Triple Bottom Line Analysis for Green Infrastructure A Case Study 2012 ARCADIS

Transcription

1 Triple Bottom Line Analysis for Green Infrastructure A Case Study Imagine 1 25 June the 2013 result

2 Learning Objectives Explain Green Infrastructure (GI) as a strategy for stormwater management Describe the value proposition for GI Explain the basic process for Triple Bottom Line value analysis Describe the elements of an incentives framework program to encourage Low Impact Development (LID) 2

3 Strategy Green Infrastructure as a Strategy for Managing Stormwater Runoff 3

4 What is Green Infrastructure? Stormwater management strategy that mimics natural hydrologic processes GI is integrated combination of infiltration, evapotranspiration, storage, water harvesting and re-use Typically employing high performance landscaping or functional landscaping 4

5 5 Courtesy City of Philadelphia

6 6 Courtesy City of Philadelphia

7 Why Green Infrastructure? Shifting perspectives in stormwater management - volume management Regulatory changes Sustainability triple bottom line (TBL) 7

8 Fundamental Issue: Altered Water Balance Water balance for an average year

9 Regulatory Changes EPA and States requiring 80%-95% rainfall frequency SOV as a essential means of water quality improvement Integrated site design and Green Infrastructure being incorporated in many MS4 permits Volume-based approaches being incorporated into local rules CSO rules are incorporating GI 9

10 Value Proposition GI values more than just stormwater management GI supports sustainable communities Decision to go green is made at executive level A value-based decision that directly impact the public realm Out of sight, out of mind Green infrastructure cleans the air and water, replenishes aquifers, reduces flooding, and moderates the climate. And the benefits go beyond improving the environment (Green Infrastructure a Landscape Approach, APA 2013) 10

11 Beyond Water 11

12 An Integrated Multi-discipline Approach Cisterns store/reuse > 20,000 gallons of runoff and AC condensate Planting mixes provide additional 90,000 gallons of water storage capacity for plant uptake + serve as a water quality BMP Tree trenches store 17 gallons per linear foot = total 4,200 gallons Total 114,200 gallons = 2.5 inch rainfall 12

13 Chattanooga s Strategic Plan for Green Infrastructure Hard Dirty Scary Expensive Green Clean Safe Affordable 13 Clean our Water Revitalize our Neighborhoods and Business Districts

14 What is Chattanooga Doing? New City Stormwater Manual New standards New methodology Technical incentives Integration of landscaping New process Options New City Stormwater Code Unified Land Development Code Incentive and Credit Program for GI/LID Using all of the tools of local government 14

15 Policies for Progressive Watershed Management Protect Natural Resources (Including Trees and Open Spaces) Adopt Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Promote Efficient, Compact Development Encourage Efficient Parking Design Complete, Smart Streets 15

16 TBL Process Applying a Triple Bottom Line Analysis for Chattanooga 16

17 What is Triple Economic Bottom Line (TBL)? Social Sustainability Environmental

18 TBL Analysis Process Economic, community, and environmental factors Costs and benefits of LID/GI Conventional vs. Green - Net Present Value Sensitivity analysis estimates range of costs/benefits 18

19 Direct Factors TBL Possible Factors Stormwater infrastructure Annual maintenance Energy use Water treatment Energy use for water transport Property values Jobs Flooding Water quality Air quality 19

20 Non-Market Factors TBL Possible Factors Recreation Health Aesthetics Noise pollution Community cohesion Urban agriculture Habitat Public education 20

21 Estimating TBL Factors Property Values Health Aesthetics Noise pollution Community cohesion Urban agriculture Other Measures Recreation Habitat Public education 21

22 Net Present Value Principle T = Planning horizon (number of years) t = time period horizon (year by year) Nt = Net benefits in period t i = discount rate Net Present Value = 30 years of costs 30 years of benefits in today s dollars 22

23 Challenges to Opportunities Chattanooga TBL Case Study 23

24 Two Sites Numerous Outcomes Commercial example What if recently developed site was subject to new stormwater runoff regulations? Target site as-built: conventional stormwater infrastructure Proposed reconfiguration applied effective LID/GI design Residential example More flexibility with hypothetical site 24

25 Approach to TBL Monte Carlo Simulation 25

26 Target Center As-Built 26

27 Target Center Proposed Reconfiguration 27

28 Commercial Example Costs Benefits Construction Energy Savings & Air Quality Annual Maintenance Reduced Water Quality Fees 28 28

29 Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) of TBL $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Longer Roof Life $500,000 Air Quality $0 ($500,000) Year 1 Years 2-30 Annual Energy Use O&M ($1,000,000) Water Quality Fees ($1,500,000) ($2,000,000) 29

30 Residential Example Costs Benefits 30

31 Residential Estimated NPV of TBL $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 ($5,000) Year 1 Years 2-30 Annual Improved Aesthetics Air Quality Energy Use Recreation Maintenance Construction Cost Savings 31

32 Applying TBL in Our Work TBL can be used to evaluate alternative projects Example MSDGC Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) green projects Example DWSD proposal for GI evaluation 32

33 What Does It All Mean? TBL varies by scale Common perception that going green costs more is not always the case Mitigation fees could tip balance toward GI approach 33

34 Incentives: Boosting the Bottom Line Framework for Incentives for GI and LID Case Study: Chattanooga The 3 rd Bottom Line 34

35 Program Objectives A mechanism for achieving the goals and objectives of the Water Quality Program A means of promoting Sustainable Development A means of financial participation of the private sector A means to fund public Green Infrastructure projects 35

36 Funding, Financing Incentives 1 Incentive: inducement or tangible reward for desired action A key component for of a balanced municipal land management program incentives can be performance based and financial Types: Stormwater fee discounts Fee-in-lieu Zoning upgrades, expedited permitting, reduced requirements Grants, rebates, financing, tax/fee credits Awards, recognition, certifications 1 Data from 50+ MS4 s 36

37 Incentives Program Framework Extend to developers and owners Marketable SOV credit expressed in CF of storage Tailored to development type and watershed Offsite mitigation fee at 150% of cost for balance of SOV Credit and grants for retrofits Expedited approval process and recognition awards 37

38 Incentive Mechanisms/ Elements Performance Based Water Quality Fee Credits (Owner) Stay-on-volume (SOV) Credits (Owner) Mitigation Fees (Developer) ERU based, or BMP cost based (CNT) Mitigation Credits (issued as a marketable certificate to Developer) 38

39 Mitigation Fee Calculation Example (ERU Based) The value of volume (SOV) credits can be based on the NPV of City s WQ Fee rate for a 1 storm event Example: 1 ERU yields 266 cu.ft. for 1 rainfall event. 1 ERU is assessed at $ per year. NPV = $2,534/266 cu. ft. = $9.25 or 150 % (Empirical data indicates that these costs may be conservative) 39

40 Decision Process-Mitigation Incentives and Fees NEW DEVELOPMENT YES Impaired Watershed? NO YES Capture and Manage More Than Standard? YES Capture and Manage 100% of 1.6 Rainfall (SOV) YES Capture and Manage 100% of 1 Rainfall (SOV) NO YES YES NO Eligible for WQ Fee Credit and Mitigation Credit Demonstrate Safe Conveyance 25-YR 80% TSS Treatment On-Site of balance Meet Peak Rate Control Standards Manage 1.5x Volume of balance up to 1 Off-Site or Mitigation Fee (1.5x Cost) 40

41 Grants Awards Credits, Incentives, and Fees Developer Mitigation Credits-Fees Owner WQ Fee Credits Benchmark Criteria Entity Performance Standards & Incentives New Development Site (except S.Chickamauga Creek Watershed) New Development Site (S.Chickamauga Creek Watershed) WQ Fee Credits per 12294, 10/6/2009 (1) NA NA Maintenance/Certification Annual Annual Baseline SOV Standard 1 inch SOV 1.6 inch SOV Mitigation Fee Baseline Portion of SOV not met Portion of SOV not met up to 1 inch Earned Credit Eligibility Baseline >1 inch SOV >1.6 inch SOV 80% TSS removal WQ v less SOV met WQv less SOV met Design Offset of Peak Flow per Manual per Manual 1 WQ Fee Volume Reduction Credit 10% credit for each 0.1 increase in SOV>1.0, 50% max 10% credit for each 0.1 increase in SOV>1.6, 50% max 2 WQ Fee Peak Flow Reduction Credit NA NA 3 Volume Mitigation Fee $14.25/ cu. ft (2) $14.25/cu.ft. of SOV not met $14.25/cu.ft. of SOV not met up to 1.0 inch 4 Volume Mitigation Credit in cu.ft. (value = $9.25/cu.ft.) (3) > 1 inch up to 2 yr. 24 hr storm > 1.6 inch up to 2 yr. 24 hr storm 5 Expedited Permit/Plan Approval Process Prequalification Required Prequalification Required 41 6 Grants (based on availability of NA NA mitigation fund-retrofit only) 7 Recognition Awards (criteria TBD) Eligible Eligible

42 Decision Process-Mitigation Incentives and Fees REDEVELOPMENT BROWNFIELDS HIGH DENSITY > 7/ac VERTICAL DENSITY(FAR > 2 or > 18 units/ac MIXED USE & TRANSIT ORIENTED (<.5 mi.) YES Capture & Manage 100% of 0.9 Rainfall Additional Eligible Volume Credit up to 50% Max total for each additional development category NO Capture & Manage More SOV Than 0.9 YES 80% TSS Treatment On-Site of Balance Eligible for WQ Fee Credit and Volume Mitigation Credit AND Meet Peak Rate Control Standards 42

43 Grants Awards Credits, Incentives, and Fees Developer Mitigation Credits-Fees Owner WQ Fee Credits Benchmark Criteria Entity Redevelopment Sites (incl Brownfields) per TN068063, Development Sites (Density>7/ac.; FAR >2, Mixed use and Transit; per TN068063, ) Non-residential Retrofit Site (4) Residential Retrofit (4) NA NA NA NA Annual Annual Annual At completion 0.9 inch SOV 0.9 inch SOV 0.1 inch SOV 0 NA NA NA NA >0.5 inch SOV >0.5 inch SOV >0.1 inch SOV NA WQv less SOV met WQv less SOV met NA NA per Manual per Manual per Manual NA 1 10% credit for each 0.1 increase SOV > 0.9, 50% max 10% credit for each 0.1 increase SOV > 0.9, 50% max 10% credit for each 0.1 inch increase SOV > 0.1, 50% max NA 2 NA NA % reduction in 2 yr 24 hr up to 50% credit NA 3 $14.25/cu.ft. of SOV not met up to 0.5 inch $14.25/cu.ft. of SOV not met up to 0.5 inch NA NA 4 > 0.5 inch up to 2 yr. 24 hr storm > 0.5 inch up to 2 yr. 24 hr storm > 0.1 inch up to 2 yr. 24 hr storm NA 5 NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA Based on specific BMP Based on specific BMP 43 7 Eligible Eligible Eligible Eligible

44 Learning Objectives Revisited Explain Green Infrastructure (GI) as a strategy for stormwater management Describe the value proposition for GI Explain the basic process for Triple Bottom Line value analysis Describe the elements of an incentives framework program to encourage Low Impact Development (LID) 44

45 Contacts Peter E. Yakimowich PE Sr. Consultant, ARCADIS U.S., Inc Premier Drive, Suite 200 Chattanooga, TN T: M: Carol Malesky Red Oak Consulting - Principal Consultant - Financial Services carol.malesky@arcadis-us.com Malcolm Pirnie / ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 222 S Main Street, Suite 300 Akron, OH T M F

46 Shevchenko Park, Philadelphia 46