Some have criticized the Cannery project for not living up to the sustainability thresholds of UC Davis’ West Village. Mark Braly and members of the Valley Climate Action Center board of directors have published a piece in today’s Enterprise, arguing that Cannery “can be Davis’ new green standard.”
But they have concerns. Davis has a goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Mr. Braly and his colleagues argue, “We have a long way to go to achieve this goal. We make the task more difficult with each new house we build in Davis whose carbon emissions are more than net zero.”
The Cannery project, they argue, “proposes 547 single-family homes that do not achieve net-zero electricity, let alone net-zero carbon emissions.”
The technology to do this is not in question and they argue that such cost is coming down.
Mr. Braly and his colleagues writes: “ConAgra, owner and developer of The Cannery, has committed to including many green features, such as partial solar electric systems, as standard in the single-family homes. They also plan to offer two higher-cost packages of options: one for zero electricity (with natural gas) and another for zero energy (all electric).”
The issue, according to Mr. Braly is: “Should the city require one of these packages as standard?”
He argues that “ConAgra estimates that the net-zero electricity package will increase the average home price by $16,000, an amount that likely would raise the average new home price by 3 to 4 percent. The net-zero carbon home, according to ConAgra, would add about twice that much.”
The question Mr. Braly and his colleagues ask is: “How much would these additional features add to the price if they were made standard? With the information we have now, there is no way to know.”
In an interview with the Vanguard last month, consultant George Phillips argued that comparing West Village to Cannery was impractical. He said, “The structure of West Village is different, so it’s apples to oranges.”
“Obviously they have done a great job with a goal of being net-zero,” he said. “Obviously they have set a very aggressive goal. I think there are a lot of people that are still wondering when it’s all measured have they really accomplished net zero. But clearly that’s been the goal.”
“It’s very aggressive,” he said and “obviously it’s to be lauded. It’s a great project.”
Mr. Phillips argues, “While it is not under the banner of net zero, as West Village is, we think it’s very aggressive as it relates to a privately-funded project with a sustainability component.”
He added, “One thing that gets left out of this discussion – because we’ve had a lot of folks say to us well you’re not net zero or its not solar on every single home – we’re starting from a different place with the efficiency of the homes themselves.”
They made a commitment early on to be 40 percent more efficient than Title 24. The city’s standard is 15 percent better than Title 24.
“We’re starting from a standpoint where these homes are incredibly efficient,” he said, noting that this gets to things like windows, insulation, framing of the homes themselves, and the walls. “We found out that (other) homes have a solar component but they’re not as efficient to begin with.”
“I think it’s a package and we think we’re doing well on the sustainability,” he concluded.
But Mr. Braly and his colleagues are not so sure. They note that ConAgra has hired the Davis Energy Group to advise it, but notes that “the results are not available to the city’s decision-makers and the public.”
They argue, “ConAgra says these features will add to the cost of the homes, possibly making them unaffordable to many groups that should live in Davis, such as our teachers and other public employees. But will they? Or will they sell at market price, regardless of their cost of construction? That market is strong and, with so few homes for sale, it is likely to get stronger.”
The Valley Climate Action Center, which is a non-profit dedicated to implementation of the city’s Climate Action Plan, “has proposed that either the Davis Energy Group information be made public, or the city bring in its own analysts, at the developer’s expense, to determine whether net-zero energy homes can cost-effectively be offered to the public as standard.”
They note that other developers sell net-zero electric homes in markets less robust than Davis. They note, “If these upgrades do raise the price of the homes, low mortgage rates mean these features typically can be paid for with monthly mortgage costs that are lower than the monthly energy cost savings.”
“But another compelling reason to require a net-zero standard is simplicity,” they argue. “When buying new homes, customers appreciate choices in things that show, where they have the opportunity to express their own taste. In hidden features that affect energy performance, the choices can bewilder most buyers, and with the choices come major inefficiencies.”
They note that Mr. Phillips “says it is better to give home buyers the choice.” But they counter, “If the state’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards were optional, our energy and climate future would be grim indeed”
“If net-zero electricity is standard, almost everyone wins,” they argue. “The buyers get lower monthly costs and the personal satisfaction of helping our community deal with carbon emissions. The developer gets better pricing from the subcontractors because of volume and standardization.”
They add, “Further, the developer’s sales costs go down because there are fewer options. Finally, they will sell more houses because most people would like to buy and live in an affordable, comfortable net-zero home.”
Mr. Braly continues, “The city and (we) citizens are rewarded by positive steps toward a key city goal. OK, PG&E has lower revenues, but they still have the rest of us as a huge revenue base!”
“Davis’ planning staff has indicated that The Cannery meets the city’s standards for greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the City Council in 2008. But that standard expired in 2010. The council adopted the standards for only two years for good reason: It recognized that the standards needed to be upgraded frequently to keep up with new technical and economic developments,” Mr. Braly writes.
He concludes, “Unfortunately, the expired standards haven’t been upgraded. But they are being used by staff to evaluate this project. The Cannery is a singular opportunity to upgrade our standards now. Evidence suggests that the new standard should be net-zero energy, a new standard that will not set us back from our goal of carbon neutrality.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”the results are not available to the city’s decision-makers and the public.
[/quote]
A point of clarification. Why is this the case ? If the information exists, why would the city’s decision makers not demand to see it and make it available to the public prior to proceeding to go forward with consideration of this project ?
‘If net-zero electricity is standard, almost everyone wins,’ they argue.”
Except for the people whose mortgage increases by $16,000. And, the list of arguments to show that the developer “wins” are speculative, silly assertions.
Who decided that it’s necessary to front load an expensive,100% requirement on every new home to help meet a 2050 “goal”? After technology is improving and the costs going down.
What will this kind of perfection insistence add to efforts to build thousands of apartment units? It’s such “nothing is quite good enough” demands that give reasonable environmentalists a bad name.
“After all, technology is improving and the costs going down (according to Mr. Braly).
Put it on the.ballot.
The campaigns will bring.the.truth to our local voters
[quote]Put it on the.ballot.
[/quote]
I agree Mike, if the council is going to okay this project they need to put it on the ballot.
$16,000 amortized over 30 years may be a good deal for the homeowner considering the savings they will see each month on their utility bills.
If you want it on the ballot you know what you need to do.
I wonder if the Climate Action Center people live in net zero houses?
Will the moving targets never stop moving. This project is planned to be better than the standard under which planning for it commenced. Will it ever be enough?
[quote]If you want it on the ballot you know what you need to do. [/quote]
There’s always the option for the council to do the right thing and put it on the ballot.
There’s always the option for the council to do the right thing and make decisions that they were elected to make.
“$16,000 amortized over 30 years may be a good deal for the homeowner considering the savings they will see each month on their utility bills.”
Would cost over $30,000 by my reckoning. Thanks for the required opportunity. How much do you project in savings?
—
“There’s always the option for the council to do the right thing and put it on the ballot.”
Okay, let’s do a non-binding one (as was the one that supported the original cannery light industrial approval). And, let’s get all of the current issues resolved:
1. Should the council approve the cannery project as proposed?
2. Should the council ban fireplace wood burning on both no-burn and burn-permitted days?
3. Should the council issue waivers for any more 50-foot-tall condominiums in central Davis?
4. Should the council mandate paid parking throughout downtown?
5. Others?
Word has it that Cannery is going to do what the citizens water group predicted: Cannery is going to use their big deep well for the irrigation?
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”‘If net-zero electricity is standard, almost everyone wins,’ they argue.”
Except for the people whose mortgage increases by $16,000. And, the list of arguments to show that the developer “wins” are speculative, silly assertions.
Who decided that it’s necessary to front load an expensive,100% requirement on every new home to help meet a 2050 “goal”? After technology is improving and the costs going down.
What will this kind of perfection insistence add to efforts to build thousands of apartment units? It’s such “nothing is quite good enough” demands that give reasonable environmentalists a bad name.”[/i]
JS, I’ve dug into this issue quite a bit so let me share some numbers with you and see if you think the decision to go net zero electricity “pencils out”
According to the information publicly shared by New Home Company developed for them by Davis Energy Group the Annual Utility consumption for the typical Cannery single family residence is 7,161 kilowatts of electricity and 554 therms of natural gas.
That electricity consumption compares to the 12,500 kilowatts of electricity that my most recent PG&E Home Energy Report indicates is used by “the most efficient 20% of similar homes in Davis” and the 555 therms from that same report. So the typical Cannery home starts by using 40% less electricity than the most efficient similar homes in Davis.
Those 7,161 kilowatts translate to an annual electricity cost in Year 1 of $1,087 and the 554 therms to an annual natural gas cost of $605, for a total of $1,691 per year. After netting out the Federal PV Tax Credit the net addition to the mortgage principal will be $18,328 for a net zero electricity home and $28,031 for a net zero energy home. At 4.5% those additions to the annual mortgage payments are $1,114 and $1,405 respectively, both of which compare favorably to the $1,390 and $1,590 annual energy cost decrease for each of the respective packages.
In addition, once you lock in that $1,405 annual incremental mortgage amount it stays constant, while the $1,590 energy savings amount will increase approximately 3-5% per year. Therefore in year 10 the annual mortgage payment will still be $1,405 and the annual energy savings amount will have risen to $2,353. The same is true in year 20 where the annual mortgage payment will still be $1,405 and the annual energy savings amount will have risen to $3,483.
Does that pencil out for you?
Of course, I’ll accept your research and 30-year calculations and research. It’s useful to know about how the federal tax credit impacts the initial cost and how everyone should buy their houses with the overall savings in mind.
Based on the convincing information you provide, I may turn in my 20-year-old place for one of the Cannery’s net zero homes. Did you calculate electric and gas costs to remain constant? Of course, I’m a little troubled that I likely won’t benefit from the big savings after the 20th year. Maybe I can recover some of the upfront cost by wood burning, on burn-permitted days only, of course.
As usual, a lot of my objection comes back to a concern about forcing people to good things. It seems even more unnecessary when there’s an overwhelming financial benefit to making the right choice.
Do you have a feel for how net zero standards pencil out for an apartment development? Better or worse than single family houses?
[quote]As usual, a lot of my objection comes back to a concern about forcing people to good things. It seems even more unnecessary when there’s an overwhelming financial benefit to making the right choice[/quote]
Unfortunately, developers don’t always do good things as their sole objective is to maximize profit. In this case, it’s the buyers that will benefit. The developers have little incentive to do anything other than the minimum required to get their project approved. The city needs to hold them to high standards in exchange for rezoning. It’s not like this land is going to evaporate; if we don’t get a great project today, we can hold out for a better one. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.
Series: excellent comments. The developers have to have the public upzonging of the land, and the public should get some of the benefit of that upzoning. So hold the developers to a hight standard.
Cannery is not even close to what they could and should contribute to the public benefit.
[quote]”The developers have to have the public upzonging of the land, and the public should get some of the benefit of that upzoning”[/quote]I’d suggest that we stop worrying some much that some windfall might go to the landowner. It seems apparent that the light-industrial zoning no longer is appropriate considering how housing and shopping has grown beyond in the past decades.
It’s obvious that we wouldn’t approve a cannery in that location today–let’s have a vote on that one–so switch to the zoning that would benefit the neighbors and city the most. We need more houses and apartments. Build them. (No problem extracting a reasonable amount of concessions as long as we know who’ll be paying for them.)
“Unfortunately, developers don’t always do good things as their sole objective is to maximize profit. In this case, it’s the buyers that will benefit. The developers have little incentive to do anything other than the minimum required to get their project approved.”
This is a gross generalization. Sure, there are some developers that operate in this fashion. However, there are plenty of developers that take great pride in their projects, strive to meet community needs, improve the community architecturally, and take the long view. Who do you think developed all the cutting-edge projects? Non-developers?
-Michael Bisch
Agree with Mr DT above
I.built.an office building Makes me s dreaded developer, right?
[quote]Unfortunately, developers don’t always do good things as their sole objective is to maximize profit. [/quote]Unfortunately, governmental agencies don’t often do the wisest things because they don’t need to show a profit; their sole objective is to spend their entire budget to “prove” they need their yearly increases. And unfortunately politicians often don’t do the right things because their sole objective is to make their donors happy to ensure funding for their own reelections.
Also…remember how everyone luuuuurves Village Homes? *cough*developer*cough*
JustSaying[quote]As usual, a lot of my objection comes back to a concern about forcing people to good things. It seems even more unnecessary when there’s an overwhelming financial benefit to making the right choice.[/quote] Agreed. There are always those unintended consequences when you force people to bend to a paradigm they won’t willingly accept…and those unintended consequences can undo any good that was achieved in the first place.
Can’t regulate society a utopia.
*Can’t regulate society INTO a utopia. 🙂
JustSaying said . . .
“Of course, I’ll accept your research and 30-year calculations and research. It’s useful to know about how the federal tax credit impacts the initial cost and how everyone should buy their houses with the overall savings in mind.
Based on the convincing information you provide, I may turn in my 20-year-old place for one of the Cannery’s net zero homes. Did you calculate electric and gas costs to remain constant? Of course, I’m a little troubled that I likely won’t benefit from the big savings after the 20th year. Maybe I can recover some of the upfront cost by wood burning, on burn-permitted days only, of course. “
Your concerns are duly noted and appreciated. If you reread my comment I calculated the electric and gas costs both ways. With no increase the Year 1 spread will continue in perpetuity. With the 3-5% annual increase the increasing spread will be obtained.
You will benefit from the big savings after the 20th year because that positive cash flow that the house generates will be factored into the resale value you get when you sell the home.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”As usual, a lot of my objection comes back to a concern about forcing people to good things. It seems even more unnecessary when there’s an overwhelming financial benefit to making the right choice.”[/i]
In this case I do not feel that anyone is being forced into anything. The market for these new houses will be made up of people who either like the house as offered (a package of features and price) or don’t like it. The ones who like it will make an offer. The ones who don’t will choose to look elsewhere for a house. The free market economy at work.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Do you have a feel for how net zero standards pencil out for an apartment development? Better or worse than single family houses?”[/i]
Although I don’t [u]know[/u] the answer to your question, I can’t imagine that it will pencil out any differently. The energy costs of an apartment as charged by PG&E are going to be the same as the energy costs for a house. The square footage of living space per person will be different, but the penciling out should be similar.
“In this case I do not feel that anyone is being forced into anything. The market for these new houses will be made up of people who either like the house as offered (a package of features and price) or don’t like it. The ones who like it will make an offer. The ones who don’t will choose to look elsewhere for a house. The free market economy at work. “
I was referring to forcing developers in this case. And, the free market economy works better when consumers are allowed to have choices (other that going to another town).
Thanks again for the research you bring to discussions on the Vanguard.
And thanks your guarantee (prediction?) that I’ll be here to benefit from the generous cash flowing after the 20th year. Better hurry and get the cannery built out quick, though.
“In this case I do not feel that anyone is being forced into anything. The market for these new houses will be made up of people who either like the house as offered (a package of features and price) or don’t like it. The ones who like it will make an offer. The ones who don’t will choose to look elsewhere for a house. The free market economy at work. “
Except of course the people who already live and or work within the area who are being “forced” to accept whatever modifications to their life necessary to accommodate the newcomers. For example, more auto emissions, longer commute times, additional cost for infrastructure and future support services if everything doesn’t “pencil out” as planned, potentially more competition for jobs within Davis.
Please note that I am not saying that any of this is either good or bad. Just that the statement that “no one is being forced” only applies to those who would consider buying in to the neighborhood. There are definitely consequences for the rest of the community, some good, some bad depending on your point of view. But the community will have to absorb those changes, the bad as well as the good. Let’s not forget that the “free market” also brought us Orange County, the LA freeway gridlock, the sprawling communities along the I-80 corridor….
Fair enough medwoman. Fair enough.