GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS LOWE'S OF QUINCY QUINCK MASSACHUSETTS - Revised September 2008
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS LOWE'S OF QUINCY QUINCK MASSACHUSETTS Revised September 2008
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS LOWE'S OF QUINCY QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for: Tetra Tech Rizzo One Grant Street Framingham, MA 01701 Prepared by: Tech Environmental, Inc. 1601 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 0245 I September 12, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Contents Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SCTMMARY............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Comparison of EENF and SEIR Results ............................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ............................... 3 2.1 Background........................................................................................................... -3 2.2 Modeling Energy and GHG Emissions .................................................................3 3.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS .................................................. -5 3.1 Mesoscale Analysis Procedure .............................................................................. 5 3.2 Predicted Transportation Impacts..........................................................................6 4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS ...........................................11 4.1 Siting and Site Design Mitigation Measures ....................................................... I1 4.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures......................................... 11 4.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 14 4.4 Mitigation Summary........................................................................................... -16
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Tables Table Description Paae ENERGY AND COz MODELING AT LOWE'S OF QUINCY .......................................4 MESOSCALE COz MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUMMARY ...............................8 VMT TRAVELED IN MESOSCALE STUDY AREA ..................................................... 9 TOTAL VEHICLE co2EMISSIONS n?r MESOSCALE STUDY AREA ..................... 10 PROJECT SITING AND SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES .........................16 BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES................. 17-18 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES ...............................19-20 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ...........................................................21 List of Figures Figure Description & 1 MESOSCALE STUDY AREA ..........................................................................................7
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Analysis Results A carbon dioxide (C02) analysis was performed for the proposed Lowe's of Quincy store (the "Project"). C 0 2 emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the MA Building Code, (2) the Preferred Alternative, which includes some energy saving design features, and (3) the Mitigation Alternative, which includes additional energy savings elements. This analysis uses the Tech Environmental Energy Model and replicates the output of the US EPA Energy STAR Target Finder using data and algorithms from the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration (EM). The Mitigation Alternative reduces the Project's direct and indirect stationary source energy- related emissions of C 0 2 by approximately 21.7% and 14.1%, respectively, compared to the Base Case. C 0 2 emissions produced by Project vehicle trips were analyzed using the US EPA MOBILE6.2 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model. Mitigation measures for transportation emissions include a number of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and roadway improvements for the Project. These measures will improve traffic operations, reduce Project generated vehicle trips, and reduce Project-related motor vehicle C 0 2 emissions by 5%. Overall, mitigation measures in the Mitigation Alternative are expected to reduce the Project's total COz emissions by approximately 13.2% compared to the Base Case. 1.2 Comparison of EENF and SEIR Results The greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis presented in this report for the SEIR has been updated in several areas from the GHG analysis presented in the EENF. Electrical usage for the Base Case in this SEIR has risen slightly to 1,765.1 MWhIyr from the figure of 1,677.2 MWhlyr in the EENF. As a result, Base Case electrical use C 0 2emissions have gone up slightly from 1,073.4 tonslyr (EENF) to 1,129.7 tonslyr (SEIR). The reason for this slight increase is that the lighting electrical load was underestimated in the EENF. Base Case gas usage and heating C02 emissions also have risen slightly in the SEIR due to an update in the formula for estimating building wall area. Those Base Case CO2 emissions have risen from 153.3 tonslyr (EENF) to 165.1 tonslyr (SEIR). Stationary source (CO2) emissions fiom on-site fuel use and off-site generation of electricity for the 1
Preferred Alternative are listed as 977 tonslyr in the EENF and 1,147 tonslyr in this SEIR. The reasons for these differences are: 1) The EENF analysis calculated a mitigation credit for the store using T8 lighting. The SEIR analysis assumes T8 fluorescent lighting is the standard for commercial building design, and consistent with MEPA Policy, the mitigation credit has been removed from the SEIR calculations. 2) The EENF analysis calculated a mitigation credit for the store using insulated HVAC ducts. The SEIR analysis assumes insulated ducts is the standard for commercial building design, and consistent with MEPA Policy, the mitigation credit has been removed. The Preferred Alternative now assumes duct sealing prior to insu.lation,and the energy reduction from duct sealing has been included in the SEIR calculations. 3) The EENF analysis did not calculate a mitigation credit for using HVAC units with an EER of 9.5, and the SEIR analysis does include this credit. Standard HVAC units of the size to be used at Lowe's (10 to 20 tons cooling capacity) have an EER of 8.5. 4) The EENF analysis did not calculate a mitigation credit for skylights in the Garden Center, and the SEIR analysis does include this credit. The SEIR GHG analysis has added a Mitigation Alternative which includes two additional mitigation measures beyond those in the Preferred Alternative: 1) HVAC energy efficiency is increased to an EER of 11.5. 2) Lowe's allocates 2% of green power purchasing credit to each store nationwide, including Massachusetts. If the opportunity to purchase green power is available in Quincy, it will be bought by store operations.
2.0 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 2.1 Background On April 23, 2007 The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) established a greenhouse gas (GHG) Policy for certain MEPA projects, and the EOEEA published its "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol" in the Environmental Monitor on July 11, 2007. The following GHG analysis conforms to that Policy and Protocol. The Policy requires a project to quantify carbon dioxide (C02) emissions and identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions. In addition, the Policy requires the proponent to quantify the effect of proposed mitigation in terms of emissions reduction and energy savings. The Lowe's of Quincy Project's GHG emissions include direct emissions of CO2 from natural gas combustion for heating and from a diesel emergency generator. Indirect emissions of CO2 will result from Project-generated motor vehicle trips and from electricity used for lighting, building cooling and ventilation, and the operation of other equipment inside the store. 2.2 Modeling Energy and GHG Emissions Energy modeling for the Project used the Tech Environmental Energy Model that replicates the output of the US EPA Energy STAR Target Finder using data and algorithms from the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. The Project will consist of a 124,216 square foot (sf) main Lowe's building and a 26,926 sf garden center. The base case was analyzed and energy use calculates to be 1,732.3 MWatt-hours per year (MWhrIyear) of electricity and 2,542.0 thousand cubic feet per year (Mcflyear) of natural gas, see Table 1. For the preferred alternative, these energy figures are 1,588.1 MWhrIyear of electricity and 1,922.8 Mcflyear of gas. The mitigation case and final Project design, discussed in Section 4, reduces energy use to 1,524.9 MWhrIyear and 1,944.0 Mcflyear.
TABLE 1-A ENERGY AND C 0 2MODELING FOR QUINCY LOWES PROJECT Large Retail Heating Electr~cal Total C02 Electrical Electrical Gas C02 C02 C02 Emissions Usage Reduction Gas Usage Reduction Emissions Emissions Em~ssions Reduction Area (sf) (MWhIyr) (%) (Mcflyr) (%) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (%) Base Case 124.216 1.765.1 2,737.9 165.1 1,129.7 1,294.8 Super Energy Effic~entHVAC (EER = 11.5) 124.216 1,659.9 6.0% 2.737.9 0.0% 165.1 1,062.3 1,227.4 5.2% Energy Effic~entHVAC (EER = 9.5) 124,216 1.722.6 2.4% 2,737.9 0.0% 165.1 1,102.5 1,267.6 2.1% Duct Sealing 124.216 1,684.4 4.6% 2,292.5 16.3% 138.2 1,078.0 1.216.3 6.1% Energy Management System 124.216 1,731.5 1.9% 2.470.7 9.8% 149.0 1.108.1 1.257.1 2.9% Cool Roof Design 124.216 1,733.2 1.8% 2,765.4 -1.0% 166.8 1,109.2 1.276.0 1.4% Skylights 124,216 1.751.1 0.8% 2,806.7 -2.5% 169.2 1,120.7 1.290.0 0.4% Purchase Renewable Energy 124,216 1,729.8 2.0% 2,737.9 0.0% 165.1 1,107.1 1,272.2 1.7% TABLE 1-B ENERGY AND C 0 2 MODELING FOR QUINCY LOWES PROJECT PROJECT TOTAL Heating Electrical Total C02 Electrical Electrical Gas C02 C02 C02 Emissions Usage Reduction Gas Usage Reduction Emissions Emissions Emissions Reduction Area (sf) (MWhlyr) (%) (Mcflyr) (%) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (%) TOTAL Base Case 124,216 1,765 2.738 165 1,130 1.295 Combined Efficiency Measures Preferred Alternative Energy EfficientHVAC (EER = 9.5) Duct Sealing 124.216 1.590 9.9% 2,144 21.7% 129 1,018 1.147 11.4% Energy Management System Cool Roof Design Skylights Mitigation Alternative Super Energy Efficient HVAC (EER = 11.5) Duct Sealing Energy Management System 124,216 1.516 14.1% 2,144 21.7% 129 970 1.100 15.1% Cool Roof Design Skylights Purchase Renewable Energy
3.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS Transportation C 0 2 emissions were calculated and the results are summarized in Table 2. The mesoscale study area was defined in accordance with DEP guidance to include the roadway segments in the Project area that will potentially experience an increase of 10% in traffic due to the Project and which currently operate at Level-of-Service (LOS) D, E, or F, or will be degraded to LOS D, E, or F in the future. To be conservative, the mesoscale study area includes the entire traffic study area for the Project and is defined by the following eighteen roadway segments in Quincy (see Figure I): Burgin Parkway - Centre Street to Penn Street Burgin Parkway - Penn Street to Quincy Street Centre Street - Albertina Street to Branch Street Centre Street - Branch Street to Liberty Street Centre Street - Liberty Street to Columbia Street Centre Street - Columbia Street to Crown Colony Drive Centre Street - Crown Colony Drive to Burgin Parkway Columbia Street - Centre Street to Penn Street Liberty Street - Centre Street to Brooks Avenue Brooks Avenue - Centre Street to Roberts Street Brooks Avenue - Roberts Street to Liberty Street Roberts Street - Centre Street to Brooks Avenue Liberty Street - Brooks Avenue to Quincy Street Penn Street - Burgin Parkway to Columbia Street Penn Street - Columbia Street to Quincy Street Penn Street - Quincy Street to Liberty Street Quincy Street - Liberty Street to Penn Street Quincy Street - Penn Street to Burgin Parkway. 3.1 Mesoscale Analvsis Procedure The mesoscale analysis calculated emissions of C 0 2 over the study area for three scenarios: 2012 No-Build 2012 Build 2012 Build with Mitigation.
The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each roadway segment was calculated by multiplying the length of each road segment by the average daily traffic volume on the segment. Average daily (24- hour) traffic volumes (ADTs) were provided by traffic engineers at Tetra Tech Rizzo. Table 3 shows the VMT calculation spreadsheet. The C02 emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the daily VMT by the MOBILE6.2 predicted C 0 2 emission factors in grams per mile. Table 4 shows the C 0 2 emission calculation spreadsheet. The MOBILE6.2 model was run with MOBILE6.2 input files for 2012 provided by the MA DEP. 3.2 Predicted Transportation Impacts A summary of the results of the mesoscale analysis is presented in Table 2. The table shows that the mesoscale emissions of C 0 2for the 2012 No-Build case are predicted to be 5,163.2 tonslyear. The mesoscale emissions of C 0 2 for the 2012 Build case are predicted to be 5455.8 tonslyear. The difference between the 2012 Build and 2012 No-Build COz emissions, 292.6 tonslyear, represents the C 0 2 emissions released by Project-generated trips. The transportation mitigation measures discussed in Section 4.3 reduce Project transportation C 0 2 emissions by 5% to 277.9 tonslyear.
FIGURE 1 NIESOSCALE STUDY AREA LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT, QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS Q I C . W . W b . I I I - N mama.-- -k.Lrw# -wa-rrrrcrare on*ranu.oanmlqMn -W*WIRm -ma--- --.mull Lbt#N*bdlrmo 11. Q*qkl.-mu 1I W N U R n N ma O I I ~ KO Lmof Quincy C)~GZZZ~ Puincy, Massachusetts
TABLE 2 MESOSCALE MOTOR VEHICLE COz EMISSIONS SUMMARY Total Predicted COz Emissions Burden 2012 2012 2012 No-Build Build Build with Mitigation 12,832.9 kg/day 13,559.9 kg/day 13,523.6 kg/day 5,163.2 tons/yr 5,455.8 tons/yr 5,441.1 tons/yr Project 292.6 tons/yr Project 277.9 tons/yr
TABLE 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Mesoscale Study Area - Lowe's of Quincy Project, Quincy. Massachusetts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (vehicles/day) (miles/day) I VMT (milesfday): 25 427 22.863 24,158 24,093 'Assumes an 5% reducbon In the total proledgenerated traffic due to Ihe lmplementat~on ol proposed TransporatlonDemand Management P M )
TABLE 4 Total Daily Motor Vehicle Carbon Dioxide (CO,) Emissions in the Mesoscale Study Area - Lowe's of Quincy Project, Quincy, Massachusetts Vehide Miles Traveled (VM7) Mesoscale C02Emissions Speed _o 45 1 Total Daily C 0 2Emissions @giddy): - - - - 1 14.0401 12.8329 1 13.5599 ( 13,5236 1
4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS The GHG Policy requires that the Project proponent to identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate GHG emissions. The following sections discuss the measures the Lowe's of Quincy project will implement. 4.1 Siting and Site Design Mitigation Measures All reasonable and feasible siting and site design mitigation measure will be adopted by the Lowe's of Quincy project, see Table 5. The measures the Project proponent intends to pursue are listed below. Sustainable Development Principles - The Project design promotes compact development and conserves land. Conserve and Restore Natural Areas - Wetland areas are preserved on the site. Approximately 22,395 s.f. of existing pavement within the Riverfront Area will be restored by removing and replacing the paved surface with loam and seed. Stormwater Management - Under proposed conditions, a comprehensive storm water management plan has been included as an integral part of the project design. Structural features include deep sump catch basins, water quality structures, and underground detention basins consisting of Stormtech chambers with isolator rows surrounded with filter fabric. Non-structural measures include street sweeping and an operations and maintenance plan. Although the project is a redevelopment project and only needs to meet MADEP Stormwater Management Guidelines (2007 Policy Applies), to the greatest extent practicable the drainage system has been designed to meet the standards for new development. The project design does not include LID elements because there is no room on the site to include LID elements without disturbing additional resource areas. Additional siting and site design mitigation measures were also considered for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 5. Changing the building footprint or orientation is not feasible for this site. The site is located across the street from the MBTA Quincy Adams Red Line subway station. 4.2 Building Desipn and Operation Mitipation Measures All reasonable and feasible building design and building operation mitigation measures will be adopted by the Project, see Table 6. These measures are listed below and in aggregate they would 11
reduce the combination of direct and indirect C02 emissions by 11.4% for the Preferred Alternative and by 15.1% for the Mitigation Alternative, compared to the Base Case, see Table 1. Percentage reductions for individual energy efficiency measures listed in Table 1 do not simply sum to the net reduction because when several measures are combined, the reduction of the second measure is applied to a lower base level that includes the reducing effects of the first measure, and so forth. Design Elements of the Preferred Alternative Duct Sealing - HVAC supply ducts will be sealed and then insulated to reduce energy losses. Energy Management System - Lowe's has a highly efficient energy management system for all of its stores that is programmed and operated from its headquarters in North Carolina. Store functions and energy needs are closely monitored and use of heat, cooling, and lighting is minimized. High-Efficiency HVACSystems - The preferred alternative is use of HVAC units with an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) of at least 9.5. These are energy saving units since standard HVAC units have an EER of 8.5. Energy Efficient Interior and Exterior Lighting - Lowe's uses T-8 fluorescent lamps which the MEPA GHG Policy considers as the base case for energy efficiency calculations. While not creditable, T-8 fixtures with electronic ballasts use less energy than standard fluorescent lamps and ballasts and incandescent lighting. Lowe's has studied Super T8 lighting but not adopted it for the prototype design dues to problems with starting in low temperature conditions and incompatibility with dimming ballasts. Lowe's has studied T5 lighting and determined it does not provide more efficient lighting in its stores. Motion sensors will be used in office spaces. Exit signs will be LED. The Project design uses efficient and directed exterior lighting to minimize energy use. Maximize Interior Day-Lighting - The Project design uses skylights instead of electric lights for the 9,358 square foot three-season room in the garden center that has a roof. Third Party Commissioning - The Project will use a third party to do building commissioning. Cool Roof Design -The Project will have a reflective white roof. This would increase the reflection of sunlight and will help maintain a cooler building temperature in the summer, reducing energy use. Building Materials - Whenever possible, the Project will use environmentally friendly building materials, including materials with recycled content, rapidly renewable building materials, and manufactured within the region. Construction Waste Management - The Project will comply with all State solid waste regulations. Operations Waste Management - The Project design provides for storage and collection of recyclables.
Water Conserving Features - The Project will use sinks and toilets with auto sensors. The Garden Center will use non-potable water to conserve water. Energy Efficient Windows - The Project will have 1" thick insulated glass display windows. Lowe's does not use low-e glass due to the reflection it produces that would distort views of interior displays for customers. Additional Desipn Elements for the Mitigation Alternative Purchase Renewable Energy - Lowe's allocates 2% of green power purchasing credit to each store nationwide, including Massachusetts. If the opportunity to purchase green power is available in Quincy, it will be bought by store operations. Also see the discussion of photo-voltaic cells below. High-Efficiency HVAC Systems - For the Mitigation Alternative, the project was evaluated with HVAC units having a high efficiency EER of 11.5. Lowe's is willing to commit to the above additional design features (Mitigation Alternative) in its final design for the Project. Other building design and operation mitigation measures were considered for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 6. Photo-voltaic (PV) cells currently are not a part of Lowe's store design. The Project in Quincy's roof structure is adequate to support a possible future grid of thin cell PVs, but not a heavier glass- array PV system. Lowe's is currently building PV demonstration projects at stores in California and Hawaii, where solar insulation is far more plentiful than in New England, to gather data on actual energy performance and operating costs. At a future date, Lowe's will have specific life-cycle cost data to enable it to evaluate PV systems as part of store design. Green roofs, which consist of layers of gravel, soil and vegetation atop a rubberized water-proof membrane, are expensive to install and maintain. Green roofs add significant weight and the structure and its roof must be designed for that added weight. There are significant capital and maintenance costs associated with green roofs. Generally a concrete roof deck is required to provide adequate structural support and this is not a standard component of the new buildings planned for the site. For these reasons green roofs are not a part of the Project. Peak shaving or load shifting strategies are not appropriate for the Lowe's of Quincy. Customers expect the store to have full electrical service during shopping hours, which include peak periods. A 13
central combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration plant is not appropriate for a single retail building. In 2005, Lowe's was named "Energy Star Retail Partner of the Year" by the US EPA, for the third consecutive year, for outstanding efforts in promoting Energy Star quality products and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many Energy Star products are available at Lowe's, including: fans, communication devices, dishwashers, lighting units, programmable thermostats, room air conditioners, water coolers, sealing and insulation products, dehumidifiers, light bulbs, patio doors, refrigerators, washers, and windows. Lowe's also offers an Energy Solutions Guide to customers which offers tips on making homes more energy efficient and the financial benefits that go along with that. 4.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures 7 In addition to off-site roadway infrastructure improvements, Lowe s is committed to supporting and promoting strategies to reduce vehicle trips, especially by single occupant drivers, to and from the site. These measures are known as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) practices. The proponent will promote all reasonable TDM strategies to reduce employee and customer vehicle trips (see table 7). The TDM measures are designed to help reduce peak hour and daily vehicle trips through the temporal spreading of the peak hour demand, increased vehicle occupancy rates, and shifts in the mode of transportation away from single occupancy vehicles. The transportation mitigation measures are listed below and in aggregate it is estimated they would reduce C 0 2 transportation emissions by 5%. Locate Building Close to Transit - The Project is located across the street from the MBTA Quincy Adams Red Line station. Appoint an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) - The Project will appoint an ETC who will implement a Commuter Services Program to encourage and promote TDM measures. Alternative Work Schedules - The Project will allow employees to work nonstandard hours to reduce peak period traffic volumes. The resulting decrease in peak period traffic congestion may result in reduced vehicle emissions from increased travel speeds and reduced delays (idling emissions) at intersections.
Rideshare Program - The Project will institute a ride-matching program (carpool/vanpool) to assist employees to find appropriate carpool and vanpool matches. This program will be coordinated with MassRides (formerly Caravan for Commuters, Inc.). This organization operates a commuter hotline, a vanpool program, and a computerized ride-match program. Promote Use of Transit and Alternative Modes - The Project will promote the use of the MBTA; the Red Line Quincy Adams station is directly across the street from the proposed site. The Project will post MBTA subway and bus schedules, and bike routes, in the store (e.g., in the employee break room). The Project will provide materials that publicize the economic and environmental benefits of the available TDM practices. Internet Shopping at Lowe's - The Project will promote the use of Lowe's internet site (www.lowes.com) as a shopping alternative. Lowe's internet site allows customers to purchase items over the internet and to have the purchases shipped to their homes or businesses. The use of the internet shopping service has the potential to significantly reduce the number of store related trips. Direct Deposit for Employees -The Project will promote the establishment and use of direct deposit of employee paychecks. Multi-use Paths - Most pedestrians, coming from the adjacent neighborhood use Penn Street to access Burgin Parkway. Since Penn Street will be abandoned as part of this project, we assume that pedestrians will cut through the Lowe's site. While there will not be any dedicated internal sidewalks, Lowe's will not prohibit pedestrian access through the site. Thus, the project will allow unstructured multi-use paths through the project site. Parking Capacity - Although the Quincy Zoning By-Law requires 379 parking spaces, the number of spaces on the project plans, 435 spaces, is higher and represents the prototypical minimum required to support a 151,000 square foot Lowe's store in the Boston metro area market. Lowe's prototype for this size store actually includes 488 parking spaces. By taking advantage of the site's location in an urban setting and its proximity to major area highways, which encourage pass-by visitors, the amount of parking spaces for this project has been reduced to 435. This reduction of approximately 53 spaces decreases the amount of impervious area within the project. Parking Management - The Project will develop a parking management program to minimize parking requirements. Preferential parking spaces will be provided to people who rideshare. Bike Storage - The Project will provide secure bicycle storage. Roadway Improvements - The Project proponent has recommended improvements for four intersections in the Project area. See the transportation section for more details. Additional transportation mitigation measures were also considered for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 7.
4.4 Mitigation Summary Table 8 summarizes the C 0 2 emissions for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, for the base case (a building that complies with MA Building Code), the preferred alternative (includes some energy mitigation measures), and the mitigation alternative (includes additional energy savings elements and TDM measures). Lowe's will commit to the mitigation alternative for which total CO2 emissions are reduced 11.8% from 1,5 54.6 tonslyear to 1,371.0 tonslyear.
TABLE 5 PROJECT SITING AND SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES LOWE'S OF QlJlNCY PROJECT Part of Project Technically Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Infeasible to Project Type Sustainable Development Principles 4 Protection for open space on the Project site 4 Conserve and restore natural areas on-site 4 Minimize building footprint Design Project to support alternative transportation t o site J Use low impact development for stormwater design 4 Minimize energy use through building orientation 4
TABLE 6 BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT Part of Project Technically Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Infeasible to Project Type Construct green roof d Construct cool roof (high albedo) d Install high-efficiency HVAC systems 4 Seal and insulate HVAC supply ducts 4 Reduce energy demand by using peak shaving or load shifting strategies J Maximize interior day-lighting 4 Energy efficient windows 4 Incorporate motion sensors in lighting and climate control 4 Use efficient, directed exterior lighting 4 Purchase renewable energy 4 lncorporate combined heat and power (CHP) technologies into project J Use water conserving fixtures that exceed building code requirements J Use non-potable water in Garden Center 4 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables in building design J
TABLE 6 (continued) BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOWE'S OF QLllNCY PROJECT Suggested Mitigation Measure Part of Project Technically Inappropriate Design Infeasible to Project Type Use building materials with recycled content, rapidly renewable building materials, and manufactured within d region Use low-VOC adhesives, sealants, paints, carpets and wood J Conduct 3rd party building commissioning t o ensure energy performance J Track energy performance of building and develop strategy t o maintain efficiency J
TABLE 7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT Part of Project Technically Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Infeasible to Project Type Locate new buildings near a transit station 4 Purchase alternative fuel and/or fuel efficient vehicles for fleet J Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) t o implement Commuter Services Program and promote TDM measures J Allow unstructured multi-use paths through the site J Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, local parking requirements J Pursue opportunities to minimize parking supply through shared parking J Develop a parking management program to minimize parking requirements J Develop and implement a Marketing/ Information Program that distributes ridesharingltransit 4 information Subsidize transit passes 4 Use of pre-tax dollars for non-single occupancy vehicle commuting costs J Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules J Provide on-site amenities such as banks, dry cleaning, food service, childcare J Provide bicycle storage 4
TABLE 7 (continued) TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT Suggested Mitigation Measure Part of Project Technically Inappropriate Design Infeasible to Project Type I Roadway improvements to improve traffic flow 4 Traffic signalization and coordination t o improve traffic flow and support pedestrian safety J Provide no-idling truck zones at loadingloff-loading areas 4
TABLE 8 GREENHOUSE GAS (COJ EMlSSlONS SUMMARY LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT (TONSIYEAR) Percent Preferred Mitigation Reduction from Source Base Case Alternative Alternative Base to Mitigation Alternative Direct Emissions 165.1 129.3 129.3 21.7% Indirect Emissions 1,129.7 1,017.6 970.4 14.1% Subtotal Direct and 1,294.8 1,146.9 1,099.6 15.1% lndirect Emissions Transportation Emissions 292.6 277.9 277.9 5.O% Total COz Emissions 1,587.4 1,424.8 1,377.5 13.2%
You can also read
NEXT SLIDES ... Cancel