GWU ENRP Capstone Project

Community Resilience Hubs (CRHs): Improving resilience to extreme weather events in vulnerable D.C.

neighborhoods

Client: Department of Energy & Environment

Tyler Bailey, Kinshuk Chatterjee, Carlos Villacis, Minli Wang

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………..….2

Chapter I: Project Overview

Introduction…………………………………………….......................4

The Community Resilience Hub Vision………………………..…….9

Project Framework…………………………………………….…….14

Chapter II: Methodology and Results

Step 1: Select a Target Community……………………..….....….…16

Step 2: List Potential Facilities…………………...……………..…..18

Step 3: Narrow List of Candidates………………………………..…20

Step 4: Select Potential Facility………………..……………………23

Step 5: Assess Necessary Upgrades…………...………………….…26

Sensitivity Analysis……………………………………………….…30

Chapter III: Discussion

Key Findings………………………………………………….……..33

Limitations…………………………………………………………..34

Chapter Ⅳ: Recommendation and Next Steps

Next Steps for Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood……………....36

Policy Recommendations………………………………….………...37

Conclusion………………………………………………...………...39

Appendix

Appendix 1: Sources of On-site Power Generation……………...….41

Appendix 2: Scoring …………………………………………..........43

Appendix 3: Energy Upgrade Finance Options……………………..48

Appendix 4: Map of Priority Planning Areas……………………….50

Appendix 5: Florida Avenue Baptist Church Estimates…………….51

Bibliography………………………………………………………........................54

2

Executive Summary

Washington D.C. is projected to experience an increase in the severity and frequency of

flooding, heavy precipitation, and heat waves in the coming decades. Such extreme weather

events are often associated with communities experiencing periods of prolonged power loss, as

was the case in during Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The D.C. Department of Energy and

Environment (DOEE) identified community resilience hubs (CRHs) as a means of potentially

increasing the resilience of communities against such events, with resilience being defined as the

ability to prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption. Therefore, we produced

this report to provide DOEE with the following: 1) a clarification of the characteristics of an

effective CRH, 2) a framework for establishing a CRH, and 3) the results of a pilot project for

establishing a CRH in a vulnerable D.C. neighborhood.

Through our research, we established a working understanding of the characteristics of a CRH,

and the services it would provide. A CRH is a facility within a community which, during and

immediately following an extreme weather event, acts as a temporary gathering point for

residents to access key services, including food, water, shelter, and access to power. To

accomplish this, this facility would be equipped with distributed power generation technologies,

as well as a means of battery storage, in order to provide these services during a weather induced

outage.

We established a general framework for identifying an existing facility that is best suited to act

as a CRH. Our hope is that this framework can be used not only in D.C., but also by other cities

who are exploring the option of developing CRHs. This framework begins with the selection of a

community to launch a CRH in, ideally being one that is particularly vulnerable to extreme

weather events. A list is compiled of various facilities within this community that can be

potential CRHs, which is then narrowed down based on how well suited they are. Facilities are

evaluated through a set of criteria we established, which consider characteristics such as size,

location, available technologies, and community familiarity of the building. Upon selection of a

facility based on this evaluation, the necessary upgrades for the selected facility are identified,

and the means of financing such upgrades are explored, including grants, loans, and partnerships

with local businesses and NGOs.

In order to test our framework, we conducted a pilot study in the Bloomingdale/LeDroit

neighborhood, identified in DOEE’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment as being particularly

vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events. Through our analysis, we identified Florida

Avenue Baptist Church as the best candidate to serve as a CRH for this community. Our pilot

3

study revealed the effectiveness of our framework, but also showcased shortcomings in our

methodology. Shortcomings included our inability to develop a thorough list of the costs of

necessary upgrades and sources for funding them, as this process took more time and

cooperation with building owners than initially anticipated. Additionally, we found that the

choice of a facility could differ based on community preferences such as cost and location of the

site. In hindsight, our approach would have been more effective if the priorities of the

community were understood at an earlier stage, through discussions with community members

and civic associations.

We provided recommendations for the Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood, as well as for

policymakers in other cities. For Bloomingdale/LeDroit, we recommend exploring funding

options for a battery storage system, as well as additional solar panels, to be installed in Florida

Avenue Baptist Church. We feel the process would be most effective if done through a

leveraging of existing networks. For example, Howard University expressed interest in

contributing student labor among other resources towards the establishment of a CRH, and the

local civic associations could facilitate residential engagement. This process would enhance

community ownership of the process, which would increase the effectiveness of the hub.

We recommend cities exploring CRHs to develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to

streamline efforts and funds between agencies. Existing community resources should be invited

to form partnerships and networks committed to cooperating on CRH establishment, and should

use our framework as a tool to facilitate the process. Cities adopting our framework are

recommended to conduct program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of our suggestions, and

to utilize tools developed by other cities exploring similar projects.

4

CHAPTER I: PROJECT OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Objective

The objective of this project is to develop a set of recommendations for the development of

community resilience hubs in vulnerable neighborhoods within the District of Columbia.

Community resilience hubs (CRHs) are meant to serve as local gathering places for residents

following extreme weather events. In the CRH detailed in this project, residents will be able to

access key services, such as meeting basic power needs, in the event of an electrical grid failure.

Our project consists of three major undertakings: 1) identifying the key characteristics of a CRH,

2) developing a framework for establishing a CRH, and 3) conducting a pilot project in a D.C.

neighborhood, putting our framework to use and analyzing its effectiveness.

Our CRH framework entails the identification of vulnerable communities, the selection of a

facility to serve as a CRH, and a delineation of the practical steps needed to convert this facility

into a functional CRH. We then use this framework to conduct a pilot project for a vulnerable

neighborhood within D.C., summarize our results, and use these findings to present a series of

general recommendations. It is our hope that these findings and recommendations can be used by

the District government, and other cities, to plan and implement CRHs in vulnerable

communities.

Key Definitions

Before discussing our overall methodology, it is important to set and define key parameters. We

begin with a discussion of resilience. The U.S Climate Resilience Toolkit, a set of online Federal

resources designed to help local entities adapt to the impacts of climate change, defines

resilience as, “The capacity of a community, business, or natural environment to prevent,

withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption.”1 This definition is both robust and

malleable, and we choose to adopt it for the purposes of this report. However, we chose here to

specify “disruption” as any weather event involving extreme heat, precipitation, or flooding

conditions. These weather phenomena were designated by the D.C. Department of Energy and

1 U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. (2016).

5

Environment (DOEE) as the key weather challenges faced by the District, and so resilience to

these events will be our primary concern.2

Table 1: Key terms and definitions

Term Definition

Resilience The capacity of a community, business, or natural environment to

prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption.3

Vulnerability Vulnerability to climate change is expressed as a function of exposure,

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.4

Community

resilience hub

(CRH)

A communal facility with independent distributed energy generation

capacity, which is open and accessible to the public during and after

extreme weather events.

Extreme

weather

events

Weather conditions consisting of one or more of the following: heat

waves, extreme precipitation events, and floods.

Vulnerable

communities

Communities that are disproportionately exposed to, sensitive to, and

unable to adapt to the consequences of extreme weather events, either

due to geographical or demographic factors.

Key services Access to food, water, electricity, and communications.

Here we note a key distinction between weather and climate: whereas “climate” refers to long-

term changes in the general atmospheric conditions, “weather” simply refers to the atmospheric

events present on any given day (and is not necessarily linked to long-term trends associated

with human activities). Climate change threatens to increase the severity of extreme weather

events, and so for this report, we use projected changes in the localized climate surrounding the

D.C. area when discussing the likelihood of extreme weather events.

Next, we introduce a precise definition for community resilience hub (CRH). For this project, we

are describing a CRH as a communal facility with independent energy generation capacity,

2 Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). Vulnerability & Risk Assessment for the District of Columbia Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Washington, DC: DOEE. 3 Op. cit., fn 1. 4 Op. Cit., fn 2.

6

which can provide basic power needs in the event of an electrical grid failure. This emphasis on

energy generation was selected because of the high occurrence of power outages following

natural disasters, which is described in greater detail in the Project Purpose section below.

It is also important to note the distinction between CRHs, emergency shelters, and disaster

shelters (such as those provided by the Red Cross). Emergency shelters are designed to protect

homeless populations from the physical effects of extreme weather events.5 Disaster shelters are

meant to provide physical shelter to all residents following natural disasters.6 A CRH, on the

other hand, is primarily meant to provide key services to residents during and after extreme

weather events. Unlike the other facilities, CRHs do not provide overnight shelter. The

distinction is important because of the legal barriers preventing emergency shelters from being

developed in high-risk regions, such as flood zones, which are the primary areas of interest for

this project.7 These restrictions do not apply to CRHs, making them a valuable resource for

residents in these regions who do not have the resources to relocate from their residences, but

still require general assistance during an extreme weather event. These population groups are the

primary subjects of this research project.

Finally, we discuss our definition for vulnerable communities. For the purposes of this project,

we chose to focus on communities that are disproportionately exposed to, sensitive to, and

unable to adapt to the consequences of extreme weather events. We borrow our definition of

vulnerability from the DOEE Climate Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, which described

vulnerability to climate change as being expressed as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and

adaptive capacity.8 The vulnerability can be caused by geographical or demographic factors.

Geographical factors include low elevation relative to sea level, and proximity to floodplains.

Demographic factors refer to socio-economic conditions such as age, gender, income, residence

type, and health status9. Elderly individuals, women, the disabled, the sick, residents of public

housing, and low-income groups in general have been suggested to be particularly vulnerable to

an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.10

Project purpose

5 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (n.d.). Glossary of HUD terms. 6 American Red Cross. Find Open Shelters. 7 Pyne, M. (2016, February 20). Discussion on Global Green USA Resilience Efforts [Telephone interview]. 8 Op. Cit., fn 2. 9 Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and behavior, 40(1), 72-95. 10 Martine, G., & Schensul, D. (2013). The demography of adaptation to climate change. UNFPA, IIED, and El Colegio de México.

7

Climate change and extreme weather events affect individuals across all levels of society, but

tends to affect those in certain geographic locations, as well as different socio-economic groups,

more than others. The purpose of this project is to develop a centralized source of communal

resources that will help protect these vulnerable populations, and facilitate their transition back to

normal life.

The need for additional resources has been highlighted in a number of recent severe weather

phenomena. During Hurricane Sandy, nearly 350,000 residences in New Jersey were damaged,

with nearly one-third of these belonging to low-income residents.11 Similarly, communities that

were low-income, geographically vulnerable, or both, were among the most afflicted populations

during Hurricane Katrina.12 Residents of these vulnerable communities were especially

vulnerable to extreme weather events due to substandard housing conditions, their inability to

relocate, and a general lack of access to key services such as food, water, and electricity.13

Lack of electricity access was a major concern during both Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. As a

result of Hurricane Sandy, 8.5 million people lost power for a period of time, and 82 percent of

customers on the Gulf Coast lost power during Hurricane Katrina.14 An electrical failure can

often have cascading effects. When residents of high-rise apartment complexes lose power, they

also lose access to elevators, which can be essential for elderly or disabled individuals.15 Power

outages also impair refrigeration, which can lead to spoliation of food and medicine.16 Following

Hurricane Sandy, there was a surge in cases of carbon monoxide poisoning and hypothermia, as

power losses can impair key services including heating, air conditioning, and access to cooking

appliances and communications (whether by phone or email).17

Government entities have developed a number of national and local-level policies to improve

resilience to climate change. At the Federal level, the Obama Administration issued Executive

Order 13653: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,18 and Public Policy

11 Fogel, A., Hayes, J., Horowitz, B., Kent, A., Parson, C., Isaac, A., & Thomas, T. (2014). Addressing Multifamily Affordable Rental Housing Needs after Superstorm Sandy. 12 Zoraster, R.M. "Vulnerable populations: Hurricane Katrina as a case study." Prehospital and disaster medicine 25.01 (2010): 74-78. 13 Ibid. 14 Deodatis, G., Bruce R. Ellingwood, and Dan M. Frangopol, eds. Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance of structures and infrastructures. CRC Press, 2014. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Fink, S. (2012). Hypothermia and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Cases Soar in City After Hurricane. 18 The White House. (2013). Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. (2013).

8

Directive 8, which established national preparedness goals.19 At the local level, the D.C.

government has enacted the Sustainable D.C. Act, which set goals to identify infrastructure

vulnerabilities and enhance the District’s resilience to climate change impacts.20 In addition,

local agencies like the DOEE and the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Agency (HSEMA) are assessing vulnerabilities and possible responses.21 These policies have

established a solid foundation on which to build resilience efforts.

In addition to the aforementioned policy mandates, financial resources have been made available

to improve resilience. This includes the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, which

included Federal funding for post-Sandy resilience efforts,22 as well as the Housing and Urban

Development Administration’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which

disbursed $157 million to South Carolina communities to respond to significant rainfall and

flooding.23 These Federal resources have been supplemented by a number of private

organizations with similar goals of improving resilience, including the Rockefeller Foundation’s

100 Resilient Cities initiative.24 Despite these political and financial incentives, work on pre-

disaster planning efforts, particularly at the community level, have been limited, as most of the

funds have been dedicated to rebuilding and recovery efforts.

For this project, we choose to focus on community resilience hubs (CRHs), which are facilities

designed to provide key services to community residents following natural disasters. In addition

to being relatively cost-effective, CRHs can be developed fairly quickly and with minimum

regulatory challenges. Finally, using already well-known facilities within the community can

increase awareness and use of communal resources.25

For this project, we sought to develop a framework for establishing climate resilience hubs that

can meet electricity needs and provide other key services to residents of vulnerable communities.

Our main consideration was power availability, since electrical outages are one of the most

prevalent and disruptive consequences of extreme weather events. We focused on vulnerable

communities, since these are the most likely to have difficulty recovering from a severe weather

event. For hubs, we looked at facilities including churches, schools, and local government

offices, since these buildings were most likely to qualify for grant funding or other financial

19 Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Learn About Presidential Policy Directive-8. 20 D.C. Government. (2012). Sustainable DC Act. 21 D.C. Government. (2012). Emergency Management. 22 Painter, W. L., & Brown, J. T. (2013, February 19). FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief. 23U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Community Development Block Grant Program – CDBG. 24 100 Resilient Cities. (2016). Cities. 25 Op. cit., fn 7.

9

incentives that would facilitate the installation of resilient energy technologies. These facilities

also tend to hold a central role within communities as gathering points. Throughout this project,

we identify key difficulties, and attempt to develop solutions that are efficient, cost-effective, and

feasible.

THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE HUB VISION A CRH is a communal facility with independent distributed energy generation capacity, which is

open and accessible to the public during and after extreme weather events. When not functioning

as a CRH, this facility will run normal operations in accordance with the building’s original

purpose. Only during and immediately after emergencies will the facility take up its CRH role. In

this section, we aim to describe our vision for what an effective CRH looks like.

In order to develop a preliminary framework for establishing community resilience hubs, our

initial research stage required the exploration of existing academic and gray literature, as well as

discussions with experts from existing community resilience projects. Through this research

phase, we sought to answer the following questions: 1) What are the needs of communities

during extreme weather events, 2) what features of facilities enable them to act as effective

CRHs, and 3) how can costs be minimized in a CRH project?

What are the needs of communities during extreme weather events?

An effective CRH should be able to meet the key needs of the community during emergencies,

which for the purposes of our report, we have narrowed to the weather events of heat waves,

extreme precipitation, and floods. Thus, it was crucial to identify needs specific to such events,

in order to identify the means for meeting them. While these needs could be specific to either

floods or heatwaves, most were relevant for both categories of events, thus reiterating their

importance. The needs we identified were access to communication, first aid, food, water, air

conditioning during heat waves, and shelter during floods.

Communication

During extreme weather events, it is necessary to maintain an avenue of communication between

community members and those outside the community.26 Means of communication include

access to telephones (either mobile or landline), the Internet, televisions, and radio. Such

communication bolsters the ability of residents to be updated on weather and efforts to restore

power, and enables the sharing of information between public officials, medical providers, and

26 Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2007). Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6.

10

citizens.27 New media (including social media such as Facebook and Twitter) have been an

increasingly effective means for local governments and NGOs to communicate with Federal and

state governments.28 In addition to providing the infrastructure necessary for maintaining these

avenues of communication, training community partners to utilize these resources for

information dissemination is key to ensuring timeliness, quality, and consistency of the flow of

information.29 As such, a CRH would be most effective if it maintained the ability to provide the

Internet, charge cellular devices, and use TVs and radios during power outages.

First Aid

Disasters can oftentimes hinder the ability of individual communities to receive external aid,

potentially creating a gap in available resources for emergency medical assistance.30 For

example, flooding may limit the ability of ambulances to deliver people and medical supplies

between hospitals and the affected communities. There is a need for trained and well-equipped

personnel within the community to administer primary medical aid in such cases. Thus, it is

pertinent to build a network of community members who are capable of taking on such

responsibilities.31 Additionally, when looking beyond typical first aid kits, many medical

supplies require refrigeration.32 Our vision of a CRH includes a network of local citizens trained

to administer medical aid, who will gather at the facility during such extreme weather events. A

CRH would provide a supply of medical tools, medicine, and a refrigeration system that can

maintain power during regional outages.

Food/Water

Vulnerable populations, during and following disasters, often require support in accessing food

and clean water, due to limitations in mobility.33 Stockpiling non-perishable food and water for

27 Ibid. 28 Chandra, A., Acosta, J., Stern, S., Uscher-Pines, L., Williams, M. V., Yeung, D., Meredith, L. S. (n.d.). Building Community Resilience to Disasters: A Way Forward to Enhance National Health Security. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e530792011-001. 29 Ibid. 30 Guha-Sapir, D., & Lechat, M. F. (1986). Information systems and needs assessment in natural disasters: An approach for better disaster relief management. Disasters, 10(3), 232-237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.1986.tb00594.x 31 Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen Response to Disasters: A Survey of Literature and Some Practical Implications. J Contingencies & Crisis Man Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12(3), 98-111. doi:10.1111/j.0966-0879.2004.00440.x 32 Arrieta, M. I., Foreman, R. D., Crook, E. D., & Icenogle, M. L. (2008). Insuring Continuity of Care for Chronic Disease Patients After a Disaster: Key Preparedness Elements. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 336(2), 128-133. doi:10.1097/maj.0b013e318180f209 33 Brodie, M., Weltzien, E., Altman, D., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2006). Experiences of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning. Am J Public Health American Journal of Public Health, 96(8), 1402-1408. doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.084475.

11

distribution during and after disasters addresses this need. A CRH would benefit from having a

dedicated amount of storage of food and water.

Air Conditioning

During heat waves, low-income households may lack the air conditioning resources necessary to

keep temperatures at a safe level.34 Additionally, the increased use of air conditioning equipment

in an area can overwhelm the energy grid, causing power outages which leave those with the

proper equipment without the ability to utilize them.35 Many communities have existing

designated cooling centers, but these are often limited in their ability to function during power

outages. In considering such dangers of heat waves, an effective CRH would provide cooling

capabilities that are independent of the status of the overall energy grid.

Shelter

In the case of floods and heavy precipitation, households may find essential resources

compromised due to their placement in vulnerable areas of the house (e.g. provisions stored in

basements), and may also face sewage backup, leading to exposure to hazardous materials,

making a residence un-inhabitable.36 During the flooding of streets, access to areas outside of the

immediate neighborhoods may be compromised, thus raising the need for resources within close

proximity to vulnerable population areas. A CRH located in a flood-vulnerable area must keep

these factors in mind, ensuring that those who take refuge in such facilities will find relief from

sewage and floodwater, and the problems associated with them.

What features of facilities enable them to act as effective community resilience

hubs?

Different facility types provide varying strengths and weaknesses in terms of functionality, and

considering them collectively is a key aspect of our methodology. Our research of the

characteristics that describe effective CRHs is utilized in crafting a framework for selecting a

CRH site. In order to meet the community needs described above, effective CRHs should 1)

maintain power during outages, 2) be a facility that is familiar to residents, and 3) be within

walking distance of vulnerable residents.

34 Reid, C., O'neill, M., Gronlund, C., Brines, S., Brown, D., Diez-Roux, A., & Schwartz, J. (2009). Mapping Community Determinants of Heat Vulnerability. Environ. Health Perspect. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.0900683 35 Perez, R., Letendre, S., & Herig, C.(2001). PV and grid reliability: availability of PV power during capacity shortfalls. FORUM-PROCEEDINGS-. AMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOC & THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 36 Gatterdam, M., & Moisio, S. (2014). Using a Framework to Determine Relative Overflow Consequences for the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Proc Water Environ Fed, 2014(15), 1795-1818. doi:10.2175/193864714815938724.

12

Ability to provide power during outage

Frequently, floods and heat waves result in power outages, due to causes such as high demand

and physical damages to local power stations along transmission lines. Such outages disrupt the

capacity of individuals to meet their needs in terms of communication, first aid, food preparation,

and heat relief. As these affected persons turn to a CRH to meet these needs, it is essential that

said facility maintain electrical functions during such events.

To do so, facilities will require on-site energy generation, from distributed energy sources such

as solar panels, miniature wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps (see Appendix 1 for further

information concerning these energy sources). Propane and diesel generators are also capable of

producing electricity during outages, but for the purposed of a CRH, we consider them a

secondary asset to the aforementioned distributed energy sources. Our reasoning behind this

includes the fossil fuel characteristic of these sources, which produces emissions which

contribute to climate change, and in turn, contribute to extreme weather events. However, we

acknowledge the temporary benefits of CRHs having such backup power generation capacities.

On-site power generation during outages using distributed energy sources will require a battery

storage system. Without a power storage system, electricity generated by distributed energy

sources will be inaccessible during grid failures.37 Batteries will store excess energy produced

during normal operation, and during outages, can allow for continued use of distributed energy

despite grid failure. Ensuring that such upgrades are in line with building codes, as well as

financial restrictions, are significant challenges.

Familiarity in the community

For community members to gather at a facility during times of crisis, it is helpful to have an

atmosphere that is inviting, familiar, and comfortable, as opposed to a facility which an

individual may be visiting for the first time.38 This could be represented by a community house

of worship, recreation center, or school, where social gatherings are already held on a consistent

basis. This will create ease in organizing educational events in order to train community

members to be better prepared during a crisis, and will lessen the hesitation that already exists

when individuals consider leaving the comfort of their homes during such stressful times.

Minimal distance from vulnerable residents

Vulnerable populations can include senior citizens, impoverished individuals, and those with

disabilities, who may have exceptional difficulty in getting around during an extreme weather

37 Environmental and Energy Study Institute. (2016). Solar Power and Resilient Design for Schools and Shelters. 38 The role of pastoral crisis intervention in disasters, terrorism, violence, and other community crises. (2003). Disaster Management & Response, 1(3), 93. doi:10.1016/s1540-2487(03)00055-5.

13

event. Unfortunately, these individuals oftentimes are the ones who could benefit the most from

the services provided at a CRH, and thus, the closer the hub is to where these people reside, the

more effective it can be. A facility that is beyond walking distance from its target population

may be inaccessible, and therefore, a CRH is most effective when in a central location in the

neighborhood to maximize its proximity to those vulnerable to disasters.

How can costs be minimized in resilience hubs?

In developing a CRH, funds are typically limited, and it is therefore necessary to minimize costs.

This not only makes projects more attractive, but improves replicability, as resource-rich

communities typically have less of a need for such facilities, but communities with a high

percentage of vulnerable population often lack financial backing. Such efficiency also improves

the likelihood of facility owner cooperation, and increases the sustainability of the CRH

program.

In terms of reducing costs, it is helpful to focus on essential services. The energy load needed to

meet these needs is considered the critical load. For example, large schools and recreation

centers may install solar panels to ensure energy production during power outages, but need not

install a large enough capacity to power the whole school. By installing a capacity equal to the

levels needed to meet communication, lighting, and other key needs, the school can ignore

powering unnecessary services during such events, and save on installation costs. Similarly,

batteries can be expensive, and studying load demand can help identify the smallest possible

battery size necessary. Propane tanks/diesel generation can also be used as a complimentary

resource in terms of emergency power. It may be helpful to consider upgrading buildings that

already employ a variety of these features, in order to avoid duplicative costs.

Additionally, community ownership of a project can provide cost reduction opportunities, as

volunteers can be trained among local residents to take on roles during emergencies, reducing the

need to hire outside help. Communities can also organize fundraisers, solicit donations from

stakeholders, and utilize networks to identify potential grants that can be taken advantage of to

fund any upgrades. This also increases the likelihood that community members who are involved

in the project will spread information about this resource, ensuring that the facility is fully

utilized during times of need.

For funding necessary upgrades for a CRH, there are a variety of grants and tax credits available,

some specific to certain upgrades, and others for more general use. For example, investment tax

credits allow owners of facilities a one-time tax credit of 30 percent of installation costs, 39 and

certain facilities can qualify for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, allowing for loans with 0

39 U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC).

14

percent interest rates for renewable energy generation projects (see Appendix 3 for more

information on energy upgrade finance options).40

When identifying existing buildings with the potential to be upgraded into CRHs, it is useful to

keep in mind that more often than not, the facility will not be used for such purposes. Thus, the

house of worship or school may seek out ancillary benefits available to them by taking on this

role. These can take the form of power purchase agreements, which allow the facility owners to

take advantage of lower energy costs during normal operations.41 Also, the site can be used to

educate those in the neighborhood who would like to learn more about resilience, clean energy,

and community organizations. Such co-benefits, combined with the afore-mentioned cost

reduction methods, can be combined to increase the attractiveness of a CRH.

Conclusion

We identified various needs that a resilience hub must meet, the means of meeting such needs,

and the methods of minimizing the costs of such efforts. Key findings include:

A. Facilities should provide relief in the form of access to communication, first aid, food, water,

air conditioning, and shelter. Access to electricity is a critical aspect of providing these services.

B. Potential facilities should be judged based on building features, location, and cultural

significance.

C. The costs of establishing a CRH can be minimized through monitoring energy use, engaging

the community, and taking advantage of financial incentives.

Using these findings, we can develop a series of criteria, which can be used to identify facilities

that have the potential to become CRH locations.

PROJECT FRAMEWORK Based off of our initial findings, we crafted a framework for establishing a community resilience

hub. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the framework. The following chapter

expands upon our methodology in further detail, and is accompanied by specific results

pertaining to our pilot project in D.C. through which we tested the framework’s effectiveness.

40 U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS). 41 Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Power Purchase Agreement.

15

Figure 1: CRH Funnel Framework

A funnel approach was adopted for identifying a facility suited to act as a CRH, as is illustrated

in Figure 1. This approach, referred to hereafter as the funnel framework, employs a series of

steps through which a large number of potential facilities is narrowed down to one or two

candidates. As the list of candidates shrinks in each step of the process, increased scrutiny is

placed on the remainders, requiring more intensive data collection and analysis. We initially

begin by selecting a community in which a CRH would contribute most to bolstering community

resilience. Upon selection of a community, a list of potential facilities is compiled, identifying all

houses of worship, schools, public buildings, and other large facilities in the area. This is

followed by a narrowing of the list, using a set of criteria to eliminate facilities which are not a

good fit. Among the remaining facilities, another set of criteria are employed to identify the most

qualified facility to undergo a transition to a CRH. Finally, the costs for such a transition are

calculated, identifying the necessary upgrades and the means to fund them.

The funnel framework was tested via our pilot project. We then analyze the results in order to

identify key findings, difficulties, and a series of next steps for DOEE concerning a D.C. CRH.

We also try to generalize recommendations so as to be applicable to other cities and

communities.

16

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

In this chapter, we lay out our detailed methodology for establishing a community resilience hub,

which can be applied generally by any city/community. We follow each step by presenting the

results of a pilot project in which we put the funnel framework to use in Washington D.C. The

chapter concludes with a sensitivity analysis of the spreadsheet tool we developed for evaluating

facilities.

Step 1: Select a Target Community

Methodology

The first step involves selecting the community in which a CRH will be developed. This

approach is driven by efficiency, as screening facilities across an entire city, or even multiple

communities, would be far too time-consuming. Communities, which we define as a

neighborhood or set of adjacent neighborhoods, can be selected based on their vulnerability to

the disasters or risks of particular concern. This requires the development or analysis of a

vulnerability assessment to determine the risks that are salient to a city, and identify the specific

communities that are most exposed to those risks. When planning for the first of a series of

CRHs in a city, it would be best to locate it in a community where it can have the most impact.

When planning resilience strategies, it is helpful to identify communities with a history of

difficulty in handling extreme weather events. These communities are most in need of the

services a CRH provides. Also helpful are projections for areas where future events are likely, as

well as the identification of resources that are useful during such occurrences, and the location of

areas which lack access to said resources. Socio-economic and geographic characteristics of

communities which increase vulnerability to such events, including areas of poverty and flood

plains, should also be considered. Ultimately, the criteria for selecting a community will depend

on the goals of the specific hub.

Results

The goal for the project was to identify a potential resilience hub for a D.C. neighborhood

vulnerable to power outages caused by heat waves, extreme precipitation, and floods. A

vulnerability assessment of D.C. was developed in the past year and released in 2016 by

17

DOEE.42 Within the report, DOEE identified five priority planning areas with the most at-risk

infrastructure, community resources, and population. The analysis included considerations of

flood prone rivers, flood basins, projections of precipitation patterns, floods, and heat waves, as

well as an assessment of the locations where such disruptions would have the highest impact.

The study identified vulnerable populations as having a high density of unemployment, low

education attainment, and poverty, as these groups were less able to cope with flooding and heat.

The five priority planning areas identified are the following, and were not ranked in terms of risk

(see map in Appendix 4):

Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park

Watts Branch

Federal Triangle

South of the Capitol to Buzzards Point

Area along Potomac River by Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility

The neighborhood of Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park was selected as the location of our pilot study

(see Figure 2). The rate of poverty in the area was relatively high, suggesting that residents may

not have the means to re-locate during weather events which leave them without electricity. In

terms of the history of the neighborhood, we were drawn by the area already battling flood,

power loss, and sewage problems. Community engagement is facilitated in that there is already a

neighborhood concern concerning extreme weather events, unlike other communities where we

would have to convince residents of projected future scenarios. Finally, this area has the most

well defined borders, and was of a manageable size, thus making it the most convenient for us to

evaluate.

42 Op.cit. fn 2

18

Figure 2: Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park Neighborhood Map

Step 2: List Potential Facilities

Methodology

Using maps, visits, and discussions with community members, a list of potential facilities can be

crafted in the selected community. These facilities can include schools, designated cooling

centers, houses of worship, recreation centers, and other existing buildings that stand out as

being spacious enough for people to gather at. In this stage, it is better to collect a vast array of

facilities which will be later narrowed, rather than missing out on potential locations. As long as

the facility is relatively large and in the neighborhoods, it is worth marking down.

In searching for potential CRH facilities, a simultaneous search can be conducted for community

resources. Community resources were loosely defined as potential assets that could serve

supporting roles in either establishing the CRH or offering services during extreme weather

events such as helping to distribute medicine to the facility or providing food and water.

19

Results

Through a scan of the Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood using Google Maps, both on the

standard and satellite view, we initially identified 19 potential facilities. These included

churches, schools, a recreation center, dormitory, non-profit organization, and a dance studio

(see Figure 3). The recreation center, Harry Thomas, was included despite being located in the

neighborhood of Eckington, bordering Bloomingdale to the East. Our reasoning behind this was

that it is a designated cooling center, which would require fewer upgrades than other facilities in

becoming a CRH, and we decided it was worth further consideration, especially since this was

still an exploratory stage.

Community resources identified in this search include Howard Hospital, the Common Good City

Farm, and local stores such as Volcano Grocery and Walgreens. These resources are not

displayed in Figure 3, but a complete list can be found in Table 8, Appendix 2.

Figure 3: Potential Facilities in the Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood

20

Step 3: Narrow List of Candidates

Methodology

A set of criteria is needed to narrow down the selection of facilities. In order to accomplish this

task, we identified four building characteristics that can be used to pre-screen facilities. These

characteristics, which we refer to as the Selection Criteria, are as follows:

Table 2: Selection Criteria

Criteria Reasoning

Size A CRH should be able to adequately house

residents in need of its services.

Location A CRH should be close to existing resources that

provide it support, but far enough from existing

shelters to avoid redundancy.

Cultural Significance A CRH should be well known and inviting for

residents, encouraging use during times of need.

Accessibility A CRH should be centrally located, and free of

barriers which may impede access.

These criteria do not require an extensive data collection process in order to be evaluated for

each facility, and can mostly be done through online research. Relying on conversations with

facility owners for data collection with a time sensitive project can bog down efforts, and is thus

better suited for later steps when fewer facilities are under consideration. This is not to say that

the Selection Criteria are any less significant than those used in the next step (the Evaluation

Criteria), as both are equally important indicators of an effective CRH. However, a facility does

not necessarily need to rank high in all categories to remain in consideration as a potential CRH.

The Selection Criteria help eliminate facilities that lack the qualities to warrant a further, time-

intensive investigation into their characteristics.

A CRH facility does not necessarily need to be large enough to house hundreds of people, but

should be sufficiently large to serve as a communal gathering place. There are no established

minimal requirements for the capacity of a CRH, but discussions with managers of other CRH

projects led us to set a minimum capacity of 50 people per facility.43 Although the community is

much larger than 50 people, it can be assumed that only a portion of the residents will require the

43 Op. Cit., fn 7.

21

services provided, and not all will utilize the facility simultaneously, as users of the CRH will

come and go.44

We developed a spreadsheet for scoring the various facilities in this stage. The four criteria were

scored, per facility, on a scale of one to three, with one being the lowest. Because many of these

criteria are judged as a matter of perspective, the resulting scores should be used only as a guide

for eliminating facilities who score low, and not as a definitive tool for selecting a facility (See

Appendix 2 for a description of our scoring methodology). The facilities with the highest scores

warrant further evaluation in the next stage. The number of facilities that are evaluated further

should be limited based on available resources, such as time and data collection capacity.

Results

Following our screening of facilities, we narrowed down our list of potential hub locations to

seven (see starred in Figure 4):

St Martin’s Catholic Church

St George’s Episcopal Church

Washington Metropolitan High School

United Planning Organization

Florida Avenue Baptist Church

Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church

Faith Temple Church

44 Gruntfest, E. С., & Drainage, U. (1977). What People Did During The Big Thompson Flood (No. 32). Working paper.

22

Figure 4: Seven Potential CRH locations

These facilities ranked among the highest when the criteria were analyzed in our spreadsheet (see

Table 3). Many of the churches were dropped from consideration due to facility size, as well as

some cultural considerations. For example, Medhane Alem Eritrean Orthodox Church did not

have an English language website, and we considered this a sign that such a facility may not be a

good fit as a community gathering point in times of need. On the other hand, St George’s and

Florida Baptist are the sites used for Civic Association meetings for Bloomingdale and LeDroit

respectively, and thus we can expect these locations to be relatively well-known within the

community.

Table 3: Facility Ranking using Selection Criteria

Facility Selection Criteria

Name

Cultural Significance (3)

Size of building (3)

Location (3)

Accessibility (3)

Total (12)

St. George's Episcopal Church 3 3 3 3 12

23

Florida Ave. Baptist Church 3 3 2.5 1 9.5

Washington Metropolitan High School 1 3 2.5 1 7.5

Faith Temple Church 0 1 2.5 2 5.5

Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1 1 2 1 5

St. Martin's of Tours Catholic Church 1 1 1.5 1 4.5

Howard University Hospital 0 3 0.5 1 4.5

United Planning Organization 0 2 1.5 1 4.5

True Grace Church of Jesus 0 1 0 3 4

McKinley Tech. High School 0 3 1 0 4

Langley Elementary School 0 3 1 0 4

Columbia Elks Lodge 0 1 2 1 4

Bethany Baptist Church 0 1 1.5 1 3.5

Mt. Bethel Baptist Church 0 1 0 1 2

KanKouran West African Dance Company 0 1 0 1 2

Metropolitan Wesley AME Zion Church 0 1 0 1 2

World Missions for Christ 0 1 0 1 2

Young Ladies of Tomorrow 0 1 0 1 2

Harmony Public Charter Schools 0 1 0 0 1

Of note is Howard Hospital, which was dropped from consideration despite its relatively high

score, due to our discussion with Howard University, which revealed that the hospital would

have its own priorities during extreme weather events, and would be better suited as a

community resource in a CRH supporting role.45 Harry Thomas Rec Center was dropped from

consideration as well, despite being a designated cooling center, due to its location on the East

side of North Capitol Street, a very busy street, which may limit accessibility for those

attempting to reach the location from LeDroit or Bloomingdale.

Step 4: Select Potential Facility

Methodology

As the list of potential facilities shrinks, the remaining candidates require further scrutiny in

identifying their strengths and weaknesses. For this stage, additional criteria are used to evaluate

their potential to become a CRH, requiring interactions with building

owners/managers/engineers to gather specific data. We named these our Evaluation Criteria,

which can be changed to fit the needs of the community (see Table 4).

45 Bennett, M. (2016, March 31). Discussion concerning CRHs [Telephone interview].

24

Table 4: Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Reasoning

Distributed energy potential A facility should have the potential to install distributed energy technologies, such as solar and wind generation.

Existing distributed energy A facility with existing distributed energy resources has a head start in the process of transitioning to a CRH, reducing costs.

Cooperative building owner A facility with a cooperative owner indicates a high likelihood of successful efforts, both in preparation for and during an extreme weather event.

Kitchen/refrigeration capabilities A facility should have a kitchen and refrigerator, to provide food for those using the CRH, as well as store medicine to avoid spoilage.

Large gymnasium or auditorium A facility with a large space for people to gather in will allow for comfort.

Second floor access A facility should ensure that, in the case of floods, people and equipment will avoid exposure to water.

Energy audit in the past 5 years A facility that is already monitoring energy use indicates an awareness of the cost reduction potential for incorporating energy efficiency measures, reducing use.

Backup Generation (Propane/Diesel) A facility with backup generation technologies installed has the ability to supplement distributed energy generation, despite environmental impact.

In comparing buildings, the spreadsheet tool we developed can be utilized as a guideline. The

Evaluation Criteria aspect of this tool provides scores on a binary scale (either meeting the

criteria or not), and is thus not comparable to the scores given through the Selection Criteria. The

Evaluation Criteria scores give stronger weight to three key criteria, the potential for distributed

energy, existing distributed energy resources, and having a cooperative building owner, as these

are considered to be key indicators of whether a transition can be made between the building’s

current state to a CRH (further details on the scoring can be found in Appendix 2). Through this

analysis, the facility best suited to become a CRH can be identified.

Although the resulting scores provide a quantitative base for comparing buildings, these scores

should be used as a comparison tool, rather than a conclusive decision-making strategy. A failure

25

to achieve a perfect score not indicate that the facility is unsuitable to become a CRH, as many of

the CRH features can be later installed or upgraded as part of the transition.

Results

Table 5 shows the results generated by our spreadsheet concerning how the facilities scored

against the Evaluation Criteria. Among the seven facilities, we were unsuccessful in

communicating with many of the building owners. On the other hand, St. George’s Episcopal

Church (St George’s) and Florida Avenue Baptist Church (Florida Baptist) had responsive

building managers who were happy to share information. Florida Baptist stood out in that it

already had solar panels installed, which was done through a partnership with LeDroit Park LLC

and Volt Energy LLC, showing that the facility has experience in gathering funding, and future

upgrade costs are reduced by this existing resource.

Table 5: Facility Ranking by Evaluation Criteria

Our analysis concluded that Florida Baptist and St George’s are both viable candidates for

becoming CRHs. Florida Baptist has the benefit of having solar panels already installed, offering

a smaller cost for upgrades, while St George’s held a superior location. Depending on whether

those in charge of the CRH process held a preference for lower cost or better location, the

recommendation could vary. Assuming the limitations of funding as more of a factor than a

difference in location of half a mile, we would recommend Florida Baptist over St George’s, by a

small margin.

Name

Gymnasium/

Auditorium?

(1)

Energy

audit? (1)

Distributed

energy

potential (1.5)

Existing

Distributed

Energy (1.5)

Cooperative

building

owner (1.5)

Second

floor

access (1)

Backup

generation

(1)

Refridgeration/

kitchen (1)

Total

(9.5)

Florida Ave. Baptist Church 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 1 8.5

St. George's Episcopal Church 1 0 1.5 0 1.5 1 0 1 6

St. Martin's of Tours Catholic Church 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 1 4.5

Washington Metropolitan High School 0 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 1 3.5

Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 3.5

United Planning Organization 1 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5

Faith Temple Church 0 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 2.5

Facility Evaluation Criteria

26

Step 5: Assess Necessary Upgrades

Methodology

The conversion of the selected facility into a CRH involves identifying the necessary facility

upgrades, and the means of acquiring the funding to perform such upgrades. Gaps in the

Evaluation Criteria can help identify necessary upgrades.

One of the key components of an effective CRH is the ability to provide electricity during a

power outage. In order to achieve this, a building may require the installation of distributed

generation resources, accompanied by adequately sized battery storage systems. A determination

of the size of such installations can be determined through an in-depth analysis of the building’s

current and projected energy use during extreme weather events. With this data, the required

amount of distributed energy generation can be calculated. In most cases, a battery would be

required to access energy during a power outage, and based on the facility’s energy use patterns,

the size and costs of such upgrades will vary.

There are various avenues for financing necessary upgrades to a facility. This could involve

pursuing partnerships with NGOs, businesses, and government, either on the local, state, or

federal level. There are grants that can be used for the overall resilience hub effort, or are

specific to certain technologies, including battery installation, solar installation, and energy

efficiency upgrades.

Results

What are the necessary upgrades for Florida Avenue Baptist Church?

We encountered difficulty in gathering data concerning the Florida Baptist’s energy use, square

footage, and other characteristics necessary for a proper assessment of necessary upgrades and

their costs. This was a result of a lack of time available for this research, as well as the facility

owner’s inability to provide us such information. To ameliorate this, we pulled data from a few

sources to generate rough estimates on the size of Florida Baptist, its total energy consumption,

and the average percentage of total energy consumption per hour (see Appendix 5 for more detail

on sources). The estimates may not accurately reflect Florida Baptist, and they are not intended

to. But they do provide an appropriate example to help identify necessary upgrades and any

associated costs. Due to time and resource constraints, as well as the lack of viable alternatives,

we focused on solar generation in this analysis, and did not consider generation from other

sources such as wind, geothermal, and propane/diesel, nor did we calculate the critical load of

the facility.

27

We used these estimates to determine the average hourly energy consumption in kWh for the

facility, and compared it to the average production per hour from the 10 kW solar system. The

solar production data is not an estimate, and was pulled directly from a website produced by

Florida Baptist.46 Our results indicate that a 10 kW solar system shaves off a significant portion

of the facility’s electricity needs, but on an average day, it does not produce enough electricity to

meet the entire load. We did not take into consideration the critical load of the facility, which

could be significantly less than the average load we used. Figure 5 provides an illustration of

electricity consumption and solar production throughout an average day.

Figure 5: Average consumption/production for Florida Baptist

Even at peak solar production, demand is not completely offset. Average loads and production

can be misleading because there may be certain days where solar production is almost at full

potential (10 kW) and thus would exceed the energy load, but for our purposes it is appropriate.

We concluded that the energy load would either need to be reduced, or more solar panels would

need to be purchased to exceed demand. The power produced from the solar panels would have

to exceed the energy load in order for a battery to store energy. As Florida Baptist currently

stands, a backup battery would be impractical because it would rarely have time to charge.

One way to reduce the energy load of the building is to pursue energy efficiency strategies such

as an energy retrofit. A PikeResearch publication estimated that buildings can realize 10 to 20

46 Florida Avenue Baptist Church. (2016). Solar Project. Retrieved from http://flavbc.org/2014/solar-project/

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

12

am

1am

2am

3am

4am

5am

6am

7am

8am

9am

10

am

11

am

12

pm

1p

m

2p

m

3p

m

4p

m

5p

m

6p

m

7p

m

8p

m

9p

m

10

pm

11

pm

kWh

Electricity Consumption/Solar Production per day

Electricity Consumption Solar Production (kWh)

28

percent energy savings through an energy retrofit.47 But even if we were to assume that Florida

Baptist achieved 20 percent savings, the current 10 kW solar system would still not meet the

building’s energy requirements (as can be seen in Figure 6).

Figure 6: Electricity Consumption with 20 Percent Energy Savings

Energy efficiency is only one of the necessary upgrades. In order for Florida to meet its energy

demand, additional panels would need to be installed. We generated a model that shows Florida

Baptist’s solar generation using systems of 10kW, 15kW, 20kW and 30kW, as well as the

average charging capacity that each could yield.

47 Nock, L. & Wheelock, C. (2010). Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings. PikeResearch.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

12

am

1am

2am

3am

4am

5am

6am

7am

8am

9am

10

am

11

am

12

pm

1p

m

2p

m

3p

m

4p

m

5p

m

6p

m

7p

m

8p

m

9p

m

10

pm

11

pm

kWh

Average Electricity Consumption w/ EE & Solar Production

Electricity Consumption Solar Production (kWh) Electricity Consumption with EE

29

Figure 7: Solar Production Scenarios

We see from Figure 7 that charging capacity is reached with a 15 kW solar system, but a system

of that size would yield less than 1 kWh of charging capacity (the difference between average

load and solar production). This information, albeit only an estimation, can be used to determine

the optimal battery size for the facility. Table 6 provides different configurations of solar and

battery sizes that can be installed at Florida Baptist. We also produced cost estimates for solar,

lithium-ion battery storage, and energy efficiency upgrades (see Appendix 5 for more detail on

cost estimates and key definitions).Despite Florida Baptist already having a 10kW solar panel

system installed, we deemed this amount insufficient in meeting the energy needs of the facility

during an outage, especially with the lack of a battery storage system.

Table 6: Potential Upgrade Configurations

Based on our results, 30 kW of additional solar coupled with a 132 kW battery would allow

Florida Baptist to maintain power for the longest duration, 10.77 hours. Adding 20 kW of solar

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

12

am

1am

2am

3am

4am

5am

6am

7am

8am

9am

10

am

11

am

12

pm

1p

m

2p

m

3p

m

4p

m

5p

m

6p

m

7p

m

8p

m

9p

m

10

pm

kWh

Solar Production (10kW, 15kW, 20kW, 30kW)

Electricity Consumption with EE Solar Production (kWh)

Solar Production with 15kw Solar Production with 20kw

Solar production with 30kw

Additional

Solar

Charging

Capacity (kWh)

Average electricity

consumption/hour

(w/EE)

Time off-

grid (hours)

Estimated

Solar Cost

Battery

Size (kW) Estimated Cost

EE

Upgrades Total Cost

10 kW 11.39 7.2 1.58 23,000$ 19 9,682$ 4500 37,182$

20 kW 42.38 7.2 5.89 46,000$ 72 36,023$ 4500 86,523$

30 kW 77.54 7.2 10.77 69,000$ 132 65,909$ 4500 139,409$

30

would allow islanding for almost 50 percent less time, but it would also cost an estimated

$50,000 less. These times do not take into account that the solar panels would continue to

generate electricity while the grid is out of service.

How can Florida Avenue Baptist Church fund these upgrades?

To fund upgrades, a potential source of financial support is community partners, including

businesses and universities. Florida Baptist, for their existing solar panels, received assistance

from LeDroit Park LLC and Volt Energy LLC in the acquisition and installation process, and is

now in a Power Purchase Agreement, resulting in lower electricity bills. Other potential sources

of funding for additional panels include a Solar Incentive Tax Credit, Modified Accelerated Cost

Recovery System, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Block Grant Program (details in Appendix 3).

In reviewing our methodology for identifying upgrades and their funding, we came to the

realization that this step would require much more work on the side of the facility owner than

initially expected. Facility owners understand the logistics of their buildings best, and are better

positioned to apply for grants and tax breaks, as they are the main beneficiaries of the upgrades.

Our assumption that such funding could be identified by our team alone was over-ambitious, and

we would recommend a more cooperative approach between government agencies, power

providers, and facility owners.

Sensitivity Analysis We were confident with the results from our framework, but found it important to measure the

sensitivity of those results against the criteria chosen and their assigned levels of priority. For

example, within our Evaluation Criteria, we valued distributed energy generation and building

owner cooperation greater than others, and weighed them accordingly. But, if other criteria such

as building size or location are deemed more essential for the CRH, then the results may vary.

This creates an opportunity for us to identify some of the tradeoffs that are made from selecting

one facility over the other, as can be seen in Tables 7 and 8.

31

Table 7: Tradeoffs Between Florida Baptist & St. George, Selection Criteria

Table 8: Tradeoffs between Florida Baptist & St. George’s, Evaluation Criteria

Depending on the priorities of the community, St. George’s could have been selected over

Florida Baptist, as it scores better in Accessibility and Location. However, we were willing to

accept those tradeoffs because of Florida Baptist’s installed solar system and recent completion

of an energy audit.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the effect that different weighting of criteria can

have on the final evaluation (see Table 9).

Florida Avenue

Baptist Church

St. George's

Episcopal Church

Cultural Significance 3 3

Size of building 3 3

Community Resources 2.5 3

Accessibility 1 3

Total 9.5 12

Selection Criteria

Florida Avenue

Baptist Church

St. George's

Episcopal Church

Gymnasium 1 1

Energy Audit 1 0

Distributed Energy Potential 1.5 1.5

Existing Distributed Energy 1.5 0

Cooperative Building Owner 1.5 1.5

Second floor access 1 1

Backup generation 0 0

Refridgeration/kitchen 1 1

Total 8.5 6

Evaluation Criteria

32

Table 9: Sensitivity Analysis, Evaluation Criteria

The highlighted columns indicate an adjustment of the weighting of the criterion. The adjusted

criterion include:

Gymnasium/Auditorium (+0.5 possible points)

Distributed Energy Potential (-0.5 possible points)

Cooperative Building Owner (-0.5 possible points)

Second Floor Access (+0.5 possible points)

Table 9 displays the facility score sensitivity and change in ranking from the original Evaluation

Criteria. These adjustments to the original weighting could reflect the priorities of another

community. Original weighting and results can be seen in found in Table 5. Overall, our

sensitivity analysis revealed that a change in the weighing of our chosen criteria resulted in

changes in scores, but no major changes in the ranking of facilities.

Name

Gymnasium/

Auditorium?

(1.5)

Energy

audit? (1)

Distributed

energy

potential

(1)

Existing

Distributed

Energy (1.5)

Cooperative

building

owner (1)

Second floor

access (1.5)

Backup

generation

(1)

Refridgeration

/kitchen (1) Total (9.5)

Score

Sensitivity

Change in

ranking

Florida Ave. Baptist Church 1.5 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 1 8.5 0 --

St. George's Episcopal Church 1.5 0 1 0 1 1.5 0 1 6 0 --

St. Martin's of Tours Catholic Church 1.5 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 1 5 0.5 --

Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1.5 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 4 0.5 2+

Washington Metropolitan High School 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 1 3.5 0 1-

United Planning Organization 1.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1-

Faith Temple Church 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 2.5 0 --

Facility Evaluation Criteria

33

CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION

In this chapter, we highlight some of the key findings and limitations from our project. Our

discussion incorporates the results of our literature review, pilot project, and overall lessons

learned from our research.

Key Findings

The funnel framework works: The funnel framework we developed was designed to

identify a select few facilities best suited to become a CRH. Our pilot study revealed the

effectiveness of this framework in accomplishing its purpose. Among all of the facilities we

evaluated, Florida Baptist best represented our vision of a CRH. However, we acknowledge that

certain limitations exist. Therefore, the results from the funnel framework should serve less as a

prescription for a decision and more of a guideline to be treated as a resource.

Third-party tools can bolster community resilience: We identified tools being used

by other cities for their own resilience efforts. For example, San Francisco’s Neighborhood

Empowerment Network (NEN), using a grant from Microsoft, has established a program for

analyzing the potential of various groups of buildings to act as a neighborhood gathering

points.48 We held discussions with members of NEN who expressed interest in sharing such

tools, although the extent of such agreements are unclear. Additionally the D.C. Homeland

Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) has an app for improving preparation

for emergency situations, which provides alerts, maps of resources, and updates on the condition

of affected areas.49 A partnership can be made with HSEMA to incorporate CRHs into their app,

or a similar app can be made for the CRH program itself. Finally, RAND Corporation developed

a toolkit for educating and raising awareness of community resilience issues, which can be

incorporated into cities’ efforts to develop CRHs.50

A CRH is part of a network: A CRH is much more than a facility. It should be part of a

larger network of resources within a community. It is unlikely that one facility will meet all of

the criteria established for a CRH. The solution, which was part of our framework, included

identifying all of the community resources within a neighborhood, and highlighting those that

48 Homsey, D. (2016, March 17). Proposed Briefing on San Francisco's Empowered Community Program [Telephone interview]. 49 HSEMA. (n.d.). Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Mobile App. 50 RAND Corporation. (2016, April). Community Resilience Toolkits.

34

provide services which the facility cannot. For example, St. George’s does not have copious

storage space for food. However, we identified a local grocery store as well as a community

garden within the area that can help provide food in preparation for or in response to extreme

events. When looking to establish a hub, the resources surrounding a facility should be

considered in addition to the features of the facility itself.

Limitations

Given the broad and interdisciplinary nature of resilience planning, there were a number of

challenges we encountered throughout our project, often due to data restrictions and practical

limitations. A few of the major limitations are summarized below, along with tentative

suggestions for how to address them in future applications of our framework.

Defining parameters: One of first challenges we faced was defining our parameters in a

way that would allow us to complete our pilot project within the specified timeframe (2-3

months), while still generating valuable information about community-level resilience needs.

This was especially difficult given the lack of publicly available, detailed information on CRHs

and the variability of purposes that they serve.

Some of the issues we struggled with were defining the size and population capacity of the hub,

the threshold for when facilities are triggered to become CRHs, and the limitations for who the

CRH is open to. In addition, there are legal liabilities concerning CRH operation that we were

unable to address. There are no clearly defined or established methodologies for defining these

parameters, and the answers will likely depend on the particular needs of the community,

available funds, and preferences of policymakers. That being said, it is important to define early

on in the CRH development process what the community needs are, how many of these can be

fulfilled by a single CRH, and what the various costs and tradeoffs are between them.

Technical evaluation: Initially, our project had envisioned a much more comprehensive

assessment of the economic feasibility of various distributed energy generation systems. We

found that such an assessment was somewhat beyond the scope of our project, given the site-

specific and highly technical nature of these assessments, the need for independent evaluation

from energy providers, and the need for more extensive cooperation from the building owner

than our timeframe permitted. For this project, we instead focused on an analysis of generalized

cost options and estimates of different rates of energy consumption. Given more time and

technical expertise, we would have allocated more resources towards this aspect of the project, as

it is highly pertinent to the development of a CRH with independent energy-generation potential.

35

Cooperative building owners: We experienced difficulty in getting in touch with building

owners and managers for our final set of facilities. We relied primarily on publicly available

contact information, as gathered from the buildings’ websites. However, in many cases the

building owners were not responsive, which prevented us from conducting a complete analysis

on the viability of their facilities as CRHs. In addition, this lack of response signaled the building

owners’ lack of interest in pursuing this project.

It is possible that the responsiveness may have differed had the communicating agent been the

D.C. government, and not a group of graduate students, as was the case in this project. We did

find that physically visiting the locations tended to be a much more successful engagement

strategy. Even with the building owners who were generally cooperative, there were some delays

in obtaining data on electricity usage or other technical information. Therefore, it would have

been helpful to initiate the engagement process earlier in the study, and to make our data needs

clear well ahead of time.

Public outreach: When selecting a facility to serve as a CRH, one of the main factors we

considered was how well-known this facility was within the community. We made this

determination primarily through secondary research, including looking at which facilities had

previously served as meeting places. While this approach was adequate for the purposes of this

project, for future applications of the framework, it may prove more effective to conduct more

robust public outreach efforts, both to confirm that the facility in question is indeed recognized

within the community, and to increase public awareness of the facility’s status as a potential

CRH. Without the involvement of the community in the planning surrounding a CRH

establishment, there may be a void in terms of the human capital required to make the CRH

effective during an extreme weather event.

36

CHAPTER Ⅳ: NEXT STEPS,

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Next Steps for the Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood

According to the results of our pilot project in the LeDroit/Bloomingdale neighborhood, St.

George’s Episcopal Church (St George’s) and Florida Avenue Baptist Church (Florida Baptist)

were the two best facilities in which to establish climate resilience hubs (CRHs). Both locations

are well-known and recognized within the community, and are situated in reasonably accessible

locations. Either location could serve as a viable CRH, but our analysis indicates that Florida

Baptist is a slightly preferred location, primarily since the facility already has a distributed

energy generation systems in place.

Prior to formally designating Florida Baptist as a future CRH, a series of preliminary steps need

to be taken. We recommend an in-depth evaluation of the distributed energy generation potential

of the facility, taking into account the existing solar arrays, as well as additional upgrades. Our

preliminary analysis recommends that Florida Baptist first pursue an energy efficiency retrofit.

This could yield a 10-20 percent reduction in energy use.

Next, based on the results of our analysis presented in Step 5 of Chapter II, we propose the

installation of an additional 20kW of solar panels, with a 72 kW of battery storage. This would

cost approximately $86,000, but would provide nearly 6 hours of battery discharge. Because the

solar array is generating most of the power during the day, the battery would only need to be

discharged during the night or cloudy days. It should be noted that these estimates are based on

the assumption that the entire energy load of the building would need to be maintained, as

opposed to only meeting the critical load of key services.

Finally, efforts should be made to solidify and expand existing networks with external

organizations. Howard University, for example, has expressed interest in participating in the

CRH development process, including possibly offering student involvement in the process as

part of their curriculum. In addition, the LeDroit Civic Association, which currently holds

regular meetings at the Florida Baptist, can conduct public outreach to generate community

awareness and identify any concerns that residents may have. Partnerships can be fostered with

third party organizations to incorporate their existing tools into the CRH establishment process.

37

Policy Recommendations

In addition to the specific next steps for the LeDroit/Bloomingdale neighborhood, our analysis

yielded a number of general policy recommendations. These recommendations were designed for

the District of Columbia, but can also be applied to other cities. An overview of these

recommendations are presented in Table 10, and are expanded on in greater detail below.

Table 10: List of Recommendations

Recommendation #1: Develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to coordinate local

resilience strategies, including the development of CRHs.

Resilience issues transcend multiple policy areas, including climate adaptation, infrastructure

development, public health, and emergency planning. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach is

necessary when planning and developing CRHs. We propose the formation of an Interagency

Resilience Task Force. This group should include representatives from various local government

agencies, including but not limited to: Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE),

Department of Health (DOH), Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency

(HSEMA), Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Office of Planning

(OP), and the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM). Ideally, this group would be chaired by the

Chief Resilience Officer, a position that is contingent on funding from the National Disaster

Recommendation Description

Recommendation #1 Develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to coordinate local

resilience strategies, including the development of CRHs.

Recommendation #2 Identify roles to be taken by existing networks, including

partnerships with civic groups, energy providers, and schools.

Recommendation #3 Implement the funnel framework as a means of screening potential

CRH facilities and comparing relative advantages.

Recommendation #4 When selecting CRH facilities, give priority to schools, churches,

and publicly-owned community centers.

Recommendation #5 Conduct program evaluations to document and assess the

effectiveness of ongoing CRH projects.

38

Resilience Competition, and will likely be filled in the coming year.51 This recommendation is

consistent with resilience strategies being conducted in other cities across the nation.52

Recommendation #2: Identify and leverage existing resilience networks, including

partnerships with civic groups, energy providers, and schools.

Our results indicated that CRHs are most effective when they are part of a larger resilience

network. One of the reasons that Florida Baptist was selected as our CRH facility was due to its

close relationship with organizations like Volt Energy LLC and the LeDroit Civic Association.

Future CRHs should take advantage of these sorts of relationships. Whenever possible, these

relationships should be expanded, and new networks should be cultivated. This can be facilitated

by mutual benefits between parties. For example, a strategic partnership between Florida Baptist

and nearby Howard University can be developed, in which engineering students from Howard

help install solar panels for Florida Baptist. Through this arrangement, students get practical

hands-on training, and the church receives discounted labor. In addition, these joint activities

help generate community engagement, which in turns help to build awareness of communally

shared resources like the CRH.

Recommendation #3: Implement the funnel framework developed in this project, as a

means of screening potential CRH facilities and comparing relative advantages.

While far from perfect, the funnel framework developed in this report helped identify a facility to

serve as a CRH. We recommend that future CRH development efforts utilize this framework, at

least in the preliminary stages of identifying potential CRHs facilities, and evaluate the relative

costs and benefits of each. It is important to note that the evaluation tool is adaptable, and can be

modified based on differential preferences or needs (by modifying the scores and weights

associated with each criterion). This is appropriate given the unique needs of each community.

Furthermore, using these tools will help generate an understanding of the improvements that may

eventually need to be made for each facility, should it be developed as a CRH.

Recommendation #4: When determining facilities to serve as CRHs, give priority to

schools, churches, and publicly-owned community centers.

Our literature review and analysis indicated that CRHs need to be easily accessible, eligible for

renewable energy financing incentives, and have an established connection with the community.

51 Lucas, D. (2016, March 23). HSEMA's Resilience Work [Telephone interview]. 52 Spielman, F. (2016, May 2). Chicago hires ‘chief resilience officer’ — whatever that is. Chicago Sun-Times.

39

Our results show that schools, churches, and publicly-owned buildings are the best suited to meet

these requirements. These locations are often well-known within the community, and are well-

equipped to provide services to large numbers of people. In addition, they are likely to receive

funding for renewable energy installation activities, which is one of the costliest upgrades that

CRHs require. While other facilities can serve as CRHs, these types of buildings are most likely

to satisfy all the relevant needs at the greatest cost-effectiveness.

Recommendation #5: Conduct program evaluations to document and assess the

effectiveness of ongoing CRH projects.

Each community has unique concerns and requirements, many of which are constantly changing.

By tracking the progress of CRHs, and systematically evaluating each program’s ability to meet

these needs, policymakers can identify best practices, key difficulties, and areas for

improvement. This is essentially what this report is: a compilation of the successes, failures, and

next steps identified during our pilot project. This process has highlighted several shortcomings

and means of addressing them, and any future efforts to build resiliency should follow this

pattern. Moreover, it is important to incorporate feedback from the community into these

evaluations, to ensure that residents’ needs are being adequately addressed.

Conclusion Recent extreme weather events have highlighted the need to improve resilience at the community

level, particularly for disproportionately vulnerable populations. This can be a daunting task,

given the wide range of scenarios that resilience planning must consider. Moreover, each

community faces unique challenges, making a uniform approach to resilience un-realistic.

Community resilience hubs (CRHs) offer an efficient and viable solution. This project has sought

to clarify the benefits of CRHs, develop a framework for implementing CRHs in vulnerable

neighborhoods, and highlight some of the key findings and difficulties associated with this

process. Our recommendations are designed to provide general guidance on future resilience

actions within the District of Columbia, as well as for other cities who would like to employ our

framework.

In the short-term, we recommend moving forward with establishing a CRH in the

Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood. This community has a history of weather-induced

challenges, as well as a population that is vulnerable to these impacts. Our analysis identified

Florida Avenue Baptist Church as the best location to serve as a CRH, given its relevance in the

community, its solar-generation capacity, and its key linkages to external organizations. This

40

facility exhibits many of the qualities that we sought when establishing a CRH, and will serve as

an informative pilot project.

In the long-term, we proposed the development of an Interagency Resilience Task Force, made

up of representatives from various D.C. government agencies, to coordinate the city’s resilience

strategies. We also recommend the identification and expansion of strategic partnerships with

civic groups, schools, churches, and power providers. Establishing these networks will lead to

the identification of shared resources, and improve community-wide preparation and response

efforts. These actions will be particularly effective when performed in conjunction with the

development of CRHs. By encouraging the establishment of CRHs, the District of Columbia can

help vulnerable communities prepare for extreme weather events, save long-term recovery costs,

and serve as a national example of robust climate adaptation planning.

41

APPENDIX:

Appendix 1: Sources of distributed energy generation

Solar power

Solar technologies are broadly characterized as either passive or active depending on the way

they capture, convert and distribute sunlight.53 The most widely used active solar technology is

photovoltaic (PV) modules.54 PV technology uses solar cells to convert sunlight directly into

electricity. This form of solar power generation does not involve moving parts, and is emission

free. Arrays are often retrofitted onto existing buildings, typically on top of the existing roof

structures or on the walls. Alternatively, an array can be located on a site not physically on a

building, but connected by cabling, supplying power from a distance.

Wind power

Wind power is a clean, renewable form of energy that use airflow through wind turbines to

mechanically power generators for electricity. Small-scale wind turbines can be installed at

facilities for energy generating purpose. There are two types of domestic-sized wind turbines:

pole mounted and building mounted.55

Pole mounted

o These are free standing, and are erected in a suitably exposed position, often

having a capacity of 5 to 6kW

Building mounted

o Smaller than pole mounted turbines, these can be installed on the roof of a home

where there is a suitable wind flow. Generation capacity of these range from 1kW

to 2kW.

Geothermal Heat Pumps

A Geothermal heat pump (GHPs) system can power building heating and/or cooling systems

through the use of heat energy contained within the earth.56 Residential level GHPs can vary in

53 Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Solar Energy. 54 Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016. Photovoltaic (Solar Electric). 55 American Wind Energy Association. (2016). Wind 101: the basics of wind energy. 56 U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Geothermal Heat Pumps.

42

terms of necessary land and efficiency.57 Compared to a conventional heating or cooling system,

geothermal heat pumps systems can use 25-50 percent less electricity.58

57 Ibid. 58 International Energy Agency. (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling.

43

Appendix 2: Scoring

Selection Criteria

The list of facilities at the third stage of the funnel framework was narrowed down using a set of

criteria. Each of these criterions were assigned 3 points for a total of 12. Although we assign

equal points to each criterion, we do acknowledge that all communities are different, and may

believe that one or two of the criterions should be weighed higher according to their preference.

Facilities that did not score well within this stage were filtered out of the funnel. The list of

criterions used and their assigned score are as follows:

Cultural Significance

1 point -The facility had a documented history of convening one or two community events

2 points – The facility currently serves as a venue for community events

3 points – The facility serves as a venue for community events and neighborhood association

meetings

Facilities earned a 0 if they none of the above applied.

Location

The criteria of location was split into two categories, each worth 1.5 points and combining to

fulfill the 3 points available for the criteria. The categories were: proximity to community

resources and proximity to existing cooling centers/shelters

Proximity to community resources

We identified some of the potential community resources that exist in the LeDroit/Bloomingdale

neighborhood in the table below.

Table 11: List of Community Resources in Bloomingdale/LeDroit

Name Location Type Value

Crispus Attucks Park Bloomingdale Park Area for convening

Young Ladies of Tomorrow Bloomingdale NGO Organization

Yoga District-Bloomingdale Bloomingdale Gym Business

44

Little Wild Things City Farm Bloomingdale Community Garden Resources

Volcano Grocery Bloomingdale Groceries Resources

Howard University Hospital LeDroit Hospital/School Resources/Medicine

Walgreens LeDroit Pharmaceutical Medicine

LeDroit Park LeDroit Park Area for convening

Common Good City Farm LeDroit Garden Resources

0.5 points – Facility was within a half mile of 1-2 community resources

1 point – Facility was within a half mile of 3-4 community resources

1.5 points – Facility was within a half mile of 5-6 community resources

Facilities earned a 0 if they were not within ½ mile of any community resources.

Proximity to existing shelters

Facilities earned more points if they were located over one half mile away from existing

shelters/cooling centers. Based on an interview with GlobalGreen USA, we felt that this was

necessary to avoid redundancy, even though shelters and cooling centers are not necessarily

designed with resilience in mind.59

0.5 points – Within ½ mile and no barriers in between facility and shelters

1 point – Either within ½ mile or there are no barriers in between facility and shelters

1.5 points – Not within ½ mile radius of existing shelters and there are barriers in between

shelters and facility

Size of building

CRHs may need to house a large number of people during extreme events. Facilities earned more

points for being large.

1 point – Small (1-50 people)

2 points – Medium (50-100 people)

3 points – Large (>100 people)

All facilities earn at least one point.

59 Op. Cit. fn 7.

45

Accessibility

Based on interviews with community leaders, we determined that it was important to consider

the accessibility of facilities. By accessible, we refer to the positioning of the facility in reference

to the community, as well as in reference to major roads which would pose a problem for

community members facing mobility issues.

1 point – Located at the fringes of the neighborhood boundaries

2 points – Within a quarter mile of population center

3 points – Near the center of the population center

Evaluation Criteria

Each of the Evaluation criterion were either given a score of 1.5, 1, or a 0 to indicate if it met the

criterion or not. A few criterion were deemed more essential to a CRH than others and thus were

weighed accordingly. For example, facilities could earn 1.5 points in Existing Distributed Energy

or Cooperative Building Owner. Criterion that we felt should not be weighed any more or any

less were assigned only 1 point. Below is a list of the Evaluation Criteria and details on scoring.

Gymnasium/Auditorium

Facilities with a gymnasium or auditorium can house a large number of people in one room. This

allows facility owners to organize all entrants. It can also simplify the management of electricity

consumption because the load could be limited to one room.

1 point – The facility had a gymnasium or auditorium

0 points – The facility had no gymnasium or auditorium

Energy Audit

Based on our literature review we determined that facilities that have undergone an energy audit

are more than likely to have installed energy efficiency technologies. It also indicates that they

are making efforts to manage energy use in their buildings.

1 point – Energy audit within the last five years

0 points – No energy audit

46

Distributed energy potential

Distributed energy resources (DER) can encompass many energy technologies such as wind and

geothermal, but for purposes of this project we only considered solar potential for individual

buildings. Because DER is a critical component to maintaining electricity when the grid is down

it was weighed heavier.

1.5 point – Had solar potential

0 points – No solar potential

Existing Distributed energy

We thought it was important to consider if the building had any existing DER, which would

indicate a high-cost upgrade already being addressed. For this criterion, facilities earned credit

for any existing DER. Because existing DER is a critical component to maintaining electricity

when the grid is down, it was weighed heavier. It is also an indication that building owners have

already begun to devote attention to their energy use.

1.5 point – Existing DER and/or storage system

0 points – No DER or storage system

Cooperative building owner

Building owners must be willing participants in CHR conversations to facility the process. We

scored building owners who were responsive to requests for information and had expressed their

enthusiasm for the project as being cooperative. We weighed this criterion heavier because of the

amount of access to information the building owner has.

1.5 points - Cooperative building owner

0 points – Uncooperative building owner

Second floor access

Facilities with second floor access are more resilient to flooding related events. A second floor

provides community members with protection from water-related hazards in the case of severe

flooding, and it also allows owners to store electrical equipment away from flood-prone areas of

the facilities such as basements.

47

1 point – Facility has second floor access

0 points – Facility has no second floor access

Backup generation

Although we did not consider backup generation for upgrades, facilities with existing generation

have the capability to provide power during outages.

1 point- Existing backup generation

0 points – No existing backup generation

Refrigeration/kitchen

Facilities with a kitchen and refrigeration can provide/cook food, as well as refrigerate medicine.

This is important when considering that vulnerable communities can have a high population of

the sick and elderly who rely on daily medicine.

1 point – Facility has both a kitchen and refrigeration

0 points – Facility does not have one of the two

48

Appendix 3: Energy upgrade finance options

Power purchase agreement (PPA)

A PPA is an agreement between an energy producer and a power purchasing entity. A PPA

would involve agreements on matters such as the rate paid for electricity generation, and the time

periods during which it will be purchased.60

Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

The ITC is based on the amount of investment in solar property. Currently, both commercial and

residential ITCs are equal to 30 percent of the original investment made on eligible property that

is placed in service.

Sustainable Energy Trust Fund - D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU)

DCSEU is a public benefit fund to support energy-efficiency programs and renewable-energy

programs in Washington, D.C., DCSEU offers rebates and technical assistance to help D.C.

residents save money and improve energy efficiency.61

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS)

CREBs (a tax credit bond) are a mechanism to lower the cost of debt financing for non-tax-

paying entities such as NGOs and government agencies. CREBs provide qualified borrowers

with the ability to borrow at a 0 percent interest rate.62 Renewable energy generation projects that

qualify for CREB bonds include wind, solar, and geothermal.

Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBS)

QECBs are tax credit bonds similar to CREBs, but in addition to using them to finance

renewable energy projects, they can also be issued for energy conservation projects. Qualified

energy conservation projects include rural development involving the production of electricity

from renewable energy sources, the implementation of green community programs (including

60 Op. Cit., fn 41. 61 Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU). 62 Op. Cit., fn 40.

49

loans and grants to implement such programs), and public education campaigns to promote

energy efficiency.63

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG)

EECBG is a program providing federal grants to cities, local governments, communities, and

states to reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and for improvements in energy efficiency

and renewable energy technologies.64

63 U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. 64 U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.

50

Appendix 4: Map of Priority Planning Areas

The following map was included in the DOEE Climate Vulnerability Assessment, and includes

the five areas we considered when deciding upon a neighborhood to house the CRH.65

Figure 8: Map of Priority Planning Areas

65 Op. Cit., fn 2.

51

Appendix 5: Florida Avenue Baptist Church Estimates

Table 13: Sources Used for Florida Baptist Estimates

Source How was it used? Data

MapDevelopers66

Lines were drawn around Florida

Avenue Baptist Church to

estimate square footage of

facility (see Figure 10)

6500 square x 2.5

floors = 15000 sq.

ft

Commercial Building Energy

Consumption Survey 201267

Downloaded to determine

average electricity per square

foot for places of worship.

Places of worship

consume 5.2 kWh

per square foot

PJM Interconnection Metered

Hourly Load Data68

Hourly load data for the Mid-

Atlantic was averaged to

determine average hour load

percentage of total electricity

Metered load data

for 2015 in PJM

market

Solar production-Florida

Baptist69

Hourly energy yield from the 10

kW system was layered with

average energy load to determine

if percentage of energy needs

met.

See Figures 5, 6

and 7

66 Mapdeveloper (2016). 67 EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2012. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. Washington, DC: US Energy Information Administration. 68 PJM Metered Load Data (2015). 2016 Hourly-loads. 69 Op. Cit., fn 46.

52

Square Footage Estimates

Figure 9: Florida Ave. Baptist Church Square Footage, from MapDevelopers

Necessary Upgrade Estimates

Table 6, featured in the results of step 5 of the pilot study, included a series of estimates and

terms, which are explained in further detail below:

Energy efficiency. Energy efficiency costs were based on research by Pike Research and

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs.70 Retro-commissioning had estimates of 10-20 percent

energy savings and a cost of $0.30 per square foot, which we used to calculate the cost of energy

efficiency upgrades for Florida Avenue Baptist Church.

Battery size. Our research revealed that lithium ion batteries average a 70 percent depth of

discharge rate (DOD), which means the battery will only discharge or empty 70 percent of its’

total capacity.71 For each upgrade configuration we used the following formula.

Charging capacity + (Charging capacity * DOD rate)

This formula ensures that the battery is large enough to store all excess generation based on the

hourly average loads.

70 Op. Cit., fn 47 71 Martin, J., (2015, October). Why depth of discharge matters in solar battery storage system selection.

53

Battery cost. Cost of lithium ion storage was estimated at $500 per kw according to a Deutsche

Bank markets research report.72 This does not include the cost of an inverter or installation cost

that would be associated with battery storage.

Solar cost. Cost of solar installation was drawn from the Mapdweel solar system calculator.73

The estimates were unique to Florida Baptist Church. Cost was found to be $2,300/kW installed.

This figure includes the 30 percent Federal ITC.

Average hourly electric load. The Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey

contained energy intensity estimates per square foot for houses of worship.74We used the 5.2

kWh per square foot estimate and multiplied the value by the total square footage of Florida

Baptist, which gave us annual energy consumption. Annual energy consumption was then broken

down to daily energy load.

Once the daily energy load was calculated, PJM hourly energy consumption for the Mid-Atlantic

region in 2015 was downloaded and averaged to determine the percentage of hourly

consumption per an entire day’s worth of consumption.75 These data were then extrapolated to

the daily energy load to determine Florida Baptist’s average hour energy consumption.

Time-off grid. The potential time that Florida Baptist can maintain a full energy load. This was

calculated by dividing the charging capacity (excess generation) from the solar panels by the

average hourly energy load (7.2 kWh). To keep things as simple as possible, we did not consider

the critical load of the church.

72 Shah, V., (2015, February). Crossing the Chasm. Deutsche Bank Markets Research. 73 Mapdwell. (2016). 74 Op. Cit., fn 67. 75 Op. Cit., fn 68.

54

Bibliography:

100 Resilient Cities. (2016). Cities. Retrieved from http://www.100resilientcities.org/about-us#/-_/

American Wind Energy Association. (2016). Wind 101: the basics of wind energy. Retrieved from

http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=900

Arrieta, M.I., et al. "Insuring continuity of care for chronic disease patients after a disaster: key preparedness

elements." The American journal of the medical sciences 336.2 (2008): 128.

Bennett, M. (2016, March 31). Discussion concerning CRHs [Telephone interview].

Brodie, M., et al. "Experiences of Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters: Implications for future

planning." American Journal of Public Health 96.8 (2006): 1402-1408.

Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical

vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and

behavior, 40(1), 72-95.

Chandra, A., et al. Building community resilience to disasters: A way forward to enhance national health security.

Rand Corporation, 2011.

D.C. Government. (2012). Emergency Management. Retrieved from http://hsema.dc.gov/page/emergency-

management

D.C. Government. (2012). Sustainable DC Act. Retrieved from http://sustainable.dc.gov/page/sustainable-dc-act

D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility. An opportunity for the whole community. Retrieved from

https://www.dcseu.com/for-my-home/success-stories/success-story-list/an-opportunity-for-the-whole-

community

Deodatis, G., Ellingwood, B. R., & Frangopol, D. M. (Eds.). (2014). Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle

performance of structures and infrastructures. CRC Press.

Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU). Retrived from

http://doee.dc.gov/service/dc-sustainable-energy-utility-dcseu

Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). Vulnerability & Risk Assessment for the District of Columbia

Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Washington, DC: DOEE.

Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Learn About Presidential Policy Directive-8. Retrieved from

https://www.fema.gov/learn-about-presidential-policy-directive-8

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (n.d.). Glossary of HUD terms. Retrieved from

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/glossary/glossary_all.html

EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2012. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. Washington, DC: US Energy

Information Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/

Environmental and Energy Study Institute. (2016). Solar Power and Resilient Design for Schools and Shelters.

Retrieved from http://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/032916buildings

Everly, G. S. The role of pastoral crisis intervention in disasters, terrorism, violence, and other community crises.

International Journal of Emergency Mental Health 2.3 (2000): 139-142.

Fink, S. (2012). Hypothermia and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Cases Soar in City After Hurricane. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/nyregion/hypothermia-and-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-cases-soar-

in-new-york-after-hurricane-sandy.html?_r=0

Florida Avenue Baptist Church (2016). Retrieved from: http://flavbc.org/2014/solar-project/

Fogel, A., Hayes, J., Horowitz, B., Kent, A., Parson, C., Isaac, A. & Thomas, T. (2014). Addressing Multifamily

Affordable Rental Housing Needs after Superstorm Sandy. Gatterdam, Melissa, and Susan Moisio. "Using

55

a Framework to Determine Relative Overflow Consequences for the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater

Cincinnati." Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation2014.15 (2014): 1795-1818.

Global CCS Institute. (2016). Tax Policies and Incentives. Retrieved from

https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/guide-community-shared-solar-utility-private-and-

nonprofit-project-development/tax-policies-and-incentives#fn_20

Gruntfest, E. С., & Drainage, U. (1977). What People Did During (he Big Thompson Flood (No. 32). Working

paper.

Guha‐Sapir, Debarati, and Michel F. Lechat. "Information systems and needs assessment in natural disasters: an

approach for better disaster relief management." Disasters 10.3 (1986): 232-237.

Helsloot, I., and A. Ruitenberg. "Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical

implications." Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 12.3 (2004): 98-111.

Homsey, D. (2016, March 17). Proposed Briefing on San Francisco's Empowered Community Program [Telephone

interview].

HSEMA. (n.d.). Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Mobile App. Retrieved from

http://hsema.dc.gov/page/homeland-security-and-emergency-management-agency-mobile-app

International Energy Agency. (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling. Retrieved from

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/renewable_heating_cooling_final_web.pdf

Lucas, D. (2016, March 23). HSEMA's Resilience Work [Telephone interview].

Mapdeveloper (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.mapdevelopers.com/area_finder.php

Mapdwell. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.Mapdwell.com/en/dc

Martin, J., (2015, October). Why depth of discharge matters in solar battery storage system selection. Retrieved

from http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/depth-of-discharge-for-solar-battery-storage

Martine, G., & Schensul, D. (2013). The demography of adaptation to climate change. UNFPA, IIED, and El

Colegio de México.

Nock, L. & Wheelock, C. (2010). Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings. PikeResearch.

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2007). Community Resilience as

a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

Painter, W. L., & Brown, J. T. (2013, February 19). FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief. Retrieved

from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42869.pdf

Perez, R., S. Letendre, and C. Herig. "PV and grid reliability: availability of PV power during capacity

shortfalls." FORUM-PROCEEDINGS-. AMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOC & THE AMERICAN

INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 2001.

PJM Metered Load Data (2015). 2016 Hourly-loads. Retrieved from

http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/ops-analysis/historical-load-data.aspx

Pyne, M. (2016, February 20). Discussion on Global Green USA Resilience Efforts [Telephone interview].

RAND Corporation. (2016, April). Community Resilience Toolkits. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/multi/resilience-in-action/community-resilience-toolkits.html

Reid, C.E., et al. "Mapping community determinants of heat vulnerability." Environmental Health Perspectives

117.11 (2009): 1730.

Shah, V., (2015, February). Crossing the Chasm. Deutsche Bank Markets Research.

Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Net Metering. Retrieved from http://www.seia.org/policy/distributed-

solar/net-metering

Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Power Purchase Agreement. Retrieved from

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-power-purchase-agreements

56

Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Solar Energy. Retrieved from http://www.seia.org/about/solar-energy

Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016. Photovoltaic (Solar Electric). Retrieved from

http://www.seia.org/policy/solar-technology/photovoltaic-solar-electric

Spielman, F. (2016, May 2). Chicago hires ‘chief resilience officer’ — whatever that is. Chicago Sun-Times.

Retrieved from http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/chicago-hires-chief-resilience-officer-whatever-that-

is/

The White House. (2013). Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.

(2013).

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. (2016). Retrieved from https://toolkit.climate.gov/

U.S. Department of Energy (2016). EECBG Success Story: Historic Virginia Market Powered by Solar Energy.

Retrieved from http://energy.gov/eere/wipo/articles/eecbg-success-story-historic-virginia-market-powered-

solar-energy

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC). Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/savings/business-energy-investment-tax-credit-itc

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS). Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/savings/clean-renewable-energy-bonds-crebs

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/eere/wipo/energy-efficiency-and-conservation-block-grant-program

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Geothermal Heat Pumps. Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/eere/slsc/qualified-energy-conservation-bonds

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Retrieved from

http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Community Development Block Grant Program –

CDBG. Retrieved from

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/progr

ams

Zoraster, R. M. (2010). Vulnerable populations: Hurricane Katrina as a case study. Prehospital and disaster

medicine, 25(01), 74-78.