Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report

Lw r
oe
Nnh C ro Su y i l e ot 0 2
it ab n td F aR p r2 1
n
Wad
r

EEGLP
G P R O JEC T
E CO N O M I C E

N IN
MP

AR

W E
O

ER L
MEN
T A ND GLO BAL

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................i
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background...................................................................................................................................... 2
Carbon Modeling........................................................................................................................... 4
Current Carbon Footprint............................................................................................................ 6
Repopulation & Development Scenarios.............................................................................. 8
Repopulation Base Case.............................................................................................................. 8
Repopulation Alternative............................................................................................................ 9
Economic Development Base Case.......................................................................................10
Economic Development Alternative.....................................................................................11
Targets..............................................................................................................................................11
Potential Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................12
Mitigating Residential Emissions............................................................................................15
Behavioral Measures..................................................................................................................16
Development of New Buildings and Neighborhoods
According to Sustainability Guidelines ...............................................................................17
Solar Photovoltaic Panels..........................................................................................................19
Solar Hot Water Heaters.............................................................................................................20
Improved Mechanical and Electrical Systems....................................................................21
Improved HVAC Systems...........................................................................................................21
Improved Lighting Systems......................................................................................................21
Improved Insulation, Doors, and Windows.........................................................................22
Green Spaces.................................................................................................................................22
De-construction............................................................................................................................23
Mitigating Institutional Emissions.........................................................................................23
Mitigating Commercial Emissions..........................................................................................24
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................25
References.......................................................................................................................................31
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................35

Table of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Current Commercial and Institutional Sources of Emissions.... 7
Table 2. Repopulation Scenarios............................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Assumed Commercial and Institutional Activity..............................................10
Table 4. Estimated Future Carbon Footprints....................................................................11
Table 5. Estimated Mitigation Required to Achieve L9W Goal.....................................12
Table 6. Estimated Mitigation Required to
Achieve Obama Administration Goal...................................................................................12
Table 7. Residential Mitigation Measures
and Net Costs Per Ton of Carbon Saved...............................................................................13
Table 8. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional
Mitigation Costs to Achieve Administration Goal............................................................14

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Map................................................................................................................................... ii
Figure 2. Solar Hot Water Heaters...........................................................................................20
Figure 3. Carbon Mitigation Measures: Costs.....................................................................27
Figure 4. Carbon Mitigation Measures: Costs After Energy Savings..........................28
Figure 5. Carbon Mitigation Measures: Costs After Energy & Tax Savings...............29
Figure 6. Carbon Mitigation Measures: Household Costs..............................................30

Executive Summary
New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward (L9W) was devastated in 2005 by Hurricane
Katrina and the subsequent flooding that resulted from the failure of the In-
dustrial Canal levee. The community has been slow to recover. As of 2010, the
L9W had about one-quarter of its pre-Katrina population levels, compared
with more than three-quarters for all of New Orleans. The L9W has commit-
ted to recovering from Hurricane Katrina in a sustainable manner. The Lower
9th Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development (CSED) has
expressed a goal of creating a prosperous, sustainable community that is carbon
neutral by 2020 and climate neutral by 2030.

Lafayette College’s Economic Empowerment and Global Learning Project
(EEGLP) has been working with CSED since 2007 to investigate sustainable
development policies and practices. In July 2009, EEGLP faculty and students
began working with CSED on a study of the carbon impacts of L9W repopula-
tion and economic development alternatives and the most cost-effective means
of mitigating such impacts. This report presents the findings of that study.

The study estimated the current carbon footprint of the L9W and forecasted
future footprints under alternative repopulation and development scenarios.
All scenarios assumed a return to pre-Katrina population levels in the L9W,
but varied in terms of population distributions and economic development.

Mitigation necessary to meet targets defined by CSED and the Obama admin-
istration was investigated, and mitigation costs were estimated. Potential miti-
gation measures included behavioral changes as well as development of new
homes and neighborhoods according to sustainability guidelines; installation
of solar photovoltaic panels; installation of solar hot water heaters; installation
of insulation and new doors and windows in existing buildings; installation
of high-efficiency mechanical and electrical systems in existing buildings; and
development of open spaces, among others.

While it does not appear feasible for the L9W to repopulate to pre-Katrina
levels and develop economically without increasing its carbon footprint, it does
appear feasible to repopulate while meeting the Obama administration goal
of reducing carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels. To do so could
involve costs ranging up to $5 million per year, depending on repopulation
and development policies and the mitigation measures employed. Economic
development, while highly desirable, would significantly increase the challenge
of meeting the Obama administration goal.

The most cost-effective mitigation measures involve behavioral changes. Aware-
ness of energy use can lead to reductions in usage. Use of compact fluorescent
light bulbs (CFLs) and reduced use or elimination of window air condition-
ers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers can reduce carbon emissions while saving
money. Unfortunately, behavioral changes have limited mitigation capacity.

Carbon Study Final Report 2012 i

Development of green spaces also has minimal costs but limited mitigation
capacity. However, behavioral changes and green spaces contribute to commu-
nity sustainability in a broader sense, so are highly desirable.

Solar hot water heaters are also cost-effective, saving a homeowner almost $200
per year. In addition, installation of solar hot water heaters has significant miti-
gation capacity, making this among the most desirable mitigation measures.
Solar panels and improved mechanical and HVAC systems will also save a
homeowner, solar panels more so than HVAC systems, but neither as much as
solar hot water heaters.

Sustainable design and construction practices are estimated to cost no more
than $1,100 per household per year over a 30 year lifetime. Such practices
have the greatest mitigation capacity among the potential measures that were
investigated, so opportunities to reduce net costs through subsidies or incen-
tives should be investigated.

Figure 1.
Lower Ninth Ward Map
Bayou
nal

Beinvenue
l Ca
stria

Galv
ez S
t
Indu

Lake Pontchartrain
Claib Lower Ninth
orne
Ave
Ward
St. C
Hollaude A
ve

Holy Cross

Mississippi River New Orleans

ii Carbon Study Final Report 2012

Introduction
New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward (L9W) was devastated in 2005 by Hurricane
Katrina and the subsequent flooding that resulted from the failure of the In-
dustrial Canal levee. The community has been slow to recover. As of 2010, the
L9W had about one-quarter of its pre-Katrina population levels, compared
with more than three-quarters for all of New Orleans (U.S. Census Bureau,
2011). The Holy Cross neighborhood has experienced more rapid repopula-
tion than the rest of the L9W, with almost half of pre-Katrina population
levels, compared to less than one-quarter for the rest of the L9W (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2011; Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, 2010). Areas
of the L9W remain largely vacant, with governmental and community institu-
tions and commercial establishments slow to return.

The L9W has committed to recovering from Hurricane Katrina in a sustain-
able manner. A series of public meetings in 2006 led to preparation of a “Sus-
tainable Restoration Plan of Holy Cross/Lower 9th Ward”. In 2007, the Holy
Cross Neighborhood Association established the Lower 9th Ward Center for
Sustainable Engagement and Development (CSED), with the objective of en-
couraging sustainable economic development and stimulating civic engage-
ment. Specifically, CSED has expressed a goal of creating a prosperous, sustain-
able community that is carbon neutral by 2020 and climate neutral by 2030
(City of New Orleans Carbon Footprint Report, 2009). Numerous groups,
including civic, educational and religious institutions, Global Green, The Si-
erra Club, Common Ground, and Make it Right, have assisted CSED and the
L9W community in working to achieve this goal.

Carbon Study Final Report 2012 1

Lafayette College’s Economic Empowerment and Global Learning Project
(EEGLP) has been working with CSED since 2007 to investigate sustainable
development policies and practices. Previous projects have included develop-
ment of a conceptual plan for a “green” lifestyle center at the intersection of St.
Claude and Caffin Avenues; a study of the feasibility of converting the former
McDonogh 19/Louis Armstrong school on St. Claude Avenue into an arts,
culture and civic engagement center; and support for community gardens and
urban agriculture throughout the L9W.

In July 2009, EEGLP faculty and students began working with CSED on a
study of the carbon impacts of L9W repopulation and economic development
alternatives and the most cost-effective means of mitigating such impacts. In
January 2010, at a meeting at the Center for Bioenvironmental Research at
Tulane and Xavier Universities (CBR), EEGLP faculty and students present-
ed their progress in modeling the L9W’s carbon footprint. In January 2011,
EEGLP faculty and students presented another progress report at CBR, fore-
casting the L9W’s carbon footprint under alternative repopulation and eco-
nomic development scenarios; determining the mitigation necessary to achieve
the L9W’s goal of carbon-neutrality under each scenario; and estimating the
costs of potential mitigation measures. In August 2011, EEGLP faculty and
students presented another progress report to CSED, estimating the net costs
of mitigation to achieve the community’s goals, considering savings from en-
ergy costs as well as tax incentives for mitigation measures. This report presents
the findings of the study.

Background
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determined
that, without doubt, significant climate change is occurring, and that there is
a 90 percent probability that the change is due to human activity, particularly
the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of natural vegetation (IPCC, 2007).
Climate change resulting from human activity is one of the most critical prob-
lems facing society. Without significant reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG)
emitted by burning fossil fuels, temperatures will continue to increase; sea lev-
els will continue to rise; precipitation patterns will change; and extreme cli-
mactic events, such as hurricanes and droughts, will increase in severity and
frequency. Given its location and topography, such trends are likely to have a
particularly severe impact on New Orleans.

Recent observations indicate that climate change is occurring more rapidly
than envisioned just a few years ago. Ocean warming is about 50 percent
greater than had been predicted in 1990; sea levels have risen faster than fore-
casted; ice coverage has shrunk; and levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere have risen beyond what some scientists consider to be the “dan-
gerous anthropogenic interference” (DAI) level, a level beyond which climate

2 Carbon Study Final Report 2012

disaster is imminent (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009; Kolbert,
2009). Extreme climate events are occurring more frequently (National Re-
search Council, 2011).

Although the recent economic recession resulted in a decline in U.S. energy
use and, therefore, carbon emissions, emissions in 2010 saw the largest increase
ever recorded (Gillis, 2011). Continued increases are expected as the economy
recovers and develops, unless measures to cost-effectively reduce energy use
and mitigate carbon emissions are implemented (National Research Council,
2011).

The U.S. is not the global leader in GHG emissions, which are currently more
than 30 million kilotons (kt) per year; carbon emissions from the U.S. had
been steady at about 5.5 million kt per year prior to the recent economic re-
cession (World Bank, 2011). China passed the U.S. in 2005 and is currently
responsible for more than 7 million kt per year. China has been the major
contributor to global increases over the past few years. Nevertheless, the U.S.
remains a major contributor to global emissions (India and Brazil, the next
largest emitters, each account for about 1.7 million kt per year), but has not
been a leader in global efforts to address climate change. Lack of a national
energy policy reflects the gridlock in national fiscal, social, healthcare, trans-
portation, etc., policies.

New Orleans is among the U.S. cities that are most vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change. Its tropical temperatures will increase as a result of global
warming, increasing cooling costs and the risk of heat-related health problems
for the elderly, the very young, and the ill. With much of the city below sea
level, increases in sea levels will threaten the city’s survival. Being adjacent to
the Gulf of Mexico and surrounded by water, additional or stronger hurricanes
are a particular problem, as evidenced by the devastation caused by Hurricane
Katrina in 2005.

In 1999 – well before the Katrina disaster – New Orleans joined the Interna-
tional Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) as a member of the
Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign. In 2009, the city completed
an analysis of its carbon footprint using the CCP/ICLEI model (City of New
Orleans Carbon Footprint Report, 2009).

While the human causes of climate change are widely accepted and there is
growing support for mitigation, important questions remain concerning the
costs and impacts on economic development of climate change mitigation ef-
forts. The L9W is trying to balance environmental impacts with the need to
repopulate and develop its economy to recover from Hurricane Katrina. The
purpose of this study is to assist the L9W in achieving those goals by analyzing
the carbon impacts of alternative repopulation and development policies and
the cost-effectiveness of potential measures to mitigate such impacts.


Carbon Modeling
Emissions of CO2 are considered to be a primary cause of the enhanced green-
house effect, in which GHGs such as CO2 collect in the upper levels of the
Earth’s atmosphere and form an insulating layer, preventing heat in the Earth’s
atmosphere from being released into space (Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change, 2007). While the greenhouse effect allows life to survive on
Earth, failure to release heat into space at the same rate that it is absorbed by
the Earth’s atmosphere results in global warming and climate change. The prin-
cipal causes of GHG emissions are burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of
trees (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009).

While CO2 is the most significant GHG, gases such as methane, nitrous ox-
ide, fluorocarbons, and others, as well as water vapor, also contribute to the
enhanced greenhouse effect. In order to reflect this, carbon footprints are typi-
cally expressed as “carbon equivalents”, including major GHGs.

Numerous carbon calculators have been developed for residences, businesses,
industries, etc. (Padgett et al., 2008). Our analyses were based on carbon calcu-
lators developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Carbon footprints are the most widely used measure of emissions of CO2 and
other GHGs. A carbon footprint can be used to estimate emissions of GHGs
by industries, individuals, households, or geographical areas, based primarily
on use of fossil fuels for generation of electricity, transportation, and other
purposes.

Carbon footprints can be defined in terms of three levels of scope: (City of New
Orleans Carbon Footprint Report, 2009). For the purposes of this analysis:

• Scope 1 emissions are generated within the L9W, from residential, trans-
portation, commercial, and governmental/institutional sources
• Scope 2 emissions are generated outside the L9W due to demand within
the L9W, mainly due to electrical power generation
• Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions not covered in Scope 2, such as
those resulting from production or transport of purchased materials.

This analysis primarily addressed Scope 1 and 2 emissions; Scope 3 emissions
are typically not included in carbon footprints because they are very difficult to
quantify for a specific location. However, Scope 3 emissions due to food were
included in this analysis, because it makes comparisons between the L9W and
the U.S. more consistent. It should be noted that scopes are relative to the geo-
graphic entity being analyzed, i.e., some Scope 3 emissions of the L9W would
be recorded as Scope 1 or 2 emissions for Louisiana and the U.S.

This analysis addressed residential, commercial, and governmental/institution-
al sources of emissions. Industrial sources, such as the Industrial Canal; Alabo
Street, Andry Street, and Maurice Avenue wharves; and the sewage treatment
plant, were not included. Jackson Barracks was also not included. The intent


was to focus on mitigation sources that the L9W community was most likely
to be able to influence.

Carbon footprint was used in this analysis as a proxy for environmental sustain-
ability. This is somewhat simplistic, since environmental sustainability involves
many resources. However, carbon footprint was determined to be a reasonable
proxy for the environmental sustainability of repopulation and development
alternatives for the purposes of this analysis because:

• CSED has specifically identified carbon-neutrality as a goal
• the Obama administration has expressed a specific goal of reducing carbon
levels to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020
• carbon modeling and calculation of carbon footprints are relatively well-
established and widely used as indicators of environmental sustainability
• markets for trading carbon emissions exist in some states and countries,
providing an opportunity to incorporate market-based consideration on
the analyses.

Consistent with the concepts reflected in corporate references to the “triple
bottom line” (financial, environmental and societal) and the EPA’s P3 (People,
Prosperity, and Planet) program, sustainable repopulation and development
require a much broader perspective than just environmental sustainability. In
addition to being environmentally sustainable, repopulation and development
alternatives must be economically, financially, socially, culturally, organization-
ally, and politically sustainable.


Current Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint of the L9W was estimated based on a series of analyses
employing data that was increasingly specific to the L9W. To the extent pos-
sible, analyses were based on 2010 U.S. Census data.

Census data indicated a population of 2,714 in 1,040 households in the Holy
Cross neighborhood and a population of 2,842 in 1,061 households in the
remainder of the L9W in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Based on house-
holds receiving mail in 2005, these values would indicate that the Holy Cross
neighborhood had reached about 43 percent of pre-Katrina levels, while the
remainder of the L9W had reached about 19 percent of pre-Katrina levels
(GNOCDC, 2010). It should be noted that, consistent with trends through-
out New Orleans, household size has decreased since 2005 due to fewer chil-
dren. In 2005, the average household size in the L9W, including the Holy
Cross neighborhood, was approximately 2.8 people per household; in 2010,
it was approximately 2.65 people per household. In the L9W and Holy Cross
neighborhoods, this pattern may also reflect fewer multi-generational, extend-
ed families than before Katrina.

While U.S. Census data were used in these analyses, it should be acknowledged
that such data is often criticized for undercounting low income and minority
residents. In comparison with the 2010 Census data indicating 1,040 house-
holds in the Holy Cross neighborhood and 1,061 households in the remainder
of the L9W, the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC)
estimated that 1,226 households in the Holy Cross neighborhood and 1,271
households in the remainder of the L9W were receiving mail in June 2010
(GNOCDC, 2010).

An initial analysis was based on data specific to New Orleans, as reported in the
City of New Orleans Carbon Footprint Report issued in July 2009. The report
presents emission and population data for 2007. Based on the assumption that
carbon emissions per household in New Orleans remained constant between
2007 and 2010, average 2007 carbon emissions per household for New Or-
leans and population levels in the L9W as of June 2010 were used to estimate
the current carbon footprint of the L9W. The analysis included emissions from
governmental, residential, and commercial sources; industrial sources of emis-
sions were not included.

Based on the New Orleans carbon footprint data, carbon equivalent emissions
from residential, commercial, and governmental sources in the L9W for 2007,
based on the percentage of the city population in the L9W, were estimated to
be 40,000 tons per year. Based on an estimate of 1,375 households in the L9W
(including Holy Cross) in 2007, this represents an average of 55,000 to 60,000
pounds per year per household, with 40,000 to 45,000 pounds per year of this
due to residential, transportation and waste sources, and 15,000 to 20,000
pounds per year due to commercial and governmental sources (GNOCDC,
2010; Carbon Footprint Report, 2009). Assuming that average emissions per
household remained constant between 2007 and 2010, the carbon footprint


of the L9W in 2010 was estimated, based on city-wide data, to be 60,000 tons
per year of carbon equivalents; of this, 40,000 tons were due to residential
sources and approximately 20,000 tons were due to commercial and govern-
mental sources.

Another analysis employed a model developed by EEGLP specifically for the
L9W, including a carbon calculator based on the EPA model. The model esti-
mated approximately 45,000 pounds per year per household of carbon equiva-
lent emissions from residential sources, for a total of approximately 47,250
tons per year in the L9W. With an estimated 12,336 tons per year from com-
mercial and institutional (including governmental) sources, as shown in Table
1, the total current L9W carbon footprint was estimated to be approximately
59,600 tons per year, essentially the same as the estimate based on city-wide
data.

Table 1. Estimated Current Commercial and Institutional Sources of Emissions

Activity Ave. Establishments Total (tons)
Grocery/Convenience 395 4 1,580
Fast food/restaurant 344 6 2,064
Retail store 211 4 844
Bank/financial 401 2 802
Gas/service station 164 9 1,476
Beauty/barber shop 164 4 656
Church 83 15 1245
School 488 1 488
Social center 282 2 564
Total L9W Commercial and Institutional
12,336
Emissions

Based on these estimates, without reductions in the carbon footprint per house-
hold, repopulation is projected to result in proportional increases in the carbon
footprint of the L9W at a rate of about 45,000 pounds per year per household.
Economic development, including increases in the incomes of L9W residents
and development of commercial and institutional activity in the L9W, may
also result in increases in its carbon footprint, since households with higher
incomes tend to generate higher GHG emissions, and new or recovered busi-
nesses or institutions in the L9W will represent new sources of such emissions
(Grubb, Muller and Butler, 2004). In the absence of cost-effective mitigation,
repopulation and development of the L9W will increase its carbon footprint,
making achievement of the goal of carbon-neutrality more difficult.


Repopulation &
Development Scenarios
Four scenarios were developed to represent alternative future levels and pat-
terns of repopulation and economic development in the L9W. The scenarios
are consistent with the objectives of the L9W community, the New Orleans
Master Plan, and local zoning ordinances. A carbon footprint was estimated
for each scenario.

The four scenarios were based on two repopulation alternatives and two eco-
nomic development alternatives. All scenarios assumed a return to pre-Katrina
population levels in the L9W, resulting in a total of about 7,600 households
of approximately 2.8 persons per household for a total population of about
21,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; GNOCDC, 2010). This assumption is
consistent with the community goal of returning to pre-Katrina population
levels in order to ensure the social, economic and political viability of the L9W
(Sustainable Restoration Plan…, 2006).

Repopulation Base Case
The repopulation base case assumed that repopulation will approximate pre-
Katrina distributions, with about one-third in the Holy Cross neighborhood
and two-thirds in the remainder of the L9W. For this analysis, the L9W out-
side the Holy Cross neighborhood was divided into two areas: the area between
St. Claude Avenue and Galvez Street, and the area north of Galvez. Table 2
presents estimates of pre-Katrina and June 2010 population levels in the Holy
Cross neighborhood, the area north of Galvez Street, and the area between St.
Claude Avenue and Galvez Street. The table also shows the numbers of ad-
ditional households required in these areas to achieve pre-Katrina population
levels under the repopulation base case.


Repopulation Alternative
The repopulation alternative assumed that future repopulation will be clustered
more densely in areas of higher elevation (generally above Mean Sea Level, as
approximated in the L9W by Galvez Street). This assumption is consistent with
the community goal of reducing the demographic footprint of the L9W and
concentrating future repopulation in areas of higher elevation in the southern
portion of the neighborhood (Sustainable Restoration Plan…, 2006). It is also
consistent with the concepts of sustainable engineering and the New Orleans
Master Plan.

All scenarios assumed that existing development in areas of lower elevation
north of Galvez Street will be maintained, and that currently unoccupied
houses north of Galvez (estimated at approximately 245) will be occupied, but
the repopulation alternative assumed that no new houses will be built north
of Galvez. Table 2 shows the estimated numbers of additional households re-
quired in the Holy Cross neighborhood and the area between St. Claude Av-
enue and Galvez Street to achieve pre-Katrina L9W population levels under
the repopulation alternative (GNOCDC, 2010).

Table 2. Repopulation Scenarios

Additional Additional
Households Households Households Households
Area
2005 June 2010 Repopulation Repopulation
Base Case Alternative
Holy Cross
2240 1040 1200 2625
Neighborhood
St. Claude Ave.
2680 795 1885 2630
to Galvez St.
North of
2680 265 2415 245
Galvez St.
Total 7600 2100 5500 5500

Clustering repopulation growth in a smaller footprint would be expected to
reduce per household emissions, based on evidence that density and per house-
hold emissions are inversely related (Ewing and Rong, 2008). This was incor-
porated in the estimates of carbon footprint by adjusting household emissions
by a factor representing assumed density.

If future repopulation is concentrated south of Galvez, the area between Galvez
and St. Claude would be expected to increase from low to medium density,
while the Holy Cross neighborhood would remain high density and the area
north of Galvez would remain low density. Based on previous research, it was
estimated that household emissions in low density areas would be approxi-
mately 45 percent higher than in medium density areas, for a total of 65,250
pounds per year, while household emissions in high density areas would be
approximately 45 percent lower than in medium density areas, for a total of
24,750 pounds per year (Norman, MacLean and Kennedy, 2006).


Economic Development Base Case

The economic development base case assumed that household incomes in the
L9W, adjusted for inflation, will return to pre-Katrina levels, approximately
$27,500 per year (U.S. Census, 2000). It also assumed that commercial and
institutional activity will return to estimated pre-Katrina levels.

Table 3 shows assumed L9W commercial and institutional activity for the eco-
nomic development base case under each repopulation scenario. The repopu-
lation alternative reflects slightly lower levels of commercial and institutional
activity in the L9W than the repopulation base case, on the assumption that
some commercial and institutional activity is geographically-dependent, i.e., if
repopulation north of Galvez is limited to existing houses, fewer commercial
and institutional activities will locate there.

Table 3. Assumed Commercial and Institutional Activity

Repop alternative/dev base
Repop/dev base case
case
Commercial Establish- Emissions Establish- Emissions
Activities ments (Tons) ments (Tons)
Grocery/
convenience 10 3950 8 3160
store
Fast food/res-
20 6880 18 6192
taurant
Retail store 20 4220 23 4853
Gas/service
25 4100 22 3608
station
Beauty/barber
6 984 6 984
shop
Motel 1 799 1 799
Office 22 8822 19 7619
Funeral home 1 282 1 282
Bank/financial
5 2005 3 1203
institution
Entertainment 2 422 1 211
Institutional Activities
Church 15 1245 14 1162
School 5 2440 5 2440
Cultural/social
4 1128 4 1128
center
Police station 0 0 0 0
Fire station 0 0 0 0
Post office 0 0 0 0
Total Emissions 37,277 33,641


Economic Development Alternative
The economic development alternative assumed that the L9W average house-
hold income will increase to the U.S. national average income level, about
$50,000 per year, an increase of approximately 82 percent over pre-Katrina
levels (American Community Survey, 2010). Under this scenario, the carbon
footprint of households in the L9W and Holy Cross neighborhood was as-
sumed to be the same as for the U.S., so values from the U.S. State Depart-
ment’s Climate Action Report were used in the analyses for the economic de-
velopment alternatives. As previously mentioned, the scopes involved in the
analysis of the L9W and the U.S. differ somewhat in that some Scope 3 L9W
emissions are actually a part of Scope 1 and 2 U.S. emissions. However, the
Climate Action Report does not include Scope 3 emissions for the entire U.S.,
so the data is comparable to data previously used in this analysis. The national
average carbon footprint is 104,000 pounds per household.

Table 4 shows carbon footprints, expressed as tons of carbon equivalents per
year for each scenario, unless mitigated. No timing was assigned to the scenar-
ios. As discussed previously, the current L9W carbon footprint was estimated
to be approximately 60,000 tons per year, with approximately one-quarter of
its pre-Katrina population.

Table 4. Estimated Future Carbon Footprints

Repopulation
Development
Base Case 205,000 tons/year 150,000 tons/year
Alternative 395,000 tons/year 302,000 tons/year

Targets
The L9W community has expressed a goal of achieving carbon-neutrality by
2020. If this goal is understood to require a target carbon footprint of zero tons
per year, the estimated future footprints shown in Table 4 would have to be
completely offset by mitigation measures. This appears to be very difficult to
achieve, if not impossible.

If, however, this goal is understood to mean that future repopulation and de-
velopment should not increase the L9W carbon footprint beyond its current
level, a carbon footprint of approximately 60,000 tons per year would be the
target. Table 5 shows the mitigation necessary under each scenario to achieve
this goal.


Table 5. Estimated Mitigation Required to Achieve L9W Goal

Repopulation
Development
Base Case 145,000 tons/year 90,000 tons/year

The Obama administration has expressed a goal of reducing carbon emissions
to 17 percent below 2005 levels. Based on pre-Katrina population and as-
sumed commercial and institutional activity in the L9W, the 2005 L9W foot-
print was estimated to have been approximately 208,000 tons from residential,
commercial, and institutional sources. Achieving the Obama administration
goal would define a target for the L9W of approximately 173,000 tons per
year. Table 6 shows the mitigation necessary under each scenario to achieve
this goal.

Table 6. Estimated Mitigation Required to Achieve Obama Administration Goal

Repopulation
Development
Base Case 32,000 tons/year 0 tons/year

Potential Mitigation
Measures
The costs and capacities of potential measures to mitigate carbon emissions
were analyzed in terms of annual costs per ton of carbon mitigated and tons
of carbon mitigated per year. Some mitigation measures involve behavioral
choices, such as thermostat settings; use of public transportation; and use of
a dishwasher, clothes dryer, air conditioning, compact fluorescent lighting
(CFL), etc. Such measures may involve no cost and could generate savings.
Other measures involve construction or renovation activities, including:

• development of new homes and neighborhoods according to sustainability
guidelines
• installation of solar photovoltaic panels on existing and new buildings
• installation of solar hot water heaters in existing and new homes
• installation of energy-efficient mechanical and electrical systems in existing
homes
• installation of energy-efficient insulation, doors and windows in existing
homes
• de-construction and re-use of building materials
• development of green spaces and urban agriculture


Mitigation measures were investigated for residential, commercial, and insti-
tutional sources of emissions. Savings resulting from energy reductions, tax
credits, and other financial incentives were considered.

Table 7 shows annualized costs and carbon savings for potential mitigation
measures for individual households as well as for the entire L9W. As shown,
“costs” ranged from savings of approximately $100 per year per household for
a solar hot water heater to an annualized cost of almost $1,100 per year for a
house designed and constructed according to sustainability guidelines. Mitiga-
tion capacities ranged from 0.2 tons per year of carbon mitigated per house-
hold for improved doors and windows and insulation, to over 10 tons per year

Table 7. Residential Mitigation Measures and Net Costs Per Ton of Carbon Saved

Annual
Annual Annual
L9W
Annual Annual Carbon Cost/ L9W
Mitigation Annual Cost Cost/
Cost per Savings per Ton of Carbon
Measure L9W Ton of
Household Househould(tons) Carbon Savings
Carbon
Saved (tons)
Saved
Natural Drying $0 0.68 $0 $ - 5,141 $0
CFLs $0 0.50 $0 $ - 3,830 $0
Natural cooling $0 0.33 $0 $ - 662
Dishwashing by
$0 0.32 $0 $ - 2,441 $0
Hand
Solar Hot Water
$100 1.41 $71 $555,300 7,821 $71
Heater
Solar Panels $61 2.21 $28 $466,500 16,777 $28
HVAC $9 4.45 $2 $18,000 8,900 $2
Green Design &
($1,090) 10.12 ($108) ($5,495,000) 51.011 ($108)
Construction
Lighting Controls ($101) 0.80 ($126) ($202,000) 1,600 ($126)
Doors and Win-
($59) 0.20 ($295) ($118,000) 400 ($297)
dows
Insulation ($92) 0.20 ($654) ($262,000) 400 ($654)
Total Residential Mitigation Potential 98,983

for a house designed and constructed according to sustainability guidelines.
As shown, the maximum mitigation capacity of these measures is approximate-
ly 100,000 tons per year, so mitigation of residential sources does not appear
to be sufficient to meet targets based on the L9W’s goal of carbon-neutrality
except under the economic development base case/repopulation alternative
scenario, if carbon-neutrality is understood to mean repopulating and devel-
oping without increasing the current L9W carbon footprint of approximately
60,000 tons per year.

It does appear possible to meet the Obama administration goal of reducing
carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels with residential mitigation
measures, under the economic development base case, i.e., incomes and eco-


nomic activity in the L9W return to pre-Katrina levels. As shown in Table 6,
no mitigation would be required under the economic development base case/
repopulation alternative scenario; a combination of behavioral changes and
solar based measures could easily meet the mitigation required under the eco-
nomic development base case/repopulation base case scenario.

Economic development, while highly desirable, increases mitigation require-
ments significantly. It may be possible to achieve, or nearly achieve, the Obama
administration goal for the economic development alternative/repopulation al-
ternative scenario if mitigation from commercial and institutional sources is
included, but achieving the Obama target under the economic development
alternative/repopulation base case scenario would require extraordinary efforts,
perhaps including development of a solar power plant in the L9W or signifi-
cant improvements in public transportation.

Commercial and institutional mitigation measures were estimated using the
same methods as for residential mitigation, since many methods for residential
mitigation would also be practical for the types of smaller commercial and
institutional establishments that exist and are likely to develop in the L9W.
Mitigation estimates were very approximate, due to the unpredictability of fu-
ture commercial and institutional development in the L9W. Since commercial
and institutional sources represent a relatively minor portion of the L9W car-
bon footprint, such approximations appeared reasonable. Potential mitigation
from commercial and institutional sources was estimated to be approximately
12,000 to 20,000 tons per year.

Minimum costs for achieving the Obama administration goals through resi-
dential, commercial and institutional measures are shown in Table 8. They
range from zero to over $5 million per year, which would achieve the maxi-
mum mitigation from residential, commercial and institutional sources but
would still not meet the Obama goal under the economic development alter-
native/repopulation base case scenario; extraordinary measures would be re-
quired under that scenario to mitigate approximately 90,000 to 100,000 tons
per year of GHG emissions beyond that which could be mitigated by resi-
dential, commercial and institutional measures. These costs were based on the
assumption that mitigation measures would be implemented in order of their
cost-effectiveness, i.e., the most cost-effective measures would be implemented
before less cost-effective measures.

Table 8. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Mitigation Costs to Achieve Obama
Administration Goal

Repopulation
Development
Base Case $891,857/year $0/year
Alternative ($5,036,171/year)* ($5,036,171/year)*
*Goal unattainable with current mitigation measures

Figure 1 shows graphically the mitigation necessary to achieve the Obama ad-


ministration goal under the four scenarios and the direct costs. The most cost-
effective measures are toward the left end of the horizontal axis, as reflected
in the estimated cost per ton of carbon mitigated measured on the vertical
axis. Mitigation capacities (Carbon Saved) are measured along the horizontal
axis. Figure 2 shows mitigation costs net of any savings resulting from reduced
energy usage; Figure 3 shows mitigation costs net of energy savings and tax
or other incentives. Figure 4 shows mitigation measures on a household basis
(therefore resulting in different mitigation capacities) and is the same as Figure
3 but without green design (since on a household basis green design would be
double counting the individual measures taken).

Numerous assumptions were necessary to estimate costs and mitigation ef-
fectiveness and capacities of such measures. These are described in following
sections.

Mitigating Residential Emissions

Numerous potential measures are available to mitigate emissions from resi-
dences. These include behavioral measures, which involve no cost, or even sav-
ings, but could involve an inconvenience to L9W residents. Others require
design or construction and involve costs.


Behavioral Measures

There are many ways to save energy (and money) in the home that cost little
or nothing. It has been estimated that behavioral changes by community resi-
dents, including changing thermostat settings, reducing lighting, using pub-
lic transportation, and other measures, could reduce energy costs by about
$7,000 per year per household; reduce energy use by 15 percent per year per
household; and reduce carbon emissions by almost 25,000 pounds per year per
household (Nurtured World, 2011).

Another behavioral change could involve use of CFLs instead of traditional
incandescent bulbs. Entergy will provide 20 free CFLs per household. These
20 bulbs can reduce electric bills by $90 and mitigate 900 pounds of carbon
equivalents per year per household.

Mitigation can also be achieved by eliminating or reducing the use of some
household appliances. The carbon calculator developed for the L9W was used
to evaluate how much energy a household could save by eliminating certain
appliances. Eliminating window air conditioners (but still using ceiling fans to
keep a house cool) could save a household almost $150 on electric bills and
mitigate almost 1,500 pounds of carbon equivalents per year. Drying clothes
naturally rather than with a dryer could save a household $130 on electric bills
and 1,300 pounds of carbon equivalents a year. Washing dishes by hand instead
of using a dishwasher could mitigate almost 650 pounds of carbon equivalents
per year and reduce electric bills by around $65 each year per household. Such
measures can reduce a household’s electricity usage by 6 percent and mitigate
4,300 pounds of carbon equivalents per household annually.

However, not all households will readily adopt such changes, which could
involve considerable inconvenience. Other options that can help to reduce
household carbon footprints include replacing appliances that are not Energy
Star© rated (most likely, any appliances that date from pre-Katrina) with high-
efficiency appliances. This would save on energy bills as well as reduce carbon
emissions. Although there are initial costs of purchasing a new appliance, the
Louisiana State Rebate Program will provide $75 for a room air conditioner,
$100 for a clothes washer, and $150 for a dishwasher, as well as for other ap-
pliances (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2011).
Most of these high-efficiency appliances reduce electricity use by 10 to 30 per-
cent and can mitigate 500 pounds of carbon equivalents annually, based on
a comparison of the most efficient Energy Star© appliance to what Energy
Star© assumes as a normal, non-energy efficient appliance. However, it appears
unlikely that there are many pre-Katrina appliances in the L9W, so most are
probably already Energy Star rated. It was assumed that behavioral measures
would be employed to mitigate approximately 14,000 tons per year in the
L9W, at no cost.


Development of New Buildings and Neighborhoods
According to Sustainability Guidelines

Development of new buildings, including houses, schools, businesses, and
neighborhoods according to sustainability guidelines could involve Leader-
ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) standards developed by
the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or more general green building
practices. These involve use of natural circulation and lighting; energy-efficient
building envelope and mechanical and electrical systems; and selection of ma-
terials on a life-cycle, rather than initial, cost basis. Sustainable design of new
residences was assumed to include solar panels and hot water heaters; high-ef-
ficiency mechanical and electrical systems; and energy saving doors, windows,
and insulation.

Neighborhood development consistent with sustainability guidelines would
involve clustering houses in areas of higher density, while using open spaces for
parks, urban agriculture, wetlands, woodlands, or other purposes; walkways,
use of bicycles, and public transportation would be enhanced. Commercial
and institutional activities would be integrated with residential clusters and
could incorporate the concepts of “new urbanism”, with mixed use patterns,
street front access to stores, use of second floors for professional and commer-
cial services, etc.

Currently, at least 80 houses in the L9W have been constructed according to
LEED™ criteria, including those developed by Make it Right and Global Green.
Make it Right has constructed 75 houses that have been certified as LEED™
Platinum or are awaiting certification, and is planning 75 more. Global Green
has constructed five LEED™ Platinum houses. In addition, Global Green’s de-
velopment is a pilot project for LEED™ for Neighborhood Development.

All analyses of housing costs and carbon savings were based on a typical shot-
gun cottage of approximately 1,100 square feet. Such cottages are common
throughout the L9W and representative of New Orleans architecture. They are
inherently sustainable in terms of high windows and ceilings, natural ventila-
tion, shutters, elevated first floors, and appropriate materials. Shotgun cottages,
with front porches and narrow lots that facilitate interaction among neighbors,
also contribute to neighborhood sustainability.

To analyze the costs and mitigation capabilities of constructing new housing
in the L9W according to green design criteria, a model was developed using
Autodesk© Revit Architecture 2012, depicting a typical shotgun cottage. The
1,100 square foot model cottage consisted of three bedrooms, a bathroom, liv-
ing/dining area, and kitchen. Floors, ceilings, roofs, windows, and walls were
modeled.

The Revit file was then exported to Autodesk© Green Building Studio for en-
ergy analyses. This program uses weather, energy prices, and other parameters
specific to Louisiana. Design alternatives including HVAC systems, lighting


systems, insulation, window treatments, and roofing types were varied using
Green Building Studio to analyze the impacts on energy use and carbon emis-
sions.

While green design and construction practices can reduce energy use (and,
therefore, costs), the perceived additional cost of “going green” is sometimes
a barrier. However, considerable research has shown that construction accord-
ing to LEED™ criteria is, on average, only one to two percent more expensive
than normal construction, if it adds any cost at all (Cassidy, 2007). Based on
an estimated construction cost for a typical shotgun cottage of approximately
$150,000, green design and construction practices would increase costs by ap-
proximately $3,000.

In the L9W, building a sustainable house costs anywhere from $80/sq.ft. to
$140/sq.ft, based on conversations held with representatives of Common
Ground Relief and Global Green. However, in order to be conservative, it was
assumed in this analysis that achieving maximum carbon mitigation through
green design and construction would add approximately 10 percent to the cost
of the model cottage ($15,000), for a final square footage cost of $150.

Recognizing that a 10 percent premium for green design and construction is
significantly higher than estimates of a LEED™ premium of 0-2 percent widely
reported in literature, it was noted that most studies have been based on large
commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings. Costs to achieve LEED™
standards might represent a higher percentage of base costs for the cottages be-
cause some of the design and much of the construction management for hous-
ing construction in the L9W will probably be done by homeowners or small
contractors who might not be familiar with green construction practices. Since
homeowners would likely be one-time purchasers of green building services,
there would be limited opportunities for learning curves to reduce costs. These
and other factors were considered in deciding to use a 10 percent premium.

The green building premium was annualized over the projected 30 year life of
a shotgun cottage, at an interest rate of 6 percent. Estimated annual costs are
approximately $1,100.

There have been numerous estimates of carbon mitigation resulting from con-
struction of new housing according to green criteria. In this analysis, it was
assumed that construction of new housing according to green design criteria
would reduce annual household emissions by 45 percent (Energy Star, 2010).
Based on estimated emissions of 45,000 pounds of carbon equivalents per year
per household in the L9W, it was estimated that design and construction of
new housing according to sustainability guidelines would reduce emissions by
20,250 pounds per year per household. It was assumed that all new housing in
the L9W could be built according to sustainability guidelines.

Not only is carbon emitted during daily activities of a residence, but materi-
als used in construction convey “embodied carbon”, representing the carbon
needed to extract and process raw materials; equipment required to manufac-
ture products; and transportation of the finished products to end users (EPA,


2010). As mentioned previously, these are considered Scope 3 emissions, which
are generally beyond the scope of this analysis.

However, the Scope 3 carbon savings from building houses according to sus-
tainability guidelines are so significant as to warrant mention. Based on the
model shotgun cottage, a cottage built using non-sustainable materials would
generate 73.3 tons of embodied carbon, while a cottage built using green ma-
terials and practices would generate 43.8 tons, about a 40 percent decrease.
Material differences between a cottage designed and constructed according to
green criteria and a typical cottage include gypsum board from EcoRock, wood
flooring (instead of carpeting) in the bedrooms and living room, wood doors
(instead of aluminum), cellulose insulation, and concrete mixed with 25 per-
cent fly ash. While it would be inconsistent to use mitigation of Scope 3 emis-
sions to offset Scope 1 and 2 emissions, reducing embedded carbon is a benefit
of construction of new housing according to green criteria.

Development of neighborhoods according to sustainability guidelines would
be reflected in higher densities in areas of higher elevation and improved public
transportation. Such assumptions are reflected in the repopulation alternative.

Solar Photovoltaic Panels

Numerous L9W houses have solar photovoltaic panels, which produce electric-
ity that can be consumed or sold back to the electrical provider as part of “net
metering”. Some panels were purchased by homeowners and some were pro-
vided by donors or volunteers. Ten panels were provided to L9W homeowners
by Sharp Electronics, and Global Green has installed panels on the homes they
have constructed. Typical home systems in the L9W have a capacity of about
three kilowatts (kW) and an expected life of about 20 years.

Solar photovoltaic panels are one of the most popular forms of renewable en-
ergy. Solar panels are non-polluting and do not emit any GHGs (Solar Home,
2010). Based on Louisiana’s location, approximately three kilowatt hours
(kWh) per square meter per day of electricity could be generated from solar
energy (Johnson, 2009). Assuming four hours of peak sunlight per day, a three
kW system can produce 4,380 kWh per year, saving approximately 2.2 tons
of carbon. It was assumed in this analysis that all existing and new housing in
the L9W could have solar photovoltaic panels installed, which could save the
community 17,000 tons of carbon annually.

Recently, photovoltaic systems have cost approximately $6,000 per kW in-
stalled (Mike Murphy, 2012), although this cost has been declining signifi-
cantly in recent years, to as little as $3,000 per kW. To be conservative, historic
costs were used in this analysis. A typical three kW system, therefore, was esti-
mated to cost about $18,000 installed. Annualized over an expected life of 20
years at an interest rate of 6 percent per year (to be consistent with the Green
Building Studio), the cost is about $1,500 per year per system. Accounting for
energy savings of 4,380 kilowatt-hours would save the owner about $440 per
year, for a net annual cost of about $1,070 per year per household. Incorporat-

ing the Louisiana state tax credit of 50 percent and the Federal tax credit of 30
percent on solar energy investments, there is no longer an annual cost for solar
photovoltaic cells, but rather an annual gain of about $60. A solar energy sys-
tem is exempt from increasing a homeowner’s Louisiana state property taxes. It
was assumed that all new homes would be built with solar PV panels and that
all existing homes could install solar PV panels as well.

Solar Hot Water Heaters

The sun has been used to heat water for centuries. Solar hot water heaters are
very effective in warmer climates like Louisiana’s. A solar water heater can be
hurricane-resistant and provide 80 to 90 percent of annual water heating needs
(Solar Direct, 2010). There are two types of solar hot water heaters that have
been used in New Orleans, one of which is no longer permitted (Mike Mur-
phy, 2012). The system that is no longer allowed, which is cheaper at an initial
cost of about $6,700, is a direct system, with a schematic, shown in Figure 5.
The second system, the one used in our analysis and seen in Figure 6, costs
about $9,500 but can save about 2,800 kWh of electricity, for an annual sav-
ings of about $280, and reduce emissions by about two tons of carbon equiva-
lents per year. Over a 10 year lifespan, the annual cost is about $1,350, which
is comparable to solar PV panels. There is a rebate of either $750 or $1000 for
solar hot water heaters, depending on the size of the system, from Entergy New
Orleans. Combining this rebate with the 50 percent Louisiana state tax credit
and 30 percent Federal tax credit means a homeowner could actually be gain-
ing about $100 annually. It was assumed in this analysis that all new homes
could be built with solar hot water heaters and that up to 25 percent of existing
homes might upgrade their current system.

Figure 2.
Solar Hot Water Heaters
Direct Solar Hot Water Indirect Solar Hot Water


Improved Mechanical and Electrical Systems

Many opportunities exist to encourage consumers to purchase energy-efficient
mechanical and electrical systems. Improvements to heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems in L9W homes were analyzed
in terms of mitigation capability and cost. It was assumed that improved me-
chanical and electrical systems could be installed in all existing homes in the
L9W; new homes designed and constructed according to sustainability guide-
lines would include such systems.

Improved HVAC Systems

Based on an analysis using Green Building Studio to model energy savings from
improved HVAC systems, choosing or upgrading from a low-rated system (14
SEER rating) to a more highly-rated system (17 SEER rating) can save 4.45
tons of carbon equivalents annually per household. Energy Star© is currently
issuing a $300 tax credit on all HVAC systems that meet such requirements.
Additionally, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources offers a Home
Energy Rebate Option (HERO) for both existing and new homes, through
which each existing home can receive a rebate of $0.20 per kWh saved, with
a $3,000 maximum incentive, while new homes can receive $3,000 for re-
ducing the entire home’s energy costs by 50 percent through HVAC or other
improvements (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency,
2011). Though initial costs of highly efficient HVAC systems can be $6,000
or more, choosing an efficient system with a high SEER rating can save $560
a year on energy bills. Through energy savings and tax and other incentives, a
homeowner can save about $26 annually.

Improved Lighting Systems

Designing a home’s lighting system to efficiently use lighting power density
(LPD) is a cost-free way to save energy. The LPD is an evaluation of the watt-
age used per area of room lighted. If light fixtures are logically placed through-
out a home to reduce lighting intensity by just 20 percent, a home could save
$35 dollars in energy bills and 400 pounds of carbon equivalents annually. An
easy and convenient way to reduce energy usage and costs is to include occu-
pancy and daylight sensors in the home. Occupancy sensors can turn lights on
or off whenever someone enters or leaves a room. This takes the guesswork out
of switching lights on or off. Daylight sensors can dim or turn off light fixtures
when there is sufficient daylight available to brighten a room. Such a system
costs almost $1,400. However, through HERO, existing homes can receive
$0.20 per kWh saved with various improvements (lighting included), and new
homes can receive $2,000 for achieving a HERS (Home Energy Ratings Sys-
tem) rating of 70 or better (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency, 2011). Analyses performed using the Green Building Studio showed
that installing sensors and reducing LPD can save a household over $100 on
energy bills and reduce its carbon footprint by 1,600 pounds annually.


Improved Insulation, Doors, and Windows

Poor insulation and openings in the building envelope release warm air in the
winter, increasing heating costs, and have the reverse effect in the summer,
increasing cooling costs. Not only does increased HVAC usage for heating and
cooling increase costs, but also uses more energy and, therefore, generates more
carbon. The Green Building Studio was used to analyze the carbon savings of
improved insulation, doors, and windows in existing L9W houses.

New Orleans lies in Climate Zone 2. Each climate zone has specific ener-
gy code requirements to qualify for tax credits (U.S. Department of Energy,
2009). The Green Building Studio was used to analyze energy efficiency if
houses improved on code requirements. Increasing insulation, such as under
the CSED program to install thermal barriers in homes, would mitigate almost
800 pounds of carbon equivalents and reduce energy costs nearly $200 annu-
ally per household. Choosing code-minimum values or better, as well as install-
ing Energy Star© or Therma Star© doors and windows, can help maintain a
comfortable home environment as well as reduce the L9W carbon footprint. It
was assumed that improved insulation, doors, and windows could be installed
in all existing homes in the L9W; new homes designed and constructed accord-
ing to sustainability guidelines would include such features.

Green Spaces

Another mitigation method that could contribute to meeting L9W sustainabil-
ity goals is carbon sequestration, defined as “the removal and storage of carbon
from the atmosphere in carbon sinks (such as oceans, forests, or soils) through
physical or biological processes, such as photosynthesis” (GreenFacts, 2010).
By constructing parks or playgrounds, developing urban agriculture, or allow-
ing woodlands or wetlands to develop, carbon can be actively removed from
the atmosphere, decreasing the L9W’s carbon emissions. Trees sequester 1.27
tons of carbon per acre, green spaces sequester 0.5 tons per acre, and wetlands
sequester 11 tons per acre (Gebhard, Gleaston et al. and Wills et al., 1994).

Much of the L9W, particularly in the northern portion, remains vacant. Use
of such spaces for parks, playgrounds, urban agriculture, or woodlands or wet-
lands would eliminate carbon emissions that would result from development
of those areas as well as through sequestration.

For the repopulation base case, approximately 60 acres would be available for
green spaces in the L9W, making the total carbon sequestration potential ap-
proximately 60 tons annually, based on an average of one ton per acre. For the
repopulation alternative, an additional 100 acres north of Galvez could be used
for carbon sequestration through green spaces, for a total carbon sequestration
potential of approximately 160 tons of carbon per year, based on an average of
one ton per acre.

Development and maintenance of green spaces can involve little or no initial
and annual costs. The life of sequestration agents such as trees, bushes, and

other vegetation is as much as 50 years.

Bayou Bienvenue long served as a neighborhood wetland. If it is restored as
planned, it could serve as a sequestration agent. However, it is unlikely that
Bayou Bienvenue will be restored before 2020; in addition, active wetlands
are also emitters of GHGs, so it is not clear to what extent a renewed Bayou
Bienvenue would mitigate L9W GHG emissions.

Use of open spaces for parks, playgrounds, and other community functions
also contributes to neighborhood sustainability. There is a long and active tra-
dition in the L9W of backyard and neighborhood gardens. There are currently
several community gardens in the L9W, and several local organizations are
committed to supporting urban agriculture.

Carbon sequestration through development and maintenance of green spaces
appears to be a beneficial way to reduce carbon emissions for L9W at minimal
cost, although the mitigation impact is relatively insignificant. It should be
noted, however, that the savings from future emissions not generated (as well
as in terms of “embodied carbon”) as a result of not building greatly outweigh
the carbon savings from sequestration by green spaces.

De-construction

De-construction of buildings that cannot be renovated, and re-use of de-con-
structed materials, has been ongoing in the L9W. The Green Project, located
just outside the L9W, recycles salvaged building materials.

Numerous structures in the L9W could be de-constructed. The EPA estimates
that 70 percent of all materials from a building can be salvaged and recycled.
On average, deconstruction with maximum salvaged and recycled materials
costs about $4.50 to $5.40 per square foot, compared to $3.00 to $5.00 per
square foot for demolition. By de-constructing houses and recycling the ma-
terials, an estimated 1.7 tons of carbon can be saved per house. However, it
should be noted that this represents a reduction in Scope 3 emissions, as dis-
cussed previously, and could not be used to offset Scope 1 or 2 emissions (EPA,
2011).

Mitigating Institutional Emissions
Institutions such as schools and churches can be large carbon emitters. Schools
are high energy users so inherently emit a large amount of GHGs; because of
this, building energy-efficient schools has become a priority throughout the
country. The U.S. Green Building Council has LEED™ criteria for schools, and
there are numerous examples of energy-efficient schools and churches. Within
the L9W, schools will become more important as the population increases and
a younger population develops. As schools are built and repopulated, it will be
important to build energy-efficient schools. A typical school in the U.S. costs
about $150 per square foot. Building a green school adds about a $5 per square
foot premium onto these costs (Kats, 2006).


Energy efficient systems that are incorporated into school construction or ren-
ovation can save the equivalent of $7 per square foot over a period of 15 years.
This energy savings will make up for up for the “green” premium that is paid
on the initial costs.

Churches can also save on energy costs while reducing their carbon emissions
for little or no cost. Energy Star© has created a program designed to give
congregations tools and advice to help them lower their energy costs and also
cut their carbon emissions. Energy Star© states that their energy conserva-
tion advice can help churches reduce up to 30 percent of their energy costs
(Energy Star for Congregations, 2011). Lighting is one of the greatest con-
sumers of electricity in a church. Conservation measures include using energy
efficient lighting and lighting controls, which is a relatively inexpensive way of
decreasing energy costs. Depending on the congregation’s finances, such proj-
ects could be worthwhile.

Churches, schools, and other institutions could also implement mitigation
measures such as solar hot water heaters and solar photovoltaic panels. How-
ever, incentives and rebates that reduce the costs of such systems for homeown-
ers may not be available to institutions.

To some extent, the current lack of institutions in the L9W is an advantage;
new institutional facilities can be planned and designed to be sustainable. Esti-
mates of mitigation from institutional sources were based on the levels and mix
of institutional activity shown in Table 3.

Since the savings for churches, schools, and non-profit organizations are not in
the form of up-front payments, such organizations need to find methods of fi-
nancing energy-efficient projects to take advantage of tax and other incentives.
These could come in the form of lease-purchase options or power purchase
agreements.

Mitigating Commercial Emissions
While some carbon mitigation measures can be applied both to commercial
and residential properties, businesses have specific tax incentives that apply to
their projects. Within New Orleans, Entergy offers a rebate program that pro-
vides up to $0.14 per kWh in rebates for businesses. Small businesses, which
are defined as having an average peak demand less than 100 kW, are given
$0.14 per kWh for implementing energy-efficient technologies for lighting
and HVAC systems, doors, windows, insulation, and any other technology
that results in measurable electricity use reduction. Businesses that have a peak
demand greater than 100 kW are also eligible to receive $0.10 per kWh saved
on lighting improvements and $0.12 per kWh saved on all other improve-
ments.

There is also a Federal tax deduction from which businesses can receive be-


tween $0.30 and $1.80 per square foot for energy-efficient investments. The
amount of the deduction depends on whether the building reaches certain
benchmarks for energy savings as defined by the Federal Energy Policy Act. The
deduction includes eligible technologies such as lighting and HVAC systems,
doors, windows, insulation, siding, and roofs. There are also Federal tax credits
of 30 percent on solar technology similar to the credits for residential proper-
ties (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2011).

Estimating mitigation from commercial sources is highly dependent on the
forecast of future commercial activity in the L9W. Estimates used in this analy-
sis were based on the levels and mix of commercial activity shown in Table 3.

Conclusions
Not surprisingly, it does not appear feasible for the L9W to repopulate to pre-
Katrina levels and develop economically without increasing its carbon foot-
print. However, it does appear feasible to repopulate and develop while meet-
ing the Obama administration goal of reducing carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels. To do so could involve costs to L9W residents ranging from
nothing to over $5 million per year, depending on repopulation and develop-
ment policies and the mitigation measures employed.

It appears possible to meet the Obama administration goal with residential mit-
igation measures under the economic development base case, which assumes
that incomes and economic activity in the L9W return to pre-Katrina levels.
As shown in Table 6, no mitigation would be required under the economic
development base case/repopulation alternative scenario, which assumes that
incomes and economic activity return to pre-Katrina levels but that repopu-
lation is clustered in areas of higher elevation; a combination of behavioral
changes and solar measures could easily meet the mitigation required under
the economic development base case/repopulation base case scenario, which
assumes that incomes, economic activity, and population distributions return
to pre-Katrina levels.

Economic development, while highly desirable, increases mitigation require-
ments. If the incomes of L9W residents increase to the national average, the
challenges and costs of achieving the Obama administration goal increase sig-
nificantly.

It may be possible to achieve the Obama administration goal for the economic
development alternative/repopulation alternative scenario, which assumes that
incomes in the L9W increase to the national average and repopulation is clus-
tered in areas of higher elevation, if mitigation from commercial and insti-
tutional sources is included. Achieving the Obama goal under the economic
development alternative/repopulation base case scenario, which assumes that
incomes in the L9W increase to the national average and population distribu-
tions return to pre-Katrina levels, would require extraordinary efforts.


As detailed in Table 7, the most cost-effective carbon mitigation measures in-
volve behavioral changes. Awareness of energy use can lead to reductions in
usage. Use of CFLs and reduced use or elimination of window air condition-
ers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers can reduce carbon emissions while saving
money. Unfortunately, behavioral changes have limited mitigation capacity.
De-construction and development of green spaces have minimal costs but lim-
ited mitigation capacity. However, behavioral changes and use of open spaces
for parks, playgrounds, and other community functions can also contribute to
neighborhood sustainability and community engagement.

Solar hot water heaters are cost-effective, saving almost $100 per year, and are
therefore highly desirable for a homeowner. In addition, installation of solar
hot water heaters has significant mitigation capacity, making this among the
most desirable mitigation measures. Likewise, solar photovoltaic panels save
almost $60 annually and have a large mitigation capacity. It should be noted,
as mentioned previously, that the prices of solar photovoltaic panels have been
dropping significantly over the past few years, but conservative estimates based
on historic prices were used in this analysis; if prices continue to drop, solar
photovoltaic panels will become increasingly cost-effective. Improved HVAC
systems will save homeowners about $26 annually, but homeowners could save
even more by using the highest rated machines available. HVAC systems also
have considerable mitigation capacity, which makes them desirables upgrades
to choose.

Energy-efficient doors and windows, lighting controls, and insulation do not
save money, but cost less than $500 per household per year. Improved me-
chanical systems have significant mitigation capacity at relatively minimal cost.

Sustainable design and construction practices cost about $1,100 per house-
hold per year. However, such measures have the greatest mitigation capacity.
It should be noted that the premium used for sustainable construction in this
analysis was intentionally very conservative, so it is unlikely that the cost would
be greater than $1,100 per year.


Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report

Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report

Similar to Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lower 9th Ward Carbon Model Report