Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Process
Third Meeting: Buildings and Facilities Working Group
Thursday, April 4, 2002
Facilitator: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates, Ltd.
Consultant: Dr. David Nichols, Tellus Institute
Meeting #3: Summary
22 people attended the meeting, which began at 9:00am and concluded at 12:00pm.
I. Documents Distributed
Prior to Meeting:
1. Agenda
2. Draft Memo from B-F Working Group to Stakeholders on option prioritization
3. Revised “Development of Options: Scoping Paper for the Working Group on Buildings and Facilities“, Tellus Institute, April 2002
4. Memo from John Batey, Oil Heat Institute on fuel switching from oil to gas option, April 2, 2002
5. Memo from Tellus on fuel switching from oil to gas option, April 3, 2002
At the Meeting:
- Memo from Roger Warren, RI Builders Association on residential building codes option
II. Agenda Review
Dr. Raab went over the Agenda for the meeting and asked if there were any changes or corrections to the meeting summary from the last meeting. There were none. Dr. Raab then gave a brief report on the last Stakeholder meeting.
III. Option Discussions
Dr. Nichols then reviewed the action table detailing changes to the Scoping Paper since the last meeting. The Group agreed to simply change ProvGas to New England Gas Company throughout the Scoping Paper without trying to explain it.
The group then discussed option 3.2, regarding making residential building codes more stringent. The representative from the RI Builders Association circulated a memo detailing the Association’s concerns about the option. The Association feels that the costs that would result from more stringent building codes are unclear, but could adversely impact affordable housing due to increasing housing prices. Dr. Nichols responded that the studies cited in the Scoping Paper are for fairly aggressive codes but that the costs are clearly estimated: approximately $1,000 additional cost to make residences adhere to the more stringent codes, and in non-residential development the cost is approximately $1 per sq foot in electric-heated environments and 25 cents per sq foot in non-electric heated environments. Dr. Nichols further pointed out that both codes can be achieved at a negative life cycle cost since the energy savings over the life of the life of the measures are greater than the incremental first cost. Other Group members commented that payback periods should also be examined, that a less stringent code than Tellus analyzed might be more palatable (e.g, at Energy Star levels[1]), and that mortgages that take into account energy savings could help bridge affordability concerns.
After further discussion, the Group agreed to split options 3.2a and 3.2b on the binning table and to break out their relative saved carbon and cost of saved carbon numbers. The new table entries read as follows:
Number / Name / Saved Carbon / CSC3.2a / Upgrade new residential construction building code / 20 / -20
3.2b / Upgrade new commercial construction building code / 40 / -300
The Group also unanimously agreed that there should be options to provide education on best energy saving building practices for both residential and non-residential construction practices.
The Group was not, however, able to reach consensus on the priority for upgrading new residential and commercial building codes. All but four of the Group members (ten organizations) concluded that both code options should be high priorities. One participant concluded that they should be medium priority, while three others concluded that it was premature to prioritize these options until it is possible to further evaluate their relative costs and benefits. The Group decided to list the options as non-consensus and to detail the split in the Group’s thinking in the Memo to the Stakeholder Group. (For final wording, refer to the B-F Memo to the Stakeholder Group, attached as Appendix A).
On the Combined Heat and Power options (4.1 and 4.2), the representative from Narragansett Electric expressed a desire to eliminate language suggesting that changes in the utility rates may be necessary to promote CHP. The Group unanimously agreed that this should be a high priority option, though four members felt that rate structure issues were not an impediment to expanded appropriate use of Combined Heat & Power. The remaining ten members felt that rate structure issues should be studied and rates may need to be changed. The Group decided to detail the difference in opinion in the Memo to the Stakeholder Group. (For final wording, refer to the B-F Memo to the Stakeholder Group, attached as Appendix A).
The Group also agreed to clarify to the Stakeholders that the Scoping Papers are the work of Tellus with input from the Group, but not intended to be a consensus document of the Working Groups. The papers remain Tellus’ work.
After a short break, the Group took up option 2.4a, Switching from Oil to Natural Gas. The Group was divided about the advisability of this option. However, the Group agreed that we should encourage use of lower carbon fossil fuels (where fossil fuels are in use) when such fuels are available and cost effective, and Rhode Island should continue to look for those opportunities. The Group agreed to create a new option, 2.4c, which encapsulates this consensus while avoiding the more divisive option of fuel switching from oil to gas. This new option reads as follows:
2.4c / Encourage use of lower carbon fossil fuels / TBD[2] / TBDThe Group also reached consensus that this new option should be placed in the high priority bin. (For final wording on how this change will be presented to the Stakeholders, refer to the B-F Memo to the Stakeholder Group, attached as Appendix A).
IV. Phase II
The Group then had a brief discussion regarding Phase II of the RI GHG Process. Dr. Raab explained that discussions in Phase II will focus primarily on implementation, or “how to move each option forward.” The goal will be to focus the discussion on practical ways to get each measure in place. Some participants expressed concern that neither the time nor the resources will be available to focus on every option in great detail.
One participant observed that a helpful way to frame Phase II would be to examine the options through a quick, medium, and long term overlay. Separating out options by time might help to develop a more realistic implementation plan, the participant observed, as opposed to trying to rush everything through in the near term. It also might be more useful than providing extensive details on each option without thinking through how it might be packaged with other options. Another suggested that it will likely be necessary to focus in depth on some of the options but to give others more cursory treatment.
There was some discussion about how detailed each option should be fleshed out during Phase II. The consensus was that each option needs to have an implementation strategy. But the level of detailing may vary significantly across the options depending on various factors such as whether the strategy has a national or RI focus, whether it’s an option that can be piggy-backed on an existing program (e.g., SBC program), or who the actors might be. The Group touched on but didn’t draw any conclusions about how deep to go in program design (e.g., when do options need detailed budgets?)
V. Wrap Up / Next Meeting
As this was the final meeting of the B-F Work Group in Phase I, Dr. Raab thanked the participants for their hard work. The Group agreed to send out the Memo to the Stakeholders as soon as possible, as everyone had agreed to the specific wording revisions.
To Do:
· Prepare meeting summary – Raab
· Forward B-F Memo to Stakeholder Group to the Stakeholders – Raab
· Get final fuel switching memo to Raab by 4-9-02 for posting on the RIGHG website – Batey
Appendix A:
REPORT TO STAKEHOLDERS FROM BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUP
Date: April 8, 2002
To: RI GHG Stakeholder Group
From: Buildings and Facilities Working Group
Re: Recommendations on Buildings and Facilities Related GHG Reduction Options
The purpose of this memo is to report back to the Stakeholder Group on the work completed by the Buildings and Facilities Working Group with respect to prioritizing potential greenhouse gas reduction options related to buildings and facilities in Rhode Island.
The Group met three times – on November 29th, February 7th, and April 4th. During the first meeting, the Group reviewed a scoping paper by Tellus Institute on a range of potential options. At that meeting, the Group suggested additional options, proposed modifications to options suggested by Tellus, and reviewed and commented on a range of methodological and assumption issues. During the second meeting, the Group reviewed additions and changes suggested by Tellus as a result of further inquiries. The Group also prioritized the options into three bins (high, medium, and low), and reached a consensus on the placement of all the options except for one option pertaining to switching from oil to natural gas. After the second meeting, one of the Working Group members requested that the option on updating building codes be revisited at the 3rd meeting. The Group spent the 3rd meeting discussing three unresolved options (the two mentioned above, plus the Combined Heat and Power option) and reviewing this draft memo.
The Group Members all concur with the Group’s findings and recommendations as portrayed in this memo including the attached table that describes how far the Group has gotten in analyzing and prioritizing options. Table 1 portrays the Group’s recommendations to the Stakeholder Group together with the clarifying notes following the Table. To learn more about any of these options, the Group refers the Stakeholders to Tellus’s Revised Scoping Paper (4/4/02) and to the Revised Technical Appendix (4/4/02) as well as other documents (specifically on option 2.4a switching from natural gas to oil). All documents are available on the projects web area at http://righg.raabassociates.org.
We are also attaching as Table 2 the Buildings and Facilities Roster and attendance information.
We hope that this information is helpful to the Stakeholder Group in its deliberations and we look forward to further assisting the Group and the State of Rhode Island during Phase II of this project.
Table 1:
Binning from Building & Facilities Working Group[3]
Consensus Recommendation Options
Number / Name / Saved Carbon[4] / CSCHigh Priority
2.6 / Energy efficiency in existing nonresidential facilities: implement substantial new fossil-oriented program. / 100 / -200
3.1 / Upgrade and extend appliance efficiency standards / 100 / -50
5.2 / Compact appliances life style option / 80 / -550
6.2 / Energy efficiency targets adopted by industrial firms / 40 / -180
4.1 / Combined heat & power (CHP) in industry / 35 / -70
1.6 / Electric energy efficiency in existing nonresidential facilities: extend “Energy Initiative” / 30 / -200
6.3 / Reinstate and expand tax credits, for energy efficiency / 15 / -150
4.2 / CHP in buildings and facilities (non-industrial) / 15 / -90
2.1 / Efficient residential electric cooling initiative / 10 / 0
1.3 / Retrofit program for electrically heated homes / 9 / -7
2.5 / Retrofit program for fossil heated homes / 6 / -7
1.2 / Efficient lighting and efficient appliances DSM programs / 5 / -226
1.5 / “Design 2000” DSM for efficient new nonresidential construction / 5 / -200
1.4 / “Energy Star” DSM for efficient new residential construction / 1 / 0
1.7 / Small commercial & industrial DSM program / 5 / -150
6.1 / Public facilities efficiency initiative / 5 / -160
2.4c / Encourage use of lower carbon fossil fuels / TBD[5] / TBD
Medium Priority
2.2 / Efficient residential fossil fuel heating initiative / 25 / 10
5.1 / Compact floorspace life style option / 5 / -400
Low Priority
2.4b / Switching from electricity to fossil fuel heating / 1 / 170
1.1 / Solar PV buydown program / 1 / 1200
2.3 / Active solar hot water heating program / 1 / 1100
2.7 / Nonresidential gas air conditioning / <1 / 300
Non-Consensus Options
3.2a / Upgrade new residential construction building code / 40 / -300
3.2b / Upgrade new commercial construction building code / 20 / -20
2.4a / Switching from oil to natural gas / 22 / 36
Notes for Table 1: Binning from Building & Facilities Working Group
1) For Options 3.2a and 3.2b, Upgrade New Residential and Commercial Construction Building Codes, all but four of the Group members concluded that both code options should be high priorities. The Business Roundtable concluded that it should be medium priority, while the Rhode Island Builders Association, the Association for Builders and Contractors, and the Oil Heat Institute concluded that it was premature to prioritize these options until further evaluating their relative costs and benefits. The nine members supporting the placement of the code options in the high priority bin were New England Gas, Sustainability Coalition, , RI DEM, RI State Energy Office, RI DOA Building Code, Brown University, Narragansett Electric, People’s Power and Light, and Conservation Services Group. However, the Group unanimously agreed that there should be options to provide education on best energy saving building practices for both residential and non-residential construction practices.[6]
2) For Option 2.4a Switching from Oil to Natural Gas, the Group was strongly divided about the advisability of this option. However, the Group agreed that we should encourage use of lower carbon fossil fuels (where fossil fuels are in use) when such fuels are available and cost effective, and Rhode Island should continue to look for those opportunities. The Group agreed that this new option (2.4c) should be a high priority.