what planners need to know

What Planners Need to Know:

Driving Energy Efficiency, Clean Energy, and Health in Our Communities

Cammy Peterson | Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)

Mike Davis | Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)

Sarita Hudson | Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council

Clean Energy at the Municipal and

Regional Level

Cammy PetersonDirector of Clean Energy

[email protected]

3

101 municipalities

1,440 square miles

Nearly 3.2 million residents

1.8 million jobs (2010 Census)

4

5

4

MetroFuture Vision Efficient transportation systems Conservation of land and natural resources Improvement of the health and education of residents An increase in equitable economic development opportunities for prosperity

MAPC Clean Energy1. Regional Energy

Projects

2. Local Energy Action Program

3. Energy Technical Assistance

• ESCO Procurement • Community Aggregation• Regional Solar Initiative • EVs & Hybrid Technology• LED Streetlight Purchasing • Energy Resiliency

• Connecting to incentives + plug-and-play programs• Community energy and climate baselining, planning,

& strategizing• Outreach programming and education

• Grant Writing • Solar Permitting and Zoning• Green Communities • State and Local Policy

6

Source: The Barr Foundation, 2014

7

LED Streetlights

8

• Energy and Cost Savings Reduce energy use 50% or more Reduce maintenance costs significantly due to long

life (20+ years) Payback Periods ~7 years

• Improved safety through enhanced visibility and decreased light trespass and pollution

• Wireless controls enhance safety & efficiency• Additional Financing Help: Green

Communities and Leasing

Streetlight Opportunity: LEDs

8

National Grid Rate

Tariff

Delivery Rate

($/Annual kWh)

Delivery Cost for 50w HPS

Luminaire Charge for 50w HPS

3rd Party Maintenance

Cost

Total Annual Charges

S-1 $0.04387

$11.19 $60.71 N/A $71.90

S-5 $0.06207

$15.83 N/A $12.00 $27.83

Savings

$44.07

50W HPS Example

• 50w HPS billed for 255 kWh/year.• 3rd party maintenance plans common at

$1/light/month for HPS fixtures 9

• Currently assembling next group of municipalities for collective procurement

• Attract more competition• Benefit from economies of scale• Avoid duplicative administrative

work

MAPC Group LED Procurements

11

Outreach Programs

Energy Efficiency & Solar

12

Outreach Partnerships - Framingham

July 2013 – October 20151649 Completed home energy assessments771 Homes insulated/air-sealed

102 Homes installed DMS systems70 Rooftop Solar PV installations completed (440 kW)

Savings 1693 tons of annual GHG reductions$364,102 aggregate annual savings

$8,200 donated to Framingham Public Library Foundation to build a new LEED certified branch

13

• City partnered with EnergySage, an online marketplace for solar developers

• Offered both residents and businesses an additional and convenient opportunity to go solar

• Follow up to a highly successful Solarize Mass campaign

Innovative Solar Campaign

14

Outreach Partnerships - Melrose

13

16

Municipal Solar

16

17

What is a Solar EMS Contract?A solar Energy Management Services (solar EMS) contract,

also commonly referred to as a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or Net Metering Credit Purchase Agreement (NMCPA), is a long-term (20-year) contract for services, including:PV system design, financing, and installationOperations, maintenance, and system removal Long-term lease of public spacePV Electricity System performance guarantee

All of these services can be procured under one solicitation via MGL c.25A

Important: This IS NOT a public works contract. It is a service agreement.

What is the Motivation for Entering into a Solar EMS Contract?A solar Energy Management Services

(solar EMS) contract allows public entities to:Benefit from low-cost solar electricity …without the costs/risks of ownership

(e.g., community has no O&M responsibilities)

…at no upfront cost to the communityHedge against volatility of grid

electricity pricing Take advantage of solar tax incentives

by partnering with a private developer

18

Source: Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, MAPC, 2015

18

Energy Resiliency

Thank You!Cammy Peterson

Director of Clean [email protected]

617-933-0791

mailto:[email protected]

LISC Boston’s Green Retrofit Initiative

Mike Davis, AICP, LEED AP BD+CSenior Program Officer, LISC Boston

Evolution of Program – 3 distinct phases Building owner demand (2010-2012)

New utility program created: LEAN Low-Income Multifamily 11 Boston nonprofits enrolled in Green Retrofit Initiative

HUD Energy Innovation Fund (2012-2015) Achieve 20% savings Expand statewide engaging nonprofits, for-profits, and public housing

authorities Experience informs policy (2014-2016)

20 owners: proactive approach across portfolio Policy work focused on connecting utilities and housing finance agencies

Green Retrofit Initiative 2010 to 2012 Goal: Building owner demand

Funder: Barr Foundation Building science partner: New Ecology, Inc.

Low-Income Multifamily Utility Program (LEAN) only open to nonprofits and public housing authorities 1st year Budget: 1/3 nonprofit, 1/3 for-profit, and 1/3 housing authorities

LISC worked with 11 Boston CDCs Benchmarked 5,000 units; used WegoWise to prioritize Retrofitted 1,500 units Leveraged $5 Mill Owner forums to share successes and failures

Where Do I Start?Benchmarking Used to Prioritize Efforts

Post-Retrofit Savings Analysis

Green Retrofit Initiative 2012 to 2015 Goal: Achieving 20%+ savings – give us your worst buildings

Funders: Barr Foundation and HUD Building science partner: New Ecology, Inc.

1 of 12 HUD Energy Innovation Fund grantees 10+ year affordability means mostly mid-capital cycle projects

Results Benchmarked 12,000 units Retrofitted 3,500 units Leveraged $12+ Mill Lesson learned: Owners do not want additional debt between capital

cycles

What Kinds of Buildings?

Small to large, wood and masonry, scattered site and centrally located – each building is unique

Urban, town, and rural Mostly master-metered heat, water, and DHW. Mostly individual

meters for electricity in units.

2012-2015 Savings Summary

Savings Gas Electric> 10% 72% 65%> 20% 54% 50%> 30% 18% 34%

Read the full report at www.bostonlisc.org WegoWise Data Savings Analysis with review by Cadmus

http://www.bostonlisc.org/

Green Retrofit Initiative 2014 to 2016 Work with owners informs policy opportunities

Funders: Barr Foundation, MassHousing, and Massachusetts Housing Partnership

Building science partner: New Ecology, Inc. 20 orgs enrolled for 1 yr: combined portfolios = 29,000+ units 17 nonprofits get $10k; 3 for-profits participate

Benchmark portfolio Green Asset Management Plan 2 priority retrofit projects

Green Retrofit Initiative 2014 to 2016 Results

Savings achieved, yet large opportunities remain Noticeable trends with nonprofit v. for-profits

Importance of organizational leadership buy-in Education: How much money are we leaving on the table?

What if… Water Savings ($.018/gallon) Electricity Savings ($.18/kWh)

Gas Savings ($1.10/therm)

AnnualTotals

Your buildings matched* the WegoWise median for all

metrics?$364,736 $3,700 $51,189 $419,625

Your portfolio decreased use by 20%**, across the board? $188,881 $41,622 $124,289 $354,792

* buildings already at or below the metric were not included in this savings estimate.**20% is the portfolio reduction target for participants of the DOE Better Buildings ChallengeSource: New Ecology, Inc.

Program Work Informs Policy

Goal: How do we make it easier for owners to do efficiency work at rehab? Housing Finance Agencies will share pipeline with MA’s Low-Income

Multifamily Utility Program (LEAN) Utilities will create program roadmap for owners All LEAN audits will be given to owners LEAN will accept 3rd party comprehensive audits LEAN will provide incentive commitment 6 months or less from rehab’s

construction closing Owner can choose their own general contractor for LEAN rehab work

What’s Next?

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center grant Collaborate with Housing Finance Agencies to provide audits for projects

approaching rehab Retrocommission underperforming renewables

Grant goals Audits – Getting all parties (owners, lenders, building science providers,

state agencies, utilities) to talk to each other about deep energy savings opportunities

Retrocommissioning – How do we make sure renewables are installed and maintained correctly to ensure savings?

Inform program and policy design so there are more resources and technical assistance from state level

Contact Information

Mike Davis, AICP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Program Officer, LISC Boston

[email protected] (617) 338-0411 x233 www.bostonlisc.org


http://www.bostonlisc.org/

35

Springfield Pay for SuccessAsthma Program Model

www.ghhi.org [ 36 ]©2015 Green & Healthy Homes Initiative. All rights reserved.

What is Pay For Success?

Pay for success (PFS) models are cross-sector partnerships in which private investors pay

upfront for a social service and government or healthcare payors repay the investment if and

only if agreed-upon outcomes are met.

If outcomes are not met, investors lose money


Basic PFS Model

Graphic: “Pay for Success (PFS) Financing,” Social Finance. Found in “Pay for Success: A Primer for Social Innovators,” Social Innovation Fund

http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SIF%20-%20A%20Primer%20on%20Pay%20for%20Success.pdf


Basic PFS Model




If it works, investors are paid back




If not, the project ends


If outcomes not achieved, project stops here and government/payor makes no payments to investors.

Outcomes not achieved



The PFS Opportunity for AsthmaSOCIAL IMPACT

6.8M kids with asthma in U.S. (18.7M adults)

14M missed school days due to asthma

9M families living in unhealthy homes

Sources: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm) “GHHI: Improving Health, Economic, and Social Outcomes Through Integrated Housing Intervention,” Environmental Justice, Vol. 7, Number 6, 2014

CASHABLE SAVINGS

PROVEN INTERVENTION40% of asthma episodes caused by home-based triggersGHHI Healthy Homes Demonstration Project: 66% asthma hospitalizations 62% participants with 0 absences 28% asthma ED visits 88% participants with 0 missed work days

$5k - $15k per hospitalization$500 - $5K per ED visitOther Rx & urgent care costs

$56B spent on asthma annually


Healthy homes part of effective asthma management

• Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Healthy Homes (2009)

• The Community Preventive Services Task force recommends the use of home-based, multi-trigger interventions with an environmental focus for children and adolescents

• Cost-benefit studies show a return of $5.3 to $14.0 for each dollar invested

• Home-based triggers cause 40% of asthma episodes1

1Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Beyond Health Care: New Directions to a Healthier America Report. April 2009


Address Root Causes at HomeUnhealthy

Home

AsthmaEpisode

Hospital Visit

Treatment/ Inhaler


Environmental Assessment & Health Education Together

Environmental Assessor-Energy Auditor (HHS/BPI)• Conduct pre-intervention environmental assessments /

audits• Develop comprehensive scopes of work for properties • Conduct post intervention assessments and audits

Community Health Worker• Conduct asthma/HH resident education during

assessment• Coordinate client health surveys and data collection• Distribute HEPA-Vacuum and indoor allergen reduction

kit• Referrals and follow-up client services• Review asthma action plan• Medication adherence• Ongoing education, behavioral reinforcement, and band follow-up with PCP / care managers


Healthy Homes Interventions• Installation of mattress and pillow covers• Integrated pest management: gel baits, boric acid, glue traps,

reducing entry points, cleaning/behavioral change (clutter)• Mold remediation• Venting kitchen, bathroom and dryer; filter replacements• Removal or steam cleaning of carpets• Air filtering system installed in child’s bedroom• Air conditioners and dehumidifiers• Provision of a HEPA-vacuum and indoor allergen reduction

cleaning kit• Other Healthy Homes Interventions with leveraged funding (lead, radon, asbestos)


Evidence Base for Healthy Homes• NAEPP Guidelines-based care calls for

1) Assessment of disease severity; 2) Medication; 3) Patient education; and 4) Environmental control

• HHS’s Community Preventive Services Task Force found “strong evidence of effectiveness of in-home environmental interventions” in improving asthma management and overall quality of life for asthmatics.

Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Healthy Homes (2009)

• Cost benefit studies show a return of $5 to $14 per $1.


Impact: Building a Business Case

1Peer-reviewed and published in Environmental Justice journal

Green & Healthy Homes Initiative: Improving Health, Economic and Social Outcomes Through Integrated Housing Intervention

• 66% reduction in asthma-related client hospitalizations • 28% reduction in asthma-related client ED visits• 50% increase in participants never having to visit the

doctor’s office due to asthma episodes• 62% increase in participants reporting asthma-related

perfect attendance for their child (0 school absences due to asthma episodes)

• 88% increase in participants reporting never having to miss a day of work due to their child’s asthma episodes

Environmental Justice, Vol 7. Number 6, 2014


Reduced Costs = Cashable Savings

• 1 asthma-related hospitalization on average costs $7506 in Baltimore

• 1 asthma-related emergency room visit on average costs $820 in Baltimore

Asthma hospitalizations

and ED visits

Cashable Savings

[2009-10 data]

51

Why Springfield?

Percentage of Housing Units Built Before 1940

Old Housing Stock in Springfield

Blighted, Condemned, and Vacant Properties – Spring 2013

1,162 properties listed as blighted, vacant and/or condemned.

Environmental Justice Neighborhoods

Build Health, 2016

57

READY- CHW Intervention “Reducing and Eliminating Asthma Disparity in Youth”

• 2009 ARRA - High Street Health Center (HSHC) Pediatrics)• 2011 HUD - (HSHC Pediatrics)• 2013 -2015 CMMI “New England Asthma Innovation Collaborative

(NEIAC)” - HSHC, Mason Square Health Center, Brightwood Health Center

58

Preliminary Results – Asthma Control Pre versus Post (N = 119)

58

• Multi-sector collaborative to address housing and health– Include residents and landlords

• Coordinated referral system for concerns related to housing and health

• Training on Healthy Homes approachwww.springfieldhealthyhomes.org

Springfield Pay for Success

• Referrals of pediatric and adult asthma cases

• Case management by Community Health Workers

• Program and data management

• Housing assessment and remediation

• Coordinate leveraged services

• Insurer/Payer

www.ghhi.org [61] ©2015 Green & Healthy Homes Initiative. All rights reserved.

Benefits of PFSProgress towards systemic change

Bridges timing gap between service provision and cost savings

Pay for what works

Stable, flexible funding to service providers

Shifts focus from remediation to prevention

Rigorous program evaluation

www.ghhi.org [62] ©2015 Green & Healthy Homes Initiative. All rights reserved.

PFS ChallengesLengthy feasibility and transaction structuring

Cost savings can be difficult to ascertain

Limited supply of appropriate interventions

High transaction costs

Bureaucracies and silos

63

Sarita HudsonPioneer Valley Asthma Coalition ManagerPartners for a Healthier [email protected]


what planners need to know

Government & Nonprofit