Winner of 2018 Best Paper on Housing Prize Focuses on Philadelphia's Efforts to Address Climate Change and Affordable Housing

by David Luberoff,
Deputy Director

The Philadelphia Energy Campaign (PEC) is an unlikely success story of a municipal climate initiative prioritizing the needs of its marginalized residents by preserving affordable housing through energy policy, according to Caroline Lauer, a recent graduate of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, whose thesis on PEC received the 2018 Joint Center for Housing Studies Best Paper on Housing Prize.

In "A Pathway to Preservation? Planning Processes at The Intersection of Climate Change and Affordable Housing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", Lauer, who received a Master of Urban Planning, provides a detailed case study on PEC's history and goals, and links that history to literature on both planning and public policymaking.

Credit: Philadelphia Energy Authority/Jordan Baumgarten

PEC has an ambitious set of goals, writes Lauer. It aims to create jobs, strengthen communities, cut energy bills, and reduce Philadelphia's carbon footprint by leveraging $1 billion of public and private investment over ten years. This effort, she explains, is especially notable because, while cities across the United States have been actively planning for climate change for at least two decades, equity considerations, such as the impact of climate investments on disadvantaged communities, have often been overlooked or ignored when those plans have been prepared and implemented.

According to Lauer, the Philadelphia Energy Authority, which was created in 2010, became a notable exception largely because of the values and skills of Emily Schapira, who launched the PEC campaign not long after she became the authority's executive director in 2016. Lauer observes that, while the typical focal point of an energy initiative is the fastest or most efficient way to reduce energy consumption, the focus of the PEC has been the residents who will benefit the most from the energy reduction today. She adds that by "inextricably linking equity and energy, the PEC prioritizes the needs and interests of the many low-income and minority residents" in Philadelphia, which not only has the highest poverty rate of the ten largest American cities but has relatively old, poorly-maintained, energy-inefficient housing stock. Moreover, she notes that Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, has had to do much of this work without significant support from the state legislature, which was overwhelmingly Republican when the campaign got underway.

Succeeding in this complex milieu, she notes, has required skilled and committed leadership that not only is attuned to equity and energy issues but also is cognizant of, and responsive to, political considerations. Combining these approaches can be difficult, writes Lauer, who observes that "community development efforts to preserve affordable housing through energy efficiency are rare." However, she adds, "PEC demonstrates that merging both objectives into one program is a viable policy option."

Local Responses to Global Climate Change

by Jill Schmidt
Graduate Research
Assistant

From September’s destructive hurricanes to the devastating fires in California, recent natural disasters across the US have underscored the many ways in which climate change is affecting urban areas. Moreover, while these unpredictable disasters garner significant attention, climate change is also intensifying important long-range weather-related hazards such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, desertification, and loss of biodiversity.

Taken together, such effects – as well as the rollback of federal-level policies – can discourage and overwhelm those facing climate-change related impacts in their communities. However, as varied examples from Florida, the west coast, Boston, and Boulder show, many states and localities are taking meaningful steps to prepare for and perhaps even mitigate the effects of climate change at the municipal, neighborhood, and household levels.

Homes damaged by Hurricane Andrew, 1992 (Wikipedia)

September’s Hurricane Irma, for example, showed the positive impacts of successful efforts to update Florida’s building codes in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, which was the costliest natural disaster to affect the United States when it struck that state in 1992. After that disaster, many Florida residents pressed the state to update its building code (and for localities to enforce it). Two years later, the state approved a new building code focused on increasing the likelihood that buildings could resist hurricane-force winds by requiring such elements as shatterproof windows, fortified roofs, and reinforced concrete pillars. The code also requires that roofs be built of plywood and fastened with roofing nails (instead of less expensive but less resilient approaches that relied on particle board secured by staples).

While these provisions are supposed to ensure that structures can withstand winds of up to 111 miles per hour, Miami-Dade and Broward counties went even further by requiring that new buildings be able to withstand winds of at least 130 mph. (Moreover, as of January 2018, the codes for the two counties will also include new elevation minimums for new construction and substantial improvements to existing structures in flood hazard areas.) The strengthened requirements helped minimize damage from Hurricane Irma, according to Michael Finney, president and CEO of the Miami-Dade Beacon Council (the region’s official economic council). In an op-ed that appeared in the Miami Herald, he wrote: “Most property and buildings escaped with little or no structural damage. The impact could have been much worse, were it not for the lessons learned and actions taken to fortify buildings and properties after Hurricane Andrew and subsequent storms.”

California wildfires, 2017 (Wikipedia)

In the western part of the United States, where wildfires are a significant threat,

Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) is helping communities take advantage of land-use planning to reduce the risk of damages from fires. CPAW is a partnership funded by the U.S. Forest Service and private foundations, and is run by Headwaters Economics and Wildfire Planning International. The organization focuses particularly on protecting the wildland-urban interface where human habitations are sparse but increasing numbers of built structures can serve as fuel that can help wildfires spread. Since its founding in 2015, CPAW has helped 18 cities and towns develop plans to limit fires and reduce property damage by creating “defensible spaces” – areas cleared of vegetation and other flammable materials as well as paths that firefighters can use to fight approaching fires.

Similiarly, in Boston, Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH), a community development corporation in the city’s East Boston neighborhood, used funding from the Kresge Foundation to launch ClimateCARE (Community Action for Resilience Through Engagement). The effort, which focuses on near-term needs related to energy efficiency, disaster emergency planning, and social resiliency is trying to help residents prepare and plan for the impacts of climate change, which could be significant because much of the neighborhood is built on landfill in Boston Harbor. One notable part of this effort is a “Basement Cleanup” program, which helps residents remove clutter, minimize the risk of toxic leaks, prevent safety and health threats, and safely store sentimental and important objects. Building in part on this work, the City of Boston announced last fall that it was taking steps to protect East Boston and nearby Charlestown from current and future flooding as a result of climate change.

A fourth notable example that addresses the mitigation of climate change is Boulder, which in 2007 became the first city in the nation to have a voter-approved tax dedicated to addressing climate change. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax is levied on electric bills. Rates vary for residential, commercial, and industrial users; the average annual tax is $21/year for residential users, $94 for commercial accounts, and $9,400 for industrial users. Although the revenue funds many programs, one program of note is EnergySmart, an energy-advising service and rebate program for residents who make energy efficiency investments. Over 9,700 households in Boulder have participated in EnergySmart since its inception in 2010. The City of Boulder estimates that it has avoided the release of more than 50,000 metric tons of emissions between 2007 to 2015 as a result of CAP-funded programs, which has allowed the community to hold emissions constant amid population and economic growth.

While these efforts are notable, they can be difficult to implement, costly, and, at times, controversial. For example, mitigation plans are critiqued for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in one region but offset by increased or stagnant emissions in another locality. Further, many local decision-makers are hesitant to invest in preparing for risks when they face immediate challenges with limited budgets. However, prevention is likely to be more cost-effective than re-building and mitigation and adaptation projects can help communities avoid the costs associated with natural hazard disasters and devastation. Mitigation and adaptation initiatives may also offer promising opportunities to create local jobs, support emerging industries, and help build more inclusive and resilient communities. Given the gridlock at the federal level, such local initiatives may continue to be at the cutting edge of climate-change policymaking in the US for some time to come.

Beyond Energy Efficiency: The Future of Sustainability in the Housing Market

by Kermit Baker
Director, Remodeling
Futures Program

For the past 40 years, since the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s dramatically pushed up international crude oil prices, energy conservation and energy efficiency have been national economic and policy priorities. Households have directly borne the brunt of these higher prices. Since 1973, while overall consumer prices have increased fourfold, housing costs as measured by the consumer price index have moved up at the same pace, but home energy prices have jumped by half again as much; six times as high as they were in 1973.

In response to higher prices, households have reduced their home energy consumption. The initial reaction was to cut back on heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, but as energy costs remained high, households have made investments to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. (A recent blog post by Mariel Wolfson describes how early efforts to address energy efficiency gave rise to concerns about indoor air quality.)  More recently, state and federal tax incentives have encouraged even greater levels of home energy efficiency spending. Joint Center analysis indicates that almost a third of homeowner improvement spending at present is for projects where there is likely to be an improvement in energy efficiency, such as window replacements, adding insulation, or upgrading the HVAC system. This share is up from a quarter of spending a decade ago.

The results of these investments have been impressive: between 1980 (when households started thinking more seriously about investing in energy efficiency retrofits) and 2009 (the most recent national survey on energy consumption) per household energy consumption has declined almost 22%. Since home sizes have actually increased over this three decade period, the per square foot decline in home energy use has been an even more impressive 30%.

However, given changes in the domestic energy situation, the days of strong incentives from rising energy costs to improve home energy efficiency are likely behind us. While the controversy surrounding the environmental and health concerns of hydraulic fracturing have generated a lot of discussion, its impact on energy production generally has attracted less attention. For example, a 2012 report from the International Energy Agency predicts that the U.S. will become the largest global oil producer by around 2020, becoming self-sufficient in net energy terms later that decade and a net oil exporter by 2030. We’ve already seen the impact of this increased production on home energy costs: since 2008, overall home energy prices have remained stable, while natural gas prices for home energy use have declined by a third.

If rising and uncertain home energy prices drove the interest in energy efficiency investments, then the expected stable prices moving forward should remove many of these incentives. Where does that leave sustainability as a priority for homeowners? In fact, growing sensitivity to environmental concerns has created a lot of momentum behind energy efficiency as well as other sustainability concerns such as the use of renewable building materials and the use of recycled products in the homebuilding and home improvement process, water conservation and reuse, indoor air quality and healthy homes, home automation, and even renewable energy sources. Beyond the third of expenditures on energy efficiency measures noted above, Joint Center surveys of home improvement contractors have determined that somewhere between 20% and 25% of home improvement projects on a dollar basis have environmental sustainability other than energy efficiency as a stated goal of the project.

If consumer demand exists for increasing sustainability in housing, the likelihood is that the market will respond, and there is evidence that it is doing so. Entrepreneurs are developing new products in these areas. A recent Joint Center survey of home improvement contractors asked if they were seeing new products or technologies related to sustainability emerge in recent years, and if so, in which areas. Despite declining energy costs, energy efficiency and insulation techniques still topped the list, with about half of respondents indicating that they were installing or seriously considering installing new products or technologies in these market niches. However, also high on the list were products and technologies related to other sustainability objectives. As manufacturers figure out ways to produce them in a cost-effective manner, and contractors receive training and market their skills at installing these new products, interest in these areas is unlikely to diminish regardless of what happens to home energy prices.

Climate Change and Indoor Air Quality: Lessons from the Energy Crisis of the 1970s

by Mariel Wolfson
Meyer Fellow

Current discussions of climate change do not often focus on housing. Unless large numbers of homes are destroyed or damaged by extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires, we rarely scrutinize the effects of our warming planet on our homes. However, environmental health experts argue that this must change. In 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency asked the Institute of Medicine to study the relationship between climate change and indoor environmental health. The Institute convened an expert committee of professionals from a range of fields, including earth sciences, public health, medicine, architecture, and engineering. Ultimately, they produced a thorough report - nearly 300 pages - arguing that climate change “may worsen existing indoor environmental problems and introduce new ones.” For example, extreme weather events and flooding could increase dampness and humidity, leading to mold growth and chemical emissions from decaying building materials. Or, extreme heat and cold could increase power outages, exposing already-vulnerable populations to dangerous temperatures or to carbon monoxide emissions from portable generators. Finally, well-intentioned attempts at energy conservation, such as weatherization, retrofitting, or excessively tight new construction, could reduce ventilation to dangerously low levels, exposing occupants to indoor air pollutants (radon, VOCs, and more).

           

This final example - tight, energy-efficient building - has an instructive history. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-1974, memorable to many Americans because of the gasoline shortages it caused, was a turning point in residential construction. Everyone from Sierra Club President Theodore Snyder, to President Gerald Ford, to energy expert Daniel Yergin endorsed residential energy conservation as a promising, if partial solution to America’s energy crisis. From rural homesteaders to large developers, American builders eagerly pursued energy-efficient housing designs. This was a time of great enthusiasm for underground and earth-sheltered homes, alternative power sources such as solar and wind, and other housing experiments. While some now seem outlandish, other innovations from this era are now standard, such as continuous polyethylene vapor barriers. If you’ve ever seen a half-built house cloaked in Tyvek Homewrap, this is an innovation that dates to the energy crisis of 1973-1974. The ideal of the nearly-airtight, highly energy-efficient house became increasingly attractive to builders and buyers alike; the lower a house’s “air changes per hour” (ACH), the more it could promise in energy and cost savings.

Above: a “zero energy” Habitat for Humanity house produced in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Denver, Colorado. The home is tightly constructed, super insulated, and uses solar energy for space and water heating. It also has a mechanical ventilation system to conserve energy while preserving indoor air quality. Photo credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Image Gallery

As residential energy conservation became a political and popular priority by the mid-1970s, the Department of Energy funded the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, to establish an energy-efficient buildings research program. Scientists studying residential energy efficiency began to investigate concentrations of indoor pollutants in these impressively-sealed homes. Focusing on nitrogen dioxide (a product of combustion from cooking and heating), formaldehyde (a common organic compound in building materials and furnishings), and radon (dependent more on the geology of a house’s site than the house itself), they found alarmingly high levels of indoor air pollution in some energy-efficient homes.

With these troubling findings as motivation, the Berkeley Lab pioneered scientific study of the complex relationship between residential energy efficiency and indoor air quality, and sought to balance these two necessities in cost-effective ways. In my recent working paper, I examine a crucial period in this history: during the early 1980s residential indoor air quality went from an obscure academic subject to a source of national anxiety. The Federal government, the popular media, and the public became increasingly concerned that America’s houses - especially its newly-popular energy-efficient ones - were full of insidious poisons. The media often oversimplified the situation by portraying energy-conservation as the enemy of healthy indoor air, when in reality the relationship between the two was complicated.

Above: Sources of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) problems, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Indoor Environment Department. Conventional and energy efficient houses alike can contain harmful indoor air pollutants if not properly ventilated. Climate change is likely to exacerbate existing IAQ problems and introduce new ones. Photo credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Image Gallery

Knowledge of energy-efficient building, indoor air quality, and their relationship has increased exponentially since the energy crisis of 1973-1974. However, the continual proliferation of new building materials and household chemicals makes it difficult, if not impossible, for even the most ambitious indoor air experts to keep up. As the Institute of Medicine’s committee concluded, climate change adds even more variables to an already complicated set of equations.

The experience of the 1970s offers valuable lessons as we face the defining environmental problem of our time with an increasing sense of urgency. First, energy conservation in housing and other buildings is imperative, but can affect indoor environmental quality both negatively and positively. It might seem counterintuitive, but drafty old houses do not necessarily have better indoor air quality than tighter new ones: for example, well-insulated houses have the potential to burn less fossil fuel to maintain comfortable temperatures, thus releasing fewer combustion products and maintaining better indoor (and outdoor) air quality. Second, our homes are not isolated from the environments in which they are built: local, regional, and, increasingly, global conditions affect the longevity of housing and the quality of the indoor environment it envelops, which in turn affects the physical, mental, and financial health of occupants. Third, during the “environmental decade” of the 1970s, energy independence appealed to diverse sectors of American society for environmental, political, and financial reasons. This was a time of remarkable ingenuity in the residential energy sector. For example, the Federal government funded the Solar Energy Research Institute, the Department of Energy asked its National Laboratories to design energy-saving houses, major developers created conventional-looking homes that used thermal mass and solar power, and motivated Americans experimented with a variety of energy-saving strategies. Americans have a tradition of ingenuity in the face of energy crises, we have four decades worth of knowledge about indoor air quality and energy-efficient building, and we have a rapidly expanding knowledge of climate change. We can surely combine these advantages to ensure healthy homes on a healthy planet.