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, 2008TABLE 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........................................................................................... -16LIST 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 ..........................................................................................71.0 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
1Preferred 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 Energy3.0 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, MassachusettsTABLE 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/yrTABLE 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 14.0 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
11reduce 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
13central 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 4TABLE 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
JTABLE 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
JTABLE 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 4TABLE 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 4TABLE 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
