A Review of the Arlington County
Community Energy Plan
Cheryl Ansell, Jada Breegle, Whitney Hank, Matthew Norwood, and Vestal Tutterow
Prepared for Executive Master of Natural Resources Program
Center for Leadership in Global Sustainability at Virginia Tech
June 2013
Executive Summary Arlington County, Virginia has drafted a Community Energy Plan (CEP) to address current and future energy use,
supply, and diversification. Once approved, the Arlington CEP will provide the county with a comprehensive
energy and emissions reduction plan. With this plan the community can realize the economic, social, and
environmental benefits of energy efficiency, use of diversified resources, and provision of locally generated and
transmitted energy. The Arlington CEP also seeks to provide, in a clear and accessible manner, a range of data,
policy background, and technical information related to the CEP’s six primary goals and the strategies they have
chosen to deploy towards these goals.
The purpose of this paper is to review a few key areas of the Arlington County CEP and frame the CEP in the
context of prevailing global 2050 trends. Additionally, a brochure suitable for sending to diverse stakeholders has
been completed and will be posted along with this document. This review has been completed as part of a course
of study in the Executive Master of Natural Resources degree program at The Center for Leadership in Global
Sustainability at Virginia Tech in Arlington, Virginia.
2 Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………...………….. 2
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………...………….. 3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..………. 4
2050 Trends and Challenges…………………………………………………………………………….….……... 4
Stakeholder Identification and Partnerships…………………………………………………….……….……….. 5
Engagement Strategy…………………………………………………………………………….…………………. 7
Energy Efficiency…………………………………………………………………………………….………………. 7
District Energy……………………………………………………………………………………….……………….. 8
Regional Benchmarking………………………………………………………………………..……………...……. 9
Distributed Generation……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Adaptation…………………………………………………………………………………………………...………. 12
Funding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
Critical Infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Conclusion and Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Appendices
Appendix A – Implementation Plan Review…………………………………………….…….…….….. 15
Appendix B – Stakeholder Analysis……………………….………………………………….…...……. 16
Appendix C – Policy Recommendations and Benchmarks…………………………………………… 17
Appendix D – Listing of Regional County Plans and websites……………………………………….. 17
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
3 Introduction Clean, secure, and affordable energy is central to developing sustainable communities that are healthy for individuals,
businesses, and the environment. Globally, climate change is a growing threat, and increasingly, governments are
realizing the need to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) being emitted into the atmosphere. For more
than a decade the United States has struggled without success to pass comprehensive energy and emissions policies on
a national level. This inability to work cooperatively politically, economically, and innovatively on the grand scale has
1
inspired others to take action at varying levels of government and society .
In the United States, the individual states are often referred to as policy “laboratories”. Now, on issues related to energy
and environmental policy, the counties, cities, and communities within states are demonstrating that they are the “proving
grounds” for energy policy and innovation. Urban areas make up about 75% of all GHG emissions, which places them in
2
a unique position to reevaluate energy use and make an enormous impact on climate change mitigation efforts .
Municipalities, commissioners, and councils across the nation are addressing energy supply, resource diversification, cost
security, pollution reduction, and partnership creation across diverse stakeholders in order to create more sustainable
communities.
Arlington County has demonstrated tremendous leadership in establishing policies, programs, and stakeholder
partnerships to address energy efficiency, energy sources, transmission services, and climate change through mitigation
efforts. They are working in partnership with regional and local planning bodies, like the Northern Virginia Regional
Commission (NVRC) and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, as well as exchanging knowledge with
international climate leaders acquire to deploy the strategies and technologies needed to manage natural resources and
3
reduce energy emissions . The extraordinary collaborative effort amongst these leaders has enabled Arlington County to
incorporate many innovative solutions to broaden the scope and depth of their CEP. Through the CEP they directly
addresses 2050 trends and challenges by planning for resource diversification, developing new energy transmission
systems, and increasing the role of public transportation services and land-use planning for mixed-use development. For
a brief rundown of Arlington County’s CEP implementation plan, please see Appendix A.
2050 Trends and Challenges As emerging national economies grow and global markets merge, communities around the world will encounter many
challenges and trends that will affect the quality of life of their citizens. The challenges will not be the same for all areas;
for instance, some nations will face a rapidly aging population while others will be struggling with how to address a rising
youth population. In other areas resource demands and limitations will affect the availability of materials and increase
4
price volatility of resources . Understanding the trends that will impact a community is paramount in developing
economic, social, and environmental strategies that will ensure vibrant business communities, resilient resource supplies
and increased flexible education and work opportunities.
Global Middle Class
Expansion
The ascendance of an emergent global
middle class will see consumer demand
rise around the world, potentially creating
scarcities and other negative impacts for
the economic viability of communities in
advanced countries.
Figure 1
4 Energy Resource Diversification and Local Transmission
All of these trends will be impacted by energy demand and supply. Localities that proactively address future energy needs
and diversification of their energy resources will be best positioned to adapt to global trends and overcome challenges. A
sustainable energy policy will enable localities to address multiple challenges while enhancing economic prospects for the
businesses of tomorrow. The charts below depict the current limited resource mix for U.S. communities and the
possibilities for future energy diversification initiatives.
Current Limitation
Future Possibilities
Figure 2
Environmental Transition to Clean and Efficient Technologies
As communities institute smart growth policies there must also be changes in the strategies communities use to address
the effects of household waste, municipal debris, water and air pollution, and resource consumption that accompanies
increased population density. Strategies need to be adopted that mitigate negative impacts while protecting and
enhancing local ecosystems and the natural services they provide. Synergies between county services should be sought
to establish renewable energy sources, develop closed loop consumption processes, and reduce or eliminate
environmental impacts.
Demographic Change and Workforce Transition
Global education and workforce migration is a continuing trend that localities should consider in their long range planning.
Attracting quality educational institutions, high-tech industries, and young working families will provide the human capital
necessary for the creation of sustainable communities. Communities that provide enhanced quality of life amenities,
(including improved green space, and enhanced outdoor activities), develop sustainable infrastructure, and increased
public transportation options will attract investment, new residents, and businesses.
Upgrades in technology, infrastructure, and quality of life services will require local communities to focus attention on
recruiting both educators and businesses in key technology and technical occupations. Education and career
opportunities in highly skilled occupations are major challenges that need to be addressed. Communities such as
Arlington County should work in collaboration with their citizens and other stakeholders, to address these trends.
Stakeholders and Partnerships Partnerships
Arlington County has established important partnerships that must be maintained to successfully implement the CEP.
These partners include energy companies, local developers, other planning bodies, and the Department of Defense. The
partnership with energy companies and local developers is highlighted in the Crystal City Integrated Energy Master Plan.
These organizations worked with Arlington County to create this plan. Energy companies and local developers have also
taken an active part in the Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force and the follow-on Community Energy
Advisory Group. Arlington County also maintains a partnership with the leaders and facilities professionals from the
Pentagon and Joint Base Ft. Myer. These are important community members who are not included in the boundaries of
the CEP. However, their participation in planning and sharing their experiences can greatly aid Arlington County. These
partnerships will be crucial as Arlington County endeavors to achieve its vision of becoming a sustainable community.
5 Stakeholders
As Arlington County moves from planning to the implementation of the CEP, it is imperative that the stakeholders are reevaluated for this next stage. Questions will need to be asked throughout the implementation process and mapping the
answers will assist in developing engagement and implementation plans for different elements of the CEP.
The stakeholders must be analyzed based on what roles they will play in the implementation. What will their contribution
be during the implementation? What is their legitimacy as a stakeholder who must be engaged? How willing are they to
5
engage in the implementation? How much influence do they have? Is it necessary to engage this stakeholder? As an
example and starting point for the CEP, please see Appendix B for an in depth analysis of stakeholders and Figure 3
below for a mapping of stakeholders.
High
Advisory'
Group'
Energy'
Companies'
Builders/'
Developers'
Expertise
Businesses'
Residents'
Arlington'
County'
Board'
Arlington''
NonFprofit'
County'' OrganizaAons'
Board'
Regional'
Bodies'
EducaAonal'
InsAtuAons'
State''
Leaders'
Federal'
Government'
Energy'
Professionals'
Professional'
OrganizaAons'
Chamber'of'
Commerce'
State'
Government'
Low
Low
Willingness
High
Figure 3: Stakeholder Mapping: A mapping analysis visually depicts the current engagement level of various Arlington
County stakeholders in relation to their support and involvement with the draft Arlington County CEP.
Arlington County is a proven leader in building stakeholder relationships and engaging in community partnerships to
achieve economic, social, and environmental goals. While there are documents posted on Arlington County’s government
website that acknowledge these relationships, their omission from the CEP, is noticeable and inclusion would contribute
both legitimacy and educational value to the CEP. Many of the primary stakeholders are known throughout the community
and other stakeholders could benefit from the development of relationships built around shared interest in the CEP.
6 Engagement Strategy Arlington County plans on reaching out to stakeholders through electronic and print media. They will utilize
techniques and lessons learned from Arlington County’s Participation, Leadership, and Civic Engagement
(PLACE) initiative (http://arlingtonplace.us/). The primary goal of the PLACE initiative is to strengthen community
and commercial stakeholder participation and collaboration with civic leaders and to refine existing collaboration
processes so these stakeholders are more successful in their interaction with county government. Arlington
refers to its tradition of government-community dialogue and collaboration as “The Arlington Way”.
One of the highlight strategies is a
series of “Green Games”, friendly
competitions and training exercises
for businesses and residents to
promote voluntary reduction of
energy use and costs. In addition to
the planned use of websites and
social and print media to reach out
to stakeholders, the county can
likely piggyback on existing PLACE
forums and other online presence.
Other potential tools include further
community events, partnerships with
workforce investment boards and
other groups, and collaboration with
APS’s career center.
Figure 4
The PLACE Initiative is a solid foundation for outreach initiatives centered on the CEP. Active engagement of
stakeholders will help focus the CEP and increase the likelihood of stakeholder buy-in during implementation.
Arlington County should work proactively bring prospective businesses and other representatives from the
business, technology, and defense industrial sectors to existing PLACE forums and Green Game.
Energy Efficiency Arlington has set aggressive, incremental goals towards energy efficiency. Their highlight goal is to reduce
energy use of buildings per square foot by 55-60% by 2050 from 2007 levels. As they discuss in the CEP, this
strategy will enhance energy security, economic competitiveness and the environment.
However, the plan can be more
compelling by expanding on the
economic benefits of increasing energy
efficiency, and outlining a business case
for the strategy, such as reduced energy
costs and enhanced energy security.
There are also benchmarks the CEP
can highlight to better communicate
these benefits. In New England,
investments of around $16 billion in
energy efficiency in six states over 15
years are estimated to result in
increased economic activity of around
$162 billion as consumers spend energy
savings in the local economies.
Figure 5
Furthermore, all of these improvements in energy efficiency and transportation will attract residents and
businesses, as they make Arlington more economically competitive with their surrounding counties. Employers
will be drawn to Arlington’s lower energy costs and will want to conduct their business in the county, bringing
more jobs to the county. Improved economic competitiveness is a strong motivator for many stakeholders, and
Arlington will benefit greatly by showcasing the evidence of economic success through energy efficiency.
7 District Energy Existing district energy (DE) systems in Copenhagen, Denmark and in St. Paul, Minnesota can serve as strong
benchmarks for Arlington County. Both DE systems provide heating and cooling, as well as electricity through
combined heat and power (CHP) facilities. Copenhagen’s system began as steam distribution and is being
converted to a hot water system, which has proven to be more efficient with less maintenance issues.
Copenhagen’s DE system has grown and evolved to provide heat to 98% of the city and cooling to 30%, it now
includes four CHP facilities providing 1,800 MW of combined electricity and heat, and three waste incineration
facilities providing additional electricity and heat..
St. Paul’s district energy system provides heat to 80% of the buildings in St. Paul and surrounding areas, while
district cooling serves 60% of the area. A CHP plant came on-line in 2003, and solar hot water became a part of
the system in 2011. This is the largest district heating system in North America.
The selection of DE as a source of electricity, heating, and cooling for portions of the county demonstrates
Arlington’s level of commitment to diversifying their energy resources and improving the efficiency of their energy
transmission systems.
Figure: 6
Figure 6
8 Regional Benchmarking Moving toward 2050, energy policies will have a growing effect on determining the economic outcomes for
stakeholders living, working, or operating businesses in a given locality. Communities that prepare for future
energy needs, diversify their energy supply, and provide cleaner healthier environments will have the advantage
when it comes to attracting new businesses and residents. Arlington is well positioned to be both an energy and
environmental leader as well as force multiplier for advancing energy policy and innovative solutions in the capital
region. They would be well served to highlight this advantage with regional benchmarking.
In order to compare and contrast components of Arlington’s plan in relation to those of their regional neighbors, a
30-point checklist was designed that includes many best practice energy policies and local strategies. Using the
best readily available information, the contents and features of nine capital region counties were compared. The
availability of energy policies varied, and when specific energy plans or policies were available, there were vast
differences in content, strategy, scope, and comprehensiveness. Despite this limitation in information availability,
the resulting table clearly demonstrates the strength and scope of the Arlington County CEP.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Reporting mechanisms proposed
Funding analysis
✓
District Energy / Combined Heat & Power Initiatives (DE / CHP)
Benefits of DE / CHP clearly defined
Renewable energy diversification and deployment policy
Planning for “Large Scale Projects”
Specific project recommendations details provided
Energy strategies addressing transportation issues incorporated
Energy policy for county government facilities, fleets, and services
Synergies across non-transportation public service sectors.
Biomass, geothermal, and other alternate energy sources
Energy labeling initiative
Broad outreach engagement strategies or resources provided
Residential weatherization and renewable energy deployment strategy
Community energy auditors and / or weatherization personnel trained
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Frederick
✓
Charles
Loudoun
✓
Montgomery
Fairfax
Specific energy plan provisions available
Energy policy is a component of a strategic or comprehensive plan
Specific energy plan or policy
Purpose of energy plan detailed
Broad goals presented
Specific governing terminology defined (policy, tool, goal, etc.)
Energy history or baseline provided
Clear and detailed goals outlined
Benefits to implementing a Comprehensive Energy Plan provided
Reductions to peak load information highlighted
Benchmarks for energy plan elements / goals (internal and external)
Target for emissions reduction goals clearly defined
Energy efficiency standards and measures defined
Building efficiencies defined and energy use targets established.
Prince George’s
Arlington
Energy Plan Elements
Maryland
Stafford
Virginia
Prince William
Regional Benchmarking
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Figure 7 (see Appendix D for citations and websites)
9 Distributed Generation Distributed generation is when electricity or heat is generated and fed directly into the grid, rather than produced
in bulk at a separate location and transmitted in. As opposed to bulk-generated power, DG energy often
originates from both utility and ratepayer projects. DG can provide a variety of benefits and services, some of the
6
most important of which are summarized in the Department of Energy (DOE) table below .
Figure 8: Benefits of Distributed Generation U.S. Department of Energy, The Potential Benefits of Distributed Generation and Rate-Related
Issues That May Impede Their Expansion [February 2007]
DG technologies provide services that meet all three of the Arlington CEP’s core goals. DOE identifies three
categories of distributed generation, including emergency power units, district energy and on-site DG. Arlington is
already pursuing district energy, while emergency power units are usually approached on a per site basis.
However, the CEP contains little to no plans for implementing on-site DG, especially small scale photovoltaic
solar arrays, even though on-site DG is a frequently applied method in many other community energy projects.
On-site DG includes PV solar arrays, micro-turbines and fuel cells, as well as CHP. Fuel cells are a developing
technology and Arlington County has dismissed distributed wind energy due to a general shortage of this
resource in their area. The CEP implementation plan approaches renewable energy generation from the
perspective of large-scale solar PV systems. As the CEP notes, as of now, purchase power agreements and a
mandatory renewable energy portfolio have not been adapted or allowed by law, limiting the potential of such
projects. That leaves most of the short and medium term renewable energy development potential with smallscale distributed solar. The implementation plan proposes the use of a few renewable energy technologies in
residential settings, including solar thermal water and space heating systems, and increased use of day lighting in
architecture, but small-scale PV is noticeable omission. The Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE) has also
seems to treat distributed solar as a low priority. This is likely because in addition the legislative barriers to
development there is a more immediate and substantial challenge towards implementation of small-scale PV and
Arlington’s other DE projects, namely the risk of damaging Arlington County’s relationship with its local utility.
Arlington County has a strong relationship with Dominion Virginia Power and likely wants to avoid unilateral
adaption of distributed generation in order to preserve this relationship. Unfortunately, DG technologies, as well
as strong energy efficiency advances, may represent a threat to Dominion’s current business model. The Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) is an associate of shareholder-owned electric companies of which Dominion is a member.
10 The EEI provides policy leadership, research services and strategic business intelligence to its member. Their
report, “Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric
Business”, discusses the risks DG may represent for a utility. Distributed energy generation and energy
efficiency projects reduce a utility’s revenue, which in turn leads to increased rates for energy users who have not
implemented such projects. Higher rates incentivize further adaption of DG and energy efficiency and can lead to
7
a negative cycle. Over time this cycle can also affect credit ratings and scare off utility investors .
Figure 9: Electric Utility Disruptive Forces
EEI Visual of Downward Spiral http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf
While it may initially seem like the EEI and power utilities have contrarian goals to the CEP, and indeed the EEI’s
analysis is heavily focused on the risks of these initiatives, there are also substantial benefits for utilities in
supporting distributed generation projects. Crossborder Energy, a North American energy consulting company,
8
evaluated the benefits and costs of California’s net energy metering (NEM) initiative . NEM allows ratepayers
who generate electricity to receive financial credit for power generated by an onsite system and fed back the
utility, and historically is the primary mechanism by which owners are reimbursed for DG projects. Crossborder
concluded that NEM does not produce a cost shift to non-participating ratepayers, and actually provides a small
net benefit on average across a utility’s residential markets, completely avoiding EEI’s projected downward spiral.
The primary benefit for utilities is the reduction of future load requirements, avoiding costs that would be
shouldered by all ratepayers for large energy projects. For example, Dominion primarily uses coal to generate
electricity. In light of ever more stringent emissions standards as well as the age and potential renovation needs
of heretofore grandfathered plants, Dominion will likely need to offset substantial transmission losses in the near
future. As with CHP, solar PV also provides a peak demand energy resource that can offset costly surge
generating capacity. Crossborder identified several other benefits, including avoided capacity costs for
generation, reduced costs for ancillary services, lower line losses on the transmission and distribution system,
reduced investments in transmission and distribution facilities and lower costs for the utility’s purchase of other
renewable generation.
If properly implemented, distributed generation and strong energy efficiency initiatives can be very beneficial for
both the public and investor owned electrical utilities. The primary barrier to such a program is misunderstanding
and inflexibility between communities and their utilities. To this end, we would advise Arlington County to
proactively engage Dominion Virginia Power to form an open, collaborative public-private partnership that will
further the long term goals of both parties.
11 Adaptation Although this report lays out the components of the CEP, any long term planning must consider the impacts of
climate change on the county, including the county’s energy infrastructure, and address the measures necessary
to minimize those impacts.
9
According to a report by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments , by 2030, sea levels in the mido
Atlantic region may rise from 4 to 12 inches, average temperatures may increase by 1.8 to 2.7 F, precipitation
may increase by up to 8%, and runoff may increase by up to 6%.
No amount of energy and environmentally focused actions by Arlington County alone will halt these regional
climate change impacts. The county must prepare for and try to minimize the impacts of these changes. Any
new district energy facilities and distribution networks must be strategic in their siting and construction,
considering the long-term impacts of rising sea levels, storm surge, and storm water runoff. Boilers and CHP
systems must be protected from these impacts. Underground distribution networks must be designed to be floodresistant and capable of quickly removing any floodwaters that enter the networks. With the high-density areas of
Crystal City and Roslyn located near the Potomac River, these potential impacts are very real.
Climate change will also impact transportation in the county. Rising temperatures could increase the frequency of
buckling (warping) rails on the Metro system, and add stress to bridges and asphalt roadways. Increased
temperatures will increase demand for air conditioning, so building energy policies as well as the district energy
planning should account for this impact.
Beyond energy infrastructure, climate change will impact the citizens of Arlington and its ecological systems. The
10
City of Alexandria’s Energy and Climate Change Action Plan considers climate adaptation and includes a
preliminary list of five impacts from climate change along with a number of actions to help the city prepare and
minimize the impacts. Given the proximity of Alexandria to Arlington, these same actions can be pursued by
Arlington County. In addition, the city of Flagstaff, AZ provides a good example, as summarized in the text box
above.
Highlight: Flagstaff, AZ Climate Adaptation Planning
!
The City of Flagstaff, AZ has taken a different and promising approach to
adaptation planning. They completed a Resiliency and Preparedness
Study in September 2012. The study identified vulnerable areas and
assessed the risks of climate impacts. Experts from the city including
people from public safety, economic development, public works, planning,
finance, and utilities created the vulnerability and risk assessments In
addition, the team included the National Weather Service and the county
emergency management and public health officials.
The study made several important recommendations. One recommendation was for the City of
Flagstaff to “build resilience by incorporating planning for future climate into all City functions.” 11
A second recommendation was that the “City Council adopt guiding policy statements so that all
future City plans and projects incorporate and account for the direct and indirect impacts of
changes in precipitation and temperature.”12 The City Council accepted both of these
recommendations. They adopted a policy that, among other things, mandates the
institutionalization of resiliency into city decisions.13
There are several elements that make the City of Flagstaff’s approach different. First, they don’t
use the words “climate adaptation”. They talk about vulnerability and resiliency. They focus on the
impacts, not on the climate changes. Second, they did not create a plan. Instead, they will
incorporate resiliency into all city plans using regular planning processes.
!
Figure 10
12 Funding The Arlington CEP has a brief section on funding for the energy plan projects. The county proposes funding the
plan with the General fund and the Capital Improvement Program for long-term projects. This essentially involves
creating a budget for the projects. Discussion is minimal on where the funds will originate, although there is also
mention of funding through state and federal grants. Another indirect funding source is through Arlington’s density
incentives. The county offers developers a density bonus in exchange for building energy efficient and Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings. This takes the financial burden off the county and
transfers it to developers that were already going to be building. In addition, higher density buildings will have an
added benefit of housing more residents to increase tax revenue that could be funneled into the energy plan
budget.
As this is an ambitious proposal that will require much planning and implementation, funding is key to its feasibility
and sustainability. Arlington should outline in more detail its plans for funding the CEP. There are many options in
existence from which to pursue. Federal funding sources should be explored. Additionally, government bonds
14
can be issued for certain projects by the county that are tax-exempt and low interest .
Alternative funding methods can include the continued establishing of private and public partnerships to leverage
financial resources and staff. In addition, the EPA suggests in its CHP Handbook using a third-party financing
entity that will measure the expected results and benefits of the project such as DE or CHP rather than the worth
of the project developer. Therefore, there is less risk since debt is paid back by profits generated by the project.
Lastly, implementing a “carbon tax” on residents, such as what is done in Colorado, can serve as both a funding
source and incentive to reduce GHGs. This, however, might meet barriers at the state government level. If that is
the case, there is still an option to implement System Public Benefit Charges (SPBC), which are fees collected by
15
the energy provider from ratepayers, rather than taxes collected by the government . Then the money collected
is often invested back into programs that benefit the ratepayers. This could provide a steady source of funding for
long-term energy efficiency projects.
Critical Infrastructure The Patriot Act of 2001 defines critical infrastructure as “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital
to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating
impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those
matters” (Public Law 107-56, Sec. 1016(e)). According to Presidential Decision Directive 63, critical
infrastructures include “telecommunications, energy, banking and finance, transportation, water systems and
emergency services, both governmental and private” (Presidential Decision Directive-63, section I). Arlington
County contains critical infrastructure and the Arlington CEP promises energy security. The case could easily be
made in the Arlington CEP that district energy and combined heat and power are a mechanism to protect critical
infrastructure and thus, make Arlington a preferred location for businesses including those in the financial sector.
The extent of critical infrastructure and facilities in Arlington may provide rationale for seeking federal funding, with
the Patriot Act in mind.
Various distributed generation techniques can serve to bolster energy security. The Department of Energy has a
new report released in March 2013 – DOE SEE Action Report – Guide to Successful Implementation of State
16
Combined Heat & Power Policies . According to the report, Texas now requires all government facilities that are
critical in an emergency situation to have a CHP feasibility study prior to construction or major renovation. This
requirement became effective in September 2009. Louisiana enacted a similar law in August of 2012. Such
requirements for protecting power to “critical infrastructure” could be considered by Arlington, and could cover
federal facilities in addition to county facilities.
13 Conclusion In many ways, Arlington County has set the gold standard when it comes to energy planning. Their efforts are
quite comprehensive in scope and lays out ambitious yet achievable goals. Having reviewed the CEP and
companion Implementation Framework, the plans of other municipalities, and related reports and other
documents, the Blue Blocks team provides the following recommendations.
Recommendations
•
Arlington should consider adding a stakeholder review to either the CEP or the Community Energy
Implementation Framework.
•
As Arlington County moves into climate adaptation planning, it is recommended that the County conducts
an analysis of stakeholders specifically around adaptation. This will most likely include groups that are
not stakeholders in the current CEP (i.e. public safety, emergency management, National Weather
Service, public health).
•
Arlington should consider focusing more on explaining the economic benefits of increasing energy
efficiency as an added business angle.
•
Revisit distributed generation and start talks towards a public-private partnership with Dominion to
alleviate their concerns.
•
Proactively bring prospective businesses or other representatives from the business, technology and
defense industrial sectors to existing PLACE forums.
•
Support specific legislative policies at the state level (see Appendix C).
•
The existing district energy systems, such as in Copenhagen, Denmark and St. Paul, Minnesota, can
serve as excellent benchmarks for Arlington County. We recommend pursuit of district energy assuming
the outcomes and recommendations from the Crystal City Integrated Energy Master Plan are favorable
toward district energy.
•
We recommend that Arlington include in its energy plan provisions that provide resiliency to the risks of
climate change to the county's buildings, infrastructure, ecosystems, and residents.
•
Arlington should outline in more detail their plans for funding the CEP with alternative sources in mind.
14 Appendix A: Implementation Plan Review Arlington County has set aggressive, incremental goals towards energy efficiency, energy security and C02
reduction in several key areas. Their goals, policies and strategies are organized in the table below:
Goals and Policies Strategies Goal: Increase the energy and operational
efficiency of all buildings
Policies: Ensure buildings on average use less
energy per square foot as compared to 2007 baseline
(63 kBtu/square foot):
•
2020 – 5% reduction
•
2030 – 25% reduction
•
2040 – 40% reduction for residential, 45%
reduction for non-residential
•
2050 – 55% reduction for residential, 60%
reduction for non-residential
Reduce carbon intensity of source energy
•
•
Goal: Increase local energy supply and
distribution efficiency in Arlington using District
Energy (DE)
Policies:
•
Facilitate the installation and use of district
energy in areas with high potential for DE. At
least 450 megawatts (MW) connect load of DE
and 104 MW of Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) by 2050
•
Plan and build infrastructure in appropriate
locations to facilitate DE distribution and
connection
•
•
Goal: Increase locally generated energy supply
through the use of renewable energy options
Policies:
•
Become a solar leader with installation and use
of 160 MW of solar electricity by 2050
•
Increase the use of renewable energy
technologies in the public, private and non-profit
sectors
Goal: Refine and expand transportation
infrastructure and operations enhancements
Policies:
Increase carbon efficiency of transportation from 2007
levels of 3.7 mtC02e/capita/year:
•
2020 – 2.7 mt
•
2030 – 2.0 mt
•
2040 – 1.7 mt
•
2050 – 1.0 mt
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goal: Integrate CEP goals into all County
Government activities
Policies:
Reduce county government C02 emissions compared
to 2007 baseline:
•
2020 – 25% below
•
2030 – 42% below
•
2040 – 59% below
•
2050 – 76% below
Integrate CEP policies into county planning,
•
•
•
•
•
•
Renovate existing buildings
Encourage new buildings to be designed, constructed and
operated more efficiently
Ensure compliance with building code previsions
Ensure equitable access and use of all income levels to
efficiency programs
Use land use development process to create more energyefficient buildings
Promote widespread use and display of EPLs
Encourage use of low carbon fuels
Reduce energy intensity in County and APS buildings and
operations
Create a DE corporation to own DE system
Build, operate and maintain DE and CHP systems as
opportunities arise
Encourage DE ready construction and renovation
Establish a process and guidelines for buildings to connect to
DE systems
Develop a DE infrastructure plan in coordination with other
county departments
Coordinate the installation of DE distribution pipes and other
infrastructure
Link DE/CHP to streetcar lines and other transportation
infrastructure
Revise Arlington County Code to reflect CEP goals
Incentives for renewable energy generation
Eliminate regulatory and legislative barriers to increase
renewable energy production
Encourage development industry to integrate renewable
energy tech and best practices into the design process
Partner with utilities to increase and optimize use of renewable
energy
Encourage solar hot water and other renewable technologies
Support existing MTP policies, including integrated
transportation and land use, Complete Streets, management
of travel demand, support of alternatives to car ownership, etc.
Support federal and state efforts to increase vehicle fuel
efficiency
Increase fuel and operational efficiency of County and APS
fleets
Operate and maintain traffic infrastructure with an eye toward
energy and fuel efficiency
Increase availability of reduced-carbon content vehicle fuels
Work with regional organizations/individual jurisdictions in the
DC metro region to address transportation issues
Propose state and federal regulatory and legislative remedies
to achieve CEP goals
Fund CEP implementation
Work with regional organizations/individual jurisdictions in our
metro region to address energy issues
Develop and coordinate financial incentive programs
Retain existing and attract new businesses and jobs through
CEP implementation
Strengthen partnerships with colleges and universities to
identify opportunities to reach CEP goals
15 policy development and other activities.
Take advantage of CEP implementation to
ensure Arlington’s long-term economic
competitiveness.
Goal: Advocate and support personal action
through behavior change and effective education
Policies:
•
Engage and empower individuals to reduce
energy use
•
Enhance level of professional expertise and fork
force in community related to energy
•
Ensure recognition of extraordinary efforts made
to help the community reach CEP goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Raise personal energy literacy among all populations
Be a trusted and leading source of energy information
Maintain and build partnerships
Engage the public through electronic and print media
Collaborate with Arlington Public Schools local
colleges/universities to provide energy education
Partner with stakeholders to develop/provide energy training
and courses and to map workforce development
Encourage energy conservation and efficiency though
recognition of success
Figure 11
Appendix B: Arlington County CEP Stakeholder Analysis Contribution
(Expertise)
Legitimacy
(Expertise)
Willingness
to Engage
Influence
(Value)
Residents
Businesses
Builders/Developers
Energy Companies
Chamber of Commerce
VA State Leaders
State government
Arlington County Board
Arlington County
Government
Community Energy
Advisory Group
Professional organizations
(i.e. NAIOP)
Non-Profit Organizations
(i.e. APAH, ACE)
Energy
Professionals/Tradespeople
Regional bodies and
individual jurisdictions
Educational Institutions
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Low
Low
High
Medium
Medium
High
Low
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Necessity of
Involvement
(Value)
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
High
Low
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Federal Government
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Stakeholder
Figure 12
16 Appendix C -­‐ Policy Recommendations and Benchmarks
It is recommended that Arlington County include a legislative engagement strategy to champion in Richmond as a
goal area in the CEP. This CEP goal section will need to develop and define the criteria necessary to support
specific policies at the state legislative level. Policy initiatives should look to advance the goals of the CEP and
the energy choices available to Arlington residents. Some policy areas that should be considered for inclusion
are:
Incorporate the International Energy Construction (Conservation) Code 2012 in the state building
17
code – expected by 2015 – (S1.3)
Allowance of Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financial incentive program – (S1.4)
State provided tax credits and incentives for renewable energy technology – (S3.1)
Allowance of Power Purchase Agreements – (S3.2)
18
19
20
Mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards for the state – (S3.2)
21
Enabling legislation for micro-lending programs for energy technology upgrades.
Enabling legislation, which allows for the development and implementation of alternative energy
sources and the new technology jobs they create.
Grants to fund the CEP or portions of the CEP
Legislation requiring all government facilities to have a CHP feasibility study prior to construction or
major renovation.
Individual, or packaged elements of complementary provisions should be included to demonstrate direction and
commitment in advancing innovative, long-term energy planning.
Appendix D – Regional County Plans and Website Links
Arlington County, VA
Community Energy Plan: Draft November 2012
Charles County, MD
Charles County Comprehensive Plan
http://www.charlescountyplan.org/images/document_library/Comp%20Plan%20Edits%20Combined.pdf
Fairfax County, VA
Fairfax County Energy Plan
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/living/environment/county-energy-policy.htm
Frederick County, MD
2010 Comprehensive Plan
http://frederickcountymd.gov/index.aspx?NID=3657
Loudoun County, VA
17 Loudoun County Energy Strategy
http://www.loudoun.gov/documents/105/108/Energy%20Strategy.pdf
Montgomery County, MD
Department of Environmental Protection
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/energy/energyL2.asp#policy
Prince George’s County, MD
Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategy Report
http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/energy-strategy-report.asp
Prince William County, VA
Strategic Plan: Community Development
http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/oem/Documents/008478.pdf
Stafford County, VA
Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030
http://co.stafford.va.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1310
Bibliography & Figure Credits 1
Francis, Nathan and Richard C. Feiock (2011) A Guide for Local Government Executives on Energy Efficiency and
Sustainability. IBM Center, The Business of Government
2
Bulkeley, Harriet. (2010) Cities and the Governing of Climate Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
35:229–53
3
Medearis, PhD., (2012) Northern Virginia Region Applies Global Lessons. Nation Cities Weekly. National League of Cities
4
Dobbs, Richard, Jeremy Oppenheim, Fraser Thompson, Marcel Brinkman, and Marc Zornes. 2011. Meeting the World’s
Energy, Materials, Foods, and Water Needs. McKinsey Global Institute: McKinsey Sustainability & Resource Productivity
Practice.
5
Morris, Jonathan and Farid Baddache. Back to Basics: How to make Stakeholder Engagement Meaningful for Your
Company: BSR, 2012, www.bsr.org; pg. 10.
6
United States. Department of Energy. Potential Benefits of Distributed Generation and Rate-Related Issues That May
Impede Their Expansion. 2007. Print. <http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/exp-study.pdf
7
Kind, Peter. Energy Infrastructure Advocates. Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a
Changing Retail Electric Business. Prepared for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), 2013. Print. <
http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf>.
8
Beach, Thomas, and Thomas McGuire. Crossborder Energy. Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Net Energy Metering in
California. Prepared for the Vote Solar Initiative, 2013. Print. <http://votesolar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/Crossborder-Energy-CA-Net-Metering-Cost-Benefit-Jan-2013-final.pdf>.
9 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 2008. National Capital Region Climate Change Report.
http://www.mwcog.org/environment/climate/adaptation/Additional%20Relevant
%20Information/NtlCapClimateChangeReport.pdf
10
City of Alexandria. 2011. Draft Energy and Climate Change Action Plan 2012 - 2020.
http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco-city/DraftEnergyClimateActionPlan03.14.2011.pdf
11
City of Flagstaff. City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Study, 2012. Page 21.
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/38841
12
Ibid.
18 13
Burke, Kevin. City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Initiative. Slide 9.
http://www.cspo.org/library/author/?action=getfile&file=676&section=lib
14
“CHP Project Development Handbook,” http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/chp_handbook.pdf
15
“Energy Efficient Governance,” http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/eeg.pdf
16
U.S. Department of Energy. 2013. DOE SEE Action Report – Guide to Successful Implementation of State Combined Heat
& Power Policies. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/pdfs/see_action_chp_policies_guide.pdf
17
Arlington County. Arlington County Community Energy Implementation Framework, http://freshaireva.us/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CEP-Implementation-Framework-DRAFT-May-13.pdf, pg. 4
18
Ibid. pg. 4
19
Ibid. pg. 13
20
Ibid. pg. 14
21
Ibid. pg. 14
Figure Credits
Figure: 1 - Fisher, Max, and the Washington Post Foreign Staff. The Coming Realignment of World
Powers, Foretold in Charts, The Washington Post, section: World Views, December 11, 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/11/the-coming-rise-and-decline-of-worldpowers-foretold-in-charts/, accessed April 15, 2013.
Figure: 2 – Ansell, Cheryl - created for this review.
Figure: 3 – Breegle, Jada – created for this review
Figure: 4 - Arlington County Environmental Services Department, 2012. Arlington Green Games
Inaugural Awards Ceremony, website photostream,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arlingtondes/sets/72157629360044814/
Figure: 5 - Boutique Hotel Stadthalle Vienna, Austria http://www.solarfeeds.com/hotels-embrace-solar-
across-the-world/
Figure: 6 – Arlington County, VA Community Energy Plan
Figure: 7 – Ansell, Cheryl – created for this review
Figure: 8 - Benefits of Distributed Generation U.S. Department of Energy, The Potential Benefits of Distributed
Generation and Rate-Related Issues That May Impede Their Expansion [February 2007]
Figure: 9 - Figure: 9 Electric Utility Disruptive Forces
EEI Visual of Downward Spiral http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf Figure: 10 - Burke, Kevin. City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Initiative. Slide 9.
http://www.cspo.org/library/author/?action=getfile&file=676&section=lib
Figure: 11 – Norwood, Mathew – created for this review
Figure: 12 – Breegle, Jada – created for this review
19