*closed* 2024 Green Building Incentive Policy (GBIP) Draft

Remove Fitwel from the criteria. Fitwel isn't an environmental standard so doesn't belong in a sustainability program.

Include an exception where the project team demonstrates that gas equipment would have lower life cycle carbon emissions.

Include an exception where the project team demonstrates that gas equipment would have lower life cycle carbon emissions. For example, if 100% outside air units (DOAS units) are all electric then electric resistance backup heat may be used which would have greater carbon emissions compared to heat pump heating with gas backup.

Evaluate the impact of this criteria for restaurants. Are all electric cooking equipment readily available while meeting quality standards for restaurants? Also include exceptions for emergency power. Also, include an exception where the project team demonstrates that gas equipment would have lower life cycle carbon emissions. For example, if 100% outside air units (DOAS units) are all electric then electric resistance backup heat may be used which would have greater carbon emissions compared to heat pump heating with gas backup.

Reference the LEED BD+C: Multifamily Midrise standard for compartmentalization as an option for consistency with a maximum leakage of 0.30 cfm50 per square foot of enclosure.

Remove reference to social equity from the standard. Social equity is subjective and is not a sustainability criteria so doesn't belong in a sustainability program.

The LEED v4.1 standard for EV spaces is outdated compared to demand for EVs, particularly in the Washington, DC region which has the 2nd highest EV adoption rate in the country after California and multiple jurisdictions with rules for EV adoption. Consider requiring 10% of parking spaces with Level 2 EV charging stations, and at least 30% of spaces with capacity for future installation of Level 2 EV stations.

Evaluate the feasibility of LEED Gold in light of the recent energy performance update in the LEED program which makes earning points more difficult.

Consider alternatives to LEED such as NGBS Gold. The Arlington program has traditionally been overly LEED centric.

Consider making the threshold a 15% or 20% reduction in EUI. A 10% reduction seems low considering the amount of incentive being offered.

Add requirement for sustainable materials such as a minimum of 50% FSC certified wood, or include requirement to conduct a LCA on building enclosure materials with a minimum 15% reduction in GHG emissions.

Please remove use of "minority contractor" language. The term is subjective. Furthermore, this criteria isn't focused on sustainability so doesn't belong in a sustainability standard.

Please conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the bird friendly glazing criteria. Requiring this for 100 feet may not be feasible for projects.

Include NGBS Gold together with Energy Star Multifamily New Construction as an option so that projects have an alternative to LEED.

Include NGBS Gold together with Energy Star Multifamily New Construction as an option so that projects have an alternative to LEED.

The baseline for the traditional pathway should continue to be Gold. With the updated Optimize Energy Performance point thresholds in LEED, projects will face difficulty obtaining a Silver or Gold rating. Platinum may be out of reach for all but very few projects due to the USGBC's recently updated energy point thresholds.

The minimum under 0.25 FAR should be an ENERGY STAR score of 80 to incentivize operating energy performance.

The baseline for the traditional pathway should continue to be Gold. With the updated Optimize Energy Performance point thresholds in LEED, projects will face difficulty obtaining a Silver or Gold rating. Platinum may be out of reach for all but very few projects due to the USGBC's recently updated energy point thresholds.

Consider NGBS as another option for existing building conversions. Historically the Arlington incentive program has been LEED centric even while other programs have gained in popularity such as NGBS and Energy Star.

Change "Gold" and "Silver" to "Platinum".

Change "Gold" and "Silver" to "Platinum".

Remove this section. "Equity, diversity, and Inclusion" is an illegal woke policy that favors arbitrarily selected favored minorities. The recent presidential election resulted in the choice of a candidate that openly opposes "Equity, diversity, and Inclusion". The Arlington County government, which is excessively "progressive", needs to learn the lesson that the election provided.

State that the narrative must be provided to the public before the County Board approves a site plan or site plan amendment. Many applicants presently submit the narrative after the County Board has approved the site plan or site plan amendment.

Remove "minority contractor". This woke term is an illegal type of discrimination against everyone who is not a member of an arbitrarily selected and favored "minority".

Change "(5) use of native and/or pollinator species for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species" to " use of native and/or pollinator species including Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species".

Change "(2) use of native and/or pollinator species for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species" to " use of native and/or pollinator species including Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species".

Change "(2) use of native and/or pollinator species for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species" to " use of native and/or pollinator species including Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) for at least 95% of site vegetation with documented avoidance of invasive species".

The Southern Environmental Law Center applauds Arlington County’s ongoing leadership to advance sustainability and address climate change, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed updates to the Green Building Incentive Policy. We strongly support the proposal to provide additional pathways to incentivize adaptive reuse for housing and to incorporate energy efficient features into existing buildings, in addition to existing incentives for new construction. We do, however, encourage Arlington to pursue more ambitious and clearly defined electric vehicle (EV) charging standards to accelerate the purchase of cleaner vehicles. Arlington has taken the lead on green building and serves as a model for communities across the Commonwealth. This policy update is a key opportunity for the County to make EV ownership more accessible and equitable.

The vast majority of EV charging occurs at home, so providing low cost, convenient EV charging to more people is one of the most effective ways to spur EV adoption. See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, There’s No Place Like Home: Residential Parking, Electrical Access, and Implications for the Future of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (2021), link. However, today, most multifamily housing residents do not have adequate access to charging infrastructure where they park. Robust “EV readiness” incentives are essential to begin to close this critical gap for new construction and major building retrofits. Housing stock is designed to last for decades between major retrofits, and if the County hopes to meet its climate targets, most new cars registered in Arlington should be EVs by the end of the decade.

While we acknowledge that EV infrastructure requirements pose costs for developers, providing adequate infrastructure during construction saves significant costs over the long term, both in terms of retrofit costs to install charging in the future and avoided fueling costs for drivers that would otherwise pay for public charging or gasoline. The least expensive time to install charging infrastructure is at the time of construction. EV Charging for All Coalition, Electric Vehicle Building Codes Toolkit A Guide for Adopting Equitable US Codes at 3 (2023) link. The second least expensive time to install charging is during a retrofit or where some infrastructure (e.g., electrical panel capacity and wiring) has already been provided.

Were Arlington to opt for a more ambitious EV charging measure, the County should allow Low-Power Level 2 (LPL2) charging to meet EV Ready standards. LPL2 EV Ready spaces (20 amps at the breaker) provide cost savings for developers compared to full power Level 2 (40 amps). LPL2 allows for approximately 13 miles per hour of charging, which is appropriate for long-term residential EV charging. LPL2 reduces the electrical capacity needed per space. A higher percentage of LPL2 spaces can ensure full coverage for residents while limiting both electrical infrastructure upgrade costs and overall electrical loads. Both the current version of and proposed updates to CALGreen permit LPL2 charging at residential dwellings, hotels, and motels. Cal. Bldg. Standards Comm’n, GREEN PEME Combined 45-day Public Comment Period, BSC and HCD Express Terms, link; see also Cal. Code Regs., title 24, pt. 11, 4.106.4.2.2. (2024). We suggest that Arlington take the same approach in its GBIP EV charging standards.

Arlington should opt for more ambitious standards than those outlined in LEED version 4.1. The LEED credit referenced in the Baseline Prerequisites list requires only that a developer install EVSE in 5% of all parking spaces or at least two spaces, whichever is greater, and that the developer ensure 10% of all parking spaces or at least six spaces, whichever is greater, include a dedicated electrical circuit with conduit, ending at an electrical box or enclosure. As proposed, these targets are far too low to make sufficient progress toward EV charging availability. LEED and PHIUS EV charging standards now lag behind many of the standards that states and localities across the country are adopting.

We urge Arlington to consider replacing the EV charging standards outlined in the Baseline Prerequisites list and Extra List with more ambitious targets. Arlington should consider California’s proposed updates to the CALGreen green building standards, which are scheduled for publication July 2025 with an effective date of January 1, 2026. For new multifamily construction, CALGreen will require at least one EVSE or low power level 2 EV receptacle per dwelling unit, or, in the case that less parking is required, at least one low power EV receptacle for each dwelling unit with an assigned space. In addition, at least 25% of unassigned or common parking spaces must be equipped with EVSE. New nonresidential construction must include EVSE for 15% of office/retail parking and for 10% of other occupancy parking. Cal. Bldg. Standards Comm’n, GREEN PEME Combined 45-day Public Comment Period, BSC and HCD Express Terms, link.

EV charging requirements could scale up over time. For example, the CALGreen code currently requires that 40% of the total number of parking spaces at multifamily dwellings be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles, but will scale up to the more expansive requirement described above by 2026. Cal. Code Regs., title 24, pt. 11, 4.106.4.2.2. (2024).

In addition to requiring EVSE or EV Ready spaces, the County should require that not less than one parking space per unit be required to be EV Capable (see definition above) for new construction and major retrofits. Or, if fewer than one parking space is required or provided per unit, all spaces provided should be at least EV Capable. This would at least preserve the opportunity for owners to upgrade parking for EV charging at a future time without incurring significant additional cost. This is the approach that Illinois has taken. Illinois now requires that 100% of parking spaces at newly constructed or renovated market rate multifamily dwellings be EV Capable. 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1085/25 (2024).

The proposed GBIP provides two separate pathways for compliance for new construction. While we appreciate that developers may want to rely upon a single certification to comply, the diverging EV charging standards between LEED and PHIUS could lead to confusion for residents, utility partners, subcontractors, and EVSE providers. We recommend a single EV charging standard for new construction, consistent with standards adopted by other high-ambition jurisdictions.

Arlington should clearly define terminology relating to EV charging within the GBIP, seeking consistency with consensus EV Ready codes, such as the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or CALGreen. See 2024 International Energy Conservation Code; see also link; CALGreen, link. Both the Baseline Prerequisites and Extra lists refer ambiguously to “electric vehicle infrastructure” without clearly defining that phrase. Across the country, states and localities that have implemented EV charging policies have aligned around shared terminology describing three essential levels of EV charging infrastructure:

• Electric Vehicle Capable Space (“EV Capable Space”) – A designated automobile parking space that is provided with electrical infrastructure such as, but not limited to, raceways, cables, electrical capacity, a panelboard, or other electrical distribution equipment space necessary for the future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE; defined below).

• Electric Vehicle Ready Space (“EV Ready Space”) – An automobile parking space that is provided with a branch circuit and an outlet, junction box, or receptacle that will support an installed EVSE.

• Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Installed Space (“EVSE Space”) – An automobile parking space that is provided with a dedicated EVSE connection. EVSE is equipment for plug-in power transfer, including ungrounded, grounded, and equipment grounding conductors; electric vehicle connectors; attached plugs; any personal protection system; and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.

No matter which substantive standards Arlington adopts, the County should ensure that the GBIP employs precise, clearly defined terminology that is consistent across compliance pathways and makes clear what is required of developers.

I think we need a section on promoting bike parking or walkability as a ways to be grean? Maybe I missed it

What prompted the changes in the difference(s) between EV-installed (4% in the older plan, 5% in the new plan) and EV-capable (15% in the older plan, 10% in the new plan)?

Accessing grid harmonization/demand response programs is historically difficult for multifamily properties. We suggest creating an alternative approach for multifamily properties.

How many baseline requirements are already included under LEED, ILFI, and PHIUS baseline program requirements? We suggest reviewing these programs to align baseline requirements of the GBIP with these programs and eliminating redundant requirements.

How were increases in HERS rating identified? It isn’t clear from provided documentation what prompted this change.

How was the determination between v4 Gold (or v4 Platinum) and v5 Silver (or v5 Gold) determined? It isn’t clear from provided documentation what prompted this change.

What prompted the change to ILFI Core / ILFI Zero Certification? (This has, generally speaking, less market penetration than LEED, which creates a potential knowledge gap around uptake.)

Why was the 0.70 FAR level removed?

ENERGY STAR certification can occasionally run in conflict with electrification projects for source EUI reasons (site-to-source penalties being sometimes greater than the site EUI efficiency improvements). Design site EUI can also be difficult to model against operating site EUI for many reasons (differences in operating schedules, unregulated loads in modeling). ENERGY STAR certification can also be tricky for projects with first floor retail/restaurants/grocery stores due to ENERGY STAR's classification based on primary space type. (This specific mechanic within ENERGY STAR caused some issues with DC’s Building Energy Performance Standards.) It might be worth examining the types of projects historically that were successfully able to access the New Construction Pathway to see if this historically was an issue and, if so, revising requirements to better align this ask with how the market is approaching it.

Do the results of an energy audit work to document existing systems? How will scopes of work need to be documented? Clarification would be helpful either within the GBIP or as a separate document.

The examples included in the text are examples of physical retrofit work—in effect, installing something that wasn’t there before. It isn’t clear if optimization measures that result in a 10% site EUI savings or ENERGY STAR certification would be eligible for the award. Will they?

n addition, electrification is frequently a long, intensive process that begins with developing electrical design drawings and submitting them to Dominion for consideration. Encouraging electrification as a retrofit could be done by providing an award for developing and submitting these drawings.

ENERGY STAR ratings don’t always align with deeper retrofit projects such as electrification. Electrification typically results in substantial site energy use intensity savings. However, in order to realize source energy savings (which is what ENERGY STAR ratings are based on), electrification projects need to overcome the difference in site-to-source energy use differences between electricity and gas. This is also solved by expanding the applicability of the site EUI reduction award pathway.

While using ENERGY STAR certification is an easily-acceptable metric, using it as the sole mechanic for accessing the award accidentally disincentivizes poor-performing buildings (with low ENERGY STAR scores) from pursuing deeper retrofit work. Allowing a site EUI reduction as an alternative pathway to reaching the award closes this gap.

We suggest revising the certificate of occupancy requirement to delineate between Certificate of Occupancies for whole buildings instead of individual floors. The requirement of “after final Certificate of Occupancy” doesn’t delineate between these two items, but in practice this requirement as written could strike most properties that underwent a partial renovation from being able to access this award, which significantly limits the applicability of the award.

Is the list of buildings Arlington Economic Development has identified as compatible to conversion to residential the only buildings allowed to apply for the award? This list was described in the DES Public Briefing on October 7, 2024.

The County Board Policy on the Transformation of Commercial Office Buildings in Arlington noted hurdles around adaptive reuse density (page 45 of the November 16, 2024 draft). The Adaptive Reuse policy noted here doesn’t address this hurdle. Has DES explored approaches to this challenge?