Arlington Community Energy Plan Competitive Community of the Future Property Development and Management Input Meeting Arlington, Virginia, July 1 st , 2010
Arlington CEP Process to date � Task Force Kick-off Workshop - Jan 2010 � Energy & Greenhouse Gas Baseline complete � CEP Technical Working Group formed � Meetings - County Departments, Dominion, Pentagon, Reagan National Airport, Washington Gas, Chamber of Commerce, …. � Task Force endorses transformative CEP goals � Community Energy Town Hall meeting Apr 2010 � Initial recommendations to Task Force – Sep 2010 � Completion target – February 2011 Community Energy Plan
A World of Cities 3 Billion Urban Citizens Community Energy Plan *UN Sources
Majority of us live in cities Percent Urban Population passed 50% in 2008 Community Energy Plan *UN Sources
Insatiable Appetite for Energy About 70% of it in Cities Forecast to double by 2030 Community Energy Plan Source: IIASA / BP / EIA / Eurostat
Climate Change Range of Potential Impacts Community Energy Plan *Stern Review
Global Energy Picture Growing Impacts on USA � Unpredictable energy prices � Sustained volatility and upward trends likely � Globalizing prices � Dependence on imports � USA - Oil (70%) and natural gas (16%) � EU – more than 50% of all energy � Climate change legislation � Aggressive reductions proposed � Uncertainty over regulatory frameworks � Uncertainty over compliance costs and requirements � Underinvested North American energy infrastructure � Electricity grid � Rail for coal transport � Natural gas terminals � China and India major new energy customers � Major impacts on primary fuel prices � Trigger events –hurricanes, tornados, oil spills …. Fundamentally different from past Community Energy Plan
Perfect Energy Storm When fears collide… Availability Volatile Prices Climate Change Growing awareness – Growing Opportunity Community Energy Plan
Energy Productivity Differences How well do we spend our $1.5 Trillion? Energy Energy Region Population GDP Energy /Capita /GDP USA 4.6% 18.9% 19.5% 100 100 EU 7.5% 25.1% 14.8% 47 57 Japan 1.9% 8.8% 4.3% 52 47 China 20.0% 4.5% 16.3% 19 355 India 17.0% 1.5% 4.9% 7 317 World 100% 100% 100% 23 97 Key to Competitiveness Community Energy Plan *IEA and World Bank – 2007 sources
Energy Supply Chain From fuel to service Uses 70% of all energy 25% 5% � High greenhouse gas � High-cost low returns � High risk Pay for 100 get less than 10 Community Energy Plan
Energy Use by Sector How does the USA Compare? Sector Share Index USA/EU Industry 32% 1.2 : 1 Buildings* 40% 2.5 : 1 Transportation* 29% 1.4 : 1 � Most energy lost in range of inefficiencies � Only 5% to 15% used productively High potential for productivity gains! Community Energy Plan *Indicative ratio of US average to EU Average
Arlington Community Energy and Sustainability Plan Security Competitiveness � Energy cost � Supply security � Employment � Supply quality � Investment � Flexibility � Greenhouse Environment Gas Reduction Three Groups of Benefits Community Energy Plan
Arlington’s Energy Use Roughly $1Bn per year 2007 Fuel Use 48’252’000 MMBtu e / 14’141’000 MWh e by type by sector 236 MMBtu e / 69 MWh e for each Resident Community Energy Plan
Arlington’s Carbon Footprint 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2,730,000 metric tons / 6,020,000,000 lbs CO 2e by type by sector 13.4 metric tons for each Resident Community Energy Plan
Arlington - Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Sector Energy Use Gases Transportation 21% 28% Residential 26% 26% Non-Residential 53% 46% Community Energy Plan
Greenhouse Gas Indicators � GHG good surrogate for overall energy productivity � National GHG per capita per year (metric tons CO 2 ) � Canada 22.6 � USA 21.7 � Denmark 14.1 � Germany 11.7 � European Union 10.5 � Municipal GHG per capita per year (metric tons CO 2 ) � Washington DC 19.7 (uncertain scope) � Arlington County 13.4 with “breakthrough” goal � Loudoun County 14.2 with 6.0 goal � Canada - Guelph 12.2 with 5.0 goal � Germany – Mannheim 6.0 with 4.5 goal � Denmark - Copenhagen 3.0 with zero goal Arlington Embraces Breakthrough Targets Community Energy Plan *Rough indicators - multiple sources
Copenhagen - Integrated Energy Solution “Environmental Capital of Europe” � Triggered by 1970’s energy crisis � Neighborhood approach � 2.6 tons / capita greenhouse gas � Efficiency � World leading building efficiency � Energy Performance Labeling � District heating / cooling � Systematic expansion � Fuel flexibility � Multi-fuel cogeneration � Coal, oil, gas, biomass, waste-to-energy � Wind and solar generation � Transport � Urban design for bike/walking � Efficient trams/trains � High Value Employment � Energy Products and Services 2009 – Voted “Second Most Livable City” Community Energy Plan
CEP Framework � Energy efficiency – If you don’t need it don’t use it � Efficient buildings, vehicles � Urban design for transport efficiency � Local employment for commuting efficiency � Heat Recovery – It it’s already there – use it � Distributed combined heat and power � Use existing “waste” heat � Structure commercial sites to maximize “waste” heat use � Renewable energy – If it makes sense, go carbon free � Renewable electricity – Photovoltaic, Wind, Run-of-river Hydro � Renewable heat - Solar thermal, Biomass, geothermal � Renewable heat and power – waste-to-energy, biomass � Energy distribution – Invest where it makes sense � Flexible distribution – electricity, gas, district heating, cooling… � Accepts multiple fuels and energy conversion technologies � Optimize local / regional investment choices Integrated Solution – Tailored for County! Community Energy Plan
Evolution of Benefits Four Distinct Types of Activity Integrated policy Integrated policy County wide norms County wide norms Increasing CEP Benefits • New “business-as-usual” • New “business-as-usual” Scale Projects Scale Projects • Neighborhood size • Neighborhood size • Local changes in “policy” • Local changes in “policy” Transformative Stand alone projects Stand alone projects • Fewer larger initiatives • Fewer larger initiatives • Minor changes in policy • Minor changes in policy Incremental Community Activity Community Activity • Many initiatives • Many initiatives • No changes in policy • No changes in policy Arlington Commits to World Class Performance Community Energy Plan
Sustainable Energy Multiple Level 1 & 2 initiatives Westover Library Walter Reed Community Center Langston-Brown Community Center Community Energy Plan
Sustainable Transportation Multiple Level 1 & 2 Initiatives Community Energy Plan
CEP Goals Competitive GHG Action Categories Difficulty Security -ness Reduction 1. Voluntary Community Activity 2. Smaller stand-alone projects 3. Large Scale-Projects 4. Integrated Energy Policy � Competitiveness Goals � Inbound investment, employment, energy costs � Environmental Goals � Greenhouse gas reduction – good surrogate for overall energy productivity � Supply Security Goals � Flexibility, redundancy, upgradeability “We don’t do Easy” ? Community Energy Plan
Energy Planning Neighbourhoods (Work in Progress) � 2007 to 2050 � Energy needs � Greenhouse gases � Energy uses � Heating, Cooling, Other � Buildings Profile � Residential / Non-residential � New, existing, renovated, demolished � Scenarios � Business as Usual � Enhanced efficiency � District Energy � Clean and renewable supplies � Existing buildings dominant factor in future energy use Renovation and restructuring will be key Community Energy Plan
Successful CEP Implementation Common Features � Leadership and community engagement � Transparency and outreach � Necessary planning policy changes in place � World-class energy efficiency � Integrated utility approach � Early implementation of “Scale Projects” � Magnet for business and academic excellence � Continuous improvement – raising the bar! Consistent Execution Over Decades Community Energy Plan
Recommend
More recommend
