What do you think?

• Should we be harder on the West Villages of the world, who are getting grant funding for “research” even as they avoid adhering to the most minimal third-party certification?
• Are we not hard enough?
• Are their efforts really just a ‘grab bag of technologies and design practices like Jerry says?

Please send me (and Jerry) your point of view. I will compile all the messages and share with those who respond.

We like this kind of issue here on Our Green Journey, because we want an authentic discussion first amongst finance and investment professionals — no fluff. That’s the only way that we are all going to create better, more sustainable results for our communities.

So tell it like you really see it. Your input would be very much appreciated.

$2 Million Grant for Affordable Zero Energy Housing Village

 

Bold stimulus and green building plans associated with AB32 are moving from the drawing board to the construction site.

West Village Community Partnership received a $2 million grant from the California Energy Commission for the study and development of advanced energy strategies for a 220-acre, 4,000 student and faculty housing development for UC Davis. The grant award came under the CEC’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program for Renewable-Based Energy Secure Communities (RESCO).

The grant essentially funds a living laboratory type of study of different energy applications to be designed for and installed in the community.

The developer and UC Davis will be studying how to put together an optimal mix of renewable technologies for the project — including creative financing structures to overcome the first-cost barrier for ultra-efficient green design as well as documenting resident behaviour; whether they actually save or waste more energy in this type of development.  Since the project will be built in several phases, the developer will have a chance to improve each new phase’s energy delivery plans, based upon what is learned by studying prior phases.

I love the intersection of the real estate story with the AB32/2030 Challenge issues– they’re already putting together a mixed use addressing pent up demand in the student and faculty housing market in that area. UC Davis ground leases the land to the developer. His focus will be on getting the project financed, built and sold (and paying ground rent of some amount, of course). The project was reportedly already sustainably designed before the grant was awarded. Now grant money will pay for the advanced energy requirements and “study” (read: actually do) the creative financing.

We also point out that one word is missing from both the story and the project website:  “LEED”. As much as the sustainability of the development is being touted, there is no mention of the design guidelines adhering to any particular third-party rating system, like LEED.

And what about the sustainability objectives?

• Housing units are to be sold at below market prices to attract top talent and students to the University.
• On-site renewable power generation.
• Strong focus on alternative transportation: bicycling and biking will be preferred mode of transport to campus for residents.
• Community layout takes advantage of sun and natural breezes.
• Landscaping is integrated with storm-water systems to cleanse run-off and create habitat areas

The energy strategies to be included are path-breaking for a development of this size. Those to be included and studied with grant funding are:

• energy-efficiency measures in building design (passive and active)
• demand response
• distributed solar photovoltaic to create electricity from the sun
• distributed solar thermal on homes to pre-heat water
• biogas coupled with fuel cell to generate electricity
• advanced energy storage using modern battery techniques
• smartgrid technology to efficiently manage energy supplies

Photo credit: Flickr / Shazari - Eggheads