ROOFING SESSION SUMMARY Aug. 26, 2003 Following is a summary of issues and topics discussed during this session plus a completed table indicating the group’s estimate of percentage increases in reflective roofing under a medium and high level of market penetration. Participants: A list of session participants is attached. Lucie Griggs and Gordon Kenna were facilitators for the workshop; Maury Estes and Bill Crosson, NASA project consultants from Universities Space Research Association, provided technical and research assistance. Information Review: Data from the Georgia Tech Survey were reviewed in terms of growth patterns for the 21 county study area, the existing 13 county air quality nonattainment area and the 5 core counties (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett). The data included charts and tables indicating the current coverage of impervious and vegetated areas, urbanized areas and distribution of key land-use categories. Future growth patterns were also reviewed. Levels of Market Penetration: The group reviewed the definitions of low, medium, high levels of market penetration initially defined by the NASA Task Force and recommended the following changes indicated in italics: LOW – Non-regulatory environment involving concentrated voluntary effort. Requires education and public awareness, perhaps including points or credits which would assist in financing. Industry sponsorship of educational programs should be emphasized. MEDIUM – Moderately aggressive. Requires government endorsement and adoption for government-owned buildings plus some incentives HIGH – Very ambitious, but obtainable. Requires a regulatory environment as well as a high level of incentives (e.g. financial aid, tax credits, permitting flexibility, etc.). The group felt that it was important to continue a high level of public education and awareness programs at all levels; in addition, it was recommended that regulations should include industry input to avoid the problems and backlash associated with the roofing regulations recently introduced in Chicago. In general the group expressed a strong preference for incentives vs. regulations (i.e., carrot vs. the stick). Examples cited were tax credits (federal and state), sales tax reductions, accelerated depreciation schedules, and power company incentives (particularly dealing with rates associated with peak energy consumption). Penetration Table: A blank table was distributed which included roofing projections for aggregated land use classifications under a medium and high penetration level for the years 2020 and 2030. The remainder of the session was devoted to completing this table. In order to facilitate the discussion, current baseline data were reviewed from the Georgia Tech study. It was noted that the methodology used in the study for differentiating light
and dark roofing was not correlated to specific reflectivity (albedo); a method for correlation is being developed. Participants provided a table of albedo ratings for typical urban materials and LEED credit requirements for roofing. After discussing this information and based on the group’s experience with products currently on the market, participants recommended revising the table’s albedo (reflectivity) categories as follows (refers to ‘aged’ solar reflectance): Low albedo = < .20 (20% reflective) – unchanged Medium albedo = .20 - .60 (changed from .20 - .40) High albedo = > .60 (changed from .40) To simplify the process, several land use classes were combined based on overall distribution of the classes throughout the study area. Commercial, industrial, utilities and transportation were combined into one category. Multi-family and high density residential were combined and defined as apartments and condominiums, including high rise buildings, on less than ¼ acre. Medium density residential is defined as single family on ¼ to 2 acres; low density residential is single family on > 2 acres. In completing the table, the group considered the median number of years for commercial re-roofing as 17.4 years. Also the group noted that technology and price would drive the residential market, as energy costs increase and more products come to market that provide higher solar reflectance while maintaining the aesthetics of a darker appearance. A completed table is attached. Other Issues: Highly reflective roofing has significant ancillary benefits related to energy conservation which should be considered for incentive programs and improved air quality. Reduction in ambient air temperature as well as temperature inside the building results in reduced cooling requirements, thus lowering the energy demand for power plants.
PAVING SESSION SUMMARY Aug. 26, 2003 Following is a summary of issues and topics discussed during this session plus a completed table indicating the group’s estimate of percentage increases in reflective paving under a medium and high level of market penetration. Participants: A list of session participants is attached. Lucie Griggs and Gordon Kenna were facilitators for the workshop; Maury Estes and Bill Crosson, NASA project consultants from Universities Space Research Association, provided technical and research assistance. Information Review: Data from the Georgia Tech Survey were reviewed in terms of growth patterns for the 21 county study area, the existing 13 county air quality nonattainment area and the 5 core counties (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett). The data included charts and tables indicating the current coverage of impervious and vegetated areas, urbanized areas and distribution of key land-use categories. Future growth patterns were also reviewed. Levels of Market Penetration: The group reviewed the definitions of low, medium, high levels of market penetration initially defined by the NASA Task Force and recommended the following changes indicated in italics: LOW – Non-regulatory environment involving concentrated voluntary effort. Requires education and public awareness, perhaps including points or credits which would assist in financing. MEDIUM – Moderately aggressive. Requires government endorsement at the state level (more permissive at the local level) plus some incentives HIGH – Very ambitious, but obtainable. Requires a regulatory environment as well as a high level of incentives (e.g. financial aid, tax credits, permitting flexibility, etc.). The group felt that it was important to continue a high level of public education and awareness programs at all levels. It was noted that endorsement and policy adoption at the state level would likely mean similar application at the local level. This results in a much smaller distinction between medium and high penetration levels, basically depending on the extent of incentives. It was also noted that government agencies may be able to obtain CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation/ Air Quality) funding for pavement revisions. Penetration Table: A blank table was distributed which included pavement projections for aggregated land use classifications under a medium and high penetration level for the years 2020 and 2030. The remainder of the session was devoted to completing this table. In order to facilitate the discussion, current baseline data were reviewed from the Georgia Tech study. It was noted that the methodology used in the study for differentiating light and dark paving was not correlated to specific reflectivity (albedo); a method for correlation is being developed. Participants provided a table of albedo ratings for various
paving materials, new and aged. New asphalt is in the low albedo range. Aged asphalt, left unsealed or using chip seal, would fall into the medium albedo range. Concrete, aged or new, would fall into the high albedo range. Also the baseline data did not provide a distinction between roads vs. other pavements. Based on information from Ga. DOT, it was estimated that 75% of pavement was roads and 25% was all other; however, this data source requires further clarification. To simplify the process, several land use classes were combined based on overall distribution of the classes throughout the study area. Commercial, industrial, utilities and transportation were combined into one category. Multi-family and high density residential were combined and defined as apartments and condominiums, including high rise buildings, on less than ¼ acre. Medium density residential is defined as single family on ¼ to 2 acres; low density residential is single family on > 2 acres. In completing the table, the group considered that asphalt roads and parking lots are resealed every 3 to 5 years. The frequency, however, is highly dependent upon the visibility of the project or development (more frequent resealing), whether it is considered upscale property (more frequent resealing), county roads (less frequent), subdivision roads (much less frequent; in practice, could be > 10 years). The group also noted that there are current products available at equivalent costs which provide higher albedo pavements as follows: chip seal re-coating as opposed to black topping (not for high speed traffic roads); roller compacted concrete for large parking lots, low traffic areas and road shoulders; additives such as slag to concrete, making the material brighter and less expensive. A completed table is attached. Other Issues: Policy related to stormwater issues is likely to influence the percentage of impervious cover in the future. The group noted that government adoption of specific paving policy is a highly political issue.
VEGETATION SESSION SUMMARY Aug. 26, 2003 Following is a summary of issues and topics discussed during this session plus a completed table indicating the group’s estimate of percentage increases in vegetative cover and tree canopy under a medium and high level of market penetration. Participants: A list of session participants is attached. Lucie Griggs and Gordon Kenna were facilitators for the workshop; Maury Estes and Bill Crosson, NASA project consultants from Universities Space Research Association, provided technical and research assistance. Information Review: Data from the Georgia Tech Survey were reviewed in terms of growth patterns for the 21 county study area, the existing 13 county air quality nonattainment area and the 5 core counties (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett). The data included charts and tables indicating the current coverage of impervious and vegetated areas, urbanized areas and distribution of key land-use categories. Future growth patterns were also reviewed. Levels of Market Penetration: The group reviewed the definitions of low, medium, high levels of market penetration initially defined by the NASA Task Force and recommended the following changes indicated in italics: LOW – Non-regulatory environment involving concentrated voluntary effort. Requires education and public awareness, perhaps including points or credits which would assist in financing. MEDIUM – Moderately aggressive. Requires adoption and regulation at the commercial and individual level plus some incentives and a focused retail marketing strategy. HIGH – Very ambitious, but obtainable. Requires a government regulatory environment as well as a high level of incentives (e.g. financial aid, tax credits, permitting flexibility, etc.) plus an aggressive retail marketing strategy. The group felt that it was important to continue a high level of public education and awareness programs at all levels. It was noted that only a high level of penetration was likely to be successful in affecting urban temperatures and air quality. Penetration Table: A blank table was distributed which included vegetation projections for aggregated land use classifications under a medium and high penetration level for the years 2020 and 2030. The remainder of the session was devoted to completing this table. In order to facilitate the discussion, current baseline data were reviewed using standard vegetation coefficients for each land use class and the correlated tree canopy % based on American Forests eco-system study of the Atlanta area from 1997, 2000, and 2001. Land classifications and corresponding tree canopy used in the American Forests’ study need to be obtained and reviewed in order to correlate the study’s land classes (eco-
structures) to those land use classes used in the table. Further clarification may alter the assumed percentages of 60% trees and 40% grass/shrubs within each land use class. To simplify the process, several land use classes were combined based on overall distribution of the classes throughout the study area. Commercial, industrial, utilities and transportation were combined into one category. Multi-family and high density residential were combined and defined as apartments and condominiums, including high rise buildings, on less than ¼ acre. Medium density residential is defined as single family on ¼ to 2 acres; low density residential is single family on > 2 acres. In completing the table, the group considered the formula for determining the number of trees needed to increase canopy by 1% assuming different ages of trees and the square footage of canopy coverage per tree. A completed table is attached. Other Issues: In general, the group found the task of estimating future coverage to be very difficult and was not particularly optimistic that extensive tree canopy could be obtained. This opinion was based primarily on the fact that continued development reduces canopy, so just retaining existing canopy could be a significant challenge. Based on the relatively conservative percentage increase, the number of trees needed to be planted per year from now through 2030 is 182,000 per year, for a total of about 5 million trees. While nursery stock would be available to accommodate this level of planting, it was not clear where such plantings could be initiated, given that much of the urban core is already developed, leaving no space for extensive plantings except in outlying counties which are predominantly rural. Policy issues related to stormwater and water quality were considered likely to influence the percentage of impervious cover in the future, providing more incentives for increased vegetated cover. It was suggested that preservation of existing trees should be emphasized as an extremely important regulatory component, since new planting cannot keep pace with the destruction of canopy due to development. Given this situation, the group felt that future vegetative coverage, based on estimated growth patterns and assuming no change in current policy, should be determined then compared to the group’s future estimates under the high penetration scenario. Assuming the Atlanta region is continuing the pattern of losing up to 50 acres of vegetative cover per day, the difference between the two future estimates could be dramatic, even though the overall increase in canopy coverage, with a high penetration scenario, is modest.
PARTICIPANTS STRATEGY SESSION I – ROOFING Pat Downey – Roofing Consultant, President, Merik, Inc. Dagmar Epsten - President, The Epsten Group, Inc. Architects Ian Hughes – Managing Director Property Management, Equity Office Properties Trust Bennet Hutchison – President, Tip Top Roofers Steve Logan – Director, Planning Division, Gwinnett County Planning and Development Steve Skalko – Manager, Regional Code Services, Portland Cement Assoc. – ASHRAE 90.1 & 90.2 energy standard Committees Susan Smith – Vice President, Costing Services Group, Inc. Ben Taube – Environmental Manager, City of Atlanta Marty Waterfill – Facilities Engineer, Georgia State University Melissa Witthun – Manufacturer’s Representative, Duro-Last Roofing Inc. PARTICIPANTS STRATEGY SESSION II – PAVING Dan Brown – Director of Technical Services, Georgia Concrete & Products Assoc. Susana Chavez – Vice President, Parking Company of America Dagmar Epsten - President, The Epsten Group, Inc. Architects John Ford – Vice President, Robert and Company Charles Greiner – Director of Technical Services, Costing Services Group, Inc. Dudley Hartel – Technology Transfer Specialist, USDA Forest Service Steve Logan – Director, Planning Division, Gwinnett County Planning and Development J. T. Rabun – State Pavement Engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation Steve Skalko – Manager, Regional Code Services, Portland Cement Assoc. Ben Taube – Environmental Manager, City of Atlanta Marty Waterfill – Facilities Engineer, Georgia State University PARTICIPANTS STRATEGY SESSION III – VEGETATIVE COVER David Adelman – State Senator District 42 Tina Arbes – Assistant County Administrator, Office of CEO DeKalb County Marcia Bansley – Executive Director, Trees Atlanta Susana Chavez – Vice President, Parking Company of America Dagmer Epsten – President, The Epsten Group, Inc. Architects John Ford – Vice President, Robert and Company Dudley Hartel – Technology Transfer Specialist, USDA Forest Service Andy Hull – President, EnviroNetwork Consulting Inc. and Georgia Green Industry Assoc. Joe Burgess – Urban/Rural Interface Forester, Georgia Forestry Commission