HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy in JC report prepared for JCED_Laurian and Spak group_Spring 20201
Re-thinking Energy in Johnson County
FINAL REPORT
Authors:
Hunter Staszak
Nolan Dewitte
Jessica Oliver
Emily Schmitz
Leon Begay
Jack Johansen
Heather Flynn
Prepared For: Johnson County Clean Energy District
Environmental Management and Policy, URP 6256
Faculty advisors: Dr. Laurian and Dr. Spak
School of Urban and Regional Planning
Spring 2020
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Project Purpose, Scope and Area ............................................................................................................... 4
Methodology and Approaches .................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1. Public Outreach and Professional Training .......................................................... 6
1. Household Energy Visualization and Energy-Saving Games and Apps ……………………………….. 6
The Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge....................................................................... 7
Dropoly ................................................................................................................................... 8
Power House .......................................................................................................................... 9
2. Contractor Certifications ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Building Performance Institute Core and Advanced Certifications ..................................... 10
LEED Certifications ............................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2. Electrifying Transportation ................................................................................. 12
1. Policy Toolkit: Building Codes …………………………………………………………………………………………... 12
Working with Johnson County on code implementation ………………………………………………... 15
Sample residential code ……………………………………………………………………………………………..… 15
2. A Local EV Subsidy Program ………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 17
Establishing a clean vehicle assistance program ………………………………………………………………. 18
Leading EV consumer and contractor education events …………………………………………………… 20
3. E-Bike Network Development ................................................................................................ 21
Funding application guide …………………………..…………………………………………………………………. 23
3
Chapter 3. Rent, Landlords, and Energy Consumption ……………………………………………………….. 27
1. Rental energy consumption: Landlord and Tenant split incentives ………………………………….. 28
2. Best Practices ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Rocky Mountain Institute .................................................................................................... 31
Boulder, Colorado ................................................................................................................ 33
Iowa City, Iowa ..................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4. Exploring the Potential of Anerobic Digester Technology in Johnson County ....... 36
1. Anerobic digestion ................................................................................................................................. 36
2. Johnson County Farms and DA potential ………………………………………………………………………..… 38
3. Interactive Website ................................................................................................................................. 44
4. Recommendations and Funding sources ……………………………………………………………………….………….… 44
Chapter 5. Energy Burden of Low Income Households in Johnson County ............................. 47
1. Johnson County Energy Burden Assessment ......................................................................................... 48
2. Priority interventions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 56
Chapter 6. Benchmarking Building Energy Consumption ...................................................... 59
1. Des Moines case study …………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 59
2. San Francisco case study ........................................................................................................ 60
3. Boulder .................................................................................................................................. 61
4. The European Union .............................................................................................................. 62
5. Recommendation ................................................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 65
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
4
Introduction
Project Purpose, Scope and Area
Clean Energy Districts, such as the Johnson County Clean Energy District (JCED), are
independent, voluntary, nonprofit structures aimed at empowering people to provide their own
power locally through reduced energy, fortifying local economies by creating jobs and
decreasing utilities used. This project provides concrete policy, finance, and technology
guidance for energy efficiency improvements and renewable investment possibilities for the
JCED. Johnson County is a unique and diverse region in Iowa, with urban population centers
and open rural landscapes. The recommendations have been developed in collaboration with
faculty at the University of Iowa, industry professionals, and community members.
We describe relevant energy related issues and trends, propose specific goals and
objectives, and set the policy context by identifying regulations and describing federal, state
and local policies and programs. We conclude each section with best management practices,
identifying and drawing lessons from plans that effectively address the issues and provide
alternative approaches, policy, and management strategies.
This report encompasses all of Johnson County, Iowa. According to the Johnson County
accessor’s office there are approximately 68,565 properties in the county in 26 census tracts.
The population of Johnson County is 144,425 with a poverty rate of 17.7% and a median
property value of $210,400. Property values are highest in the Iowa City area surround Iowa
City as shown below.
5
Methodology and Approaches
Research and review of industry trends and best practices was carried out based on a
broad range of information sources that include interviews with stakeholders, officials, utility
service providers, as well as comprehensive surveys of comparable cities and counties, city
planning documents, and a variety of other documents and publications.
6
Chapter 1. Public Outreach and Professional Training
The Johnson County Energy District has identified public Information and outreach as a
central organizational goal. Interactive tools and resources can bring widespread energy literacy
to Johnson County residents. This chapter describes visualization tools and energy-reduction
promotion games that could be used to help Johnson County residents determine the energy
usage of common household appliances and reduce their energy usage. By giving residents the
tools to identify their own household energy usage, th e JCED would empower residents to
make household-level changes without major public outreach campaigns. This will increase
public information and receptiveness to energy efficiency efforts, while allowing the JCED to
focus limited funding to other programs.
In addition to residents awareness and behavioral changes, Johnson County needs
construction professionals trained in energy efficient building and upgrades. This explores
professional certification programs and recommends ways to promote these programs.
1. Household Energy Visualization and Energy-Saving Games and Apps
We researched exemplary appliance and household energy usage visualization tools and energy
saving promotion games. Creating and maintaining a new application for Johnson County
residents would be too resource-intensive, and many applications already exist that serve this
purpose. We developed and considered an extensive list of suitable applications and programs
(Figure 1) and tested them to identify a few products that would fulfill the needs of the JCED.
These applications and programs were sorted and ranked on the following criteria: ease of use;
actual or potential applicability to Johnson County; professional design of game-like design
elements that communicate the credibility and importance of the information; and an emphasis
on residential energy saving behaviors.
In addition, we explored best practices for implementing similar tools and public outreach
strategies for lowering household energy usage. This included research on other energy related
initiatives that demonstrated success and applying lessons learned in those projects as it relates
to Public Information and Outreach.
Based on the criteria listed above, we selected the Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge,
Dropoly, and Power House from the list of energy visualization and behavior promotion tools in
Figure 1. This section describes these programs and applications to explore their usage, their
value, and how they can be applied to Johnson County, and explores lessons learned from the
three programs.
7
Figure 1.1: Currently available energy usage visualization tools.
The Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge
The Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge was a pilot program that challenged the nearly
750 residents of seven multifamily buildings in two different neighborhoods in Chicago. The
program placed an emphasis on changing existing behaviors in order to reduce energy usage
and utility costs. Participants were sent guiding material periodically, with instructions on how
to reduce their energy usage and general information on energy literacy. The program utilized
both monetary incentives as well as social pressures through active members in the community
in order to increase participation. Buildings that saw the largest decrease in utility usage and
highest levels of participation could receive thousands of dollars that could be reinvested into
energy related projects, and top performing individuals could receive smaller sums of money as
8
well as other rewards such as museum passes. The participating buildings saw a 20% reduction
in electricity, water, and gas usage reflecting a total $54,000 savings on utility bills, far above
the original goals of the program. Lessons learned from this program highlights a need to
provide a platform for participants to share their success, tips, and experiences with the
program in order to promote the social dimension of the program, which helps spur
participation and ensures continued use.
Figure 1.2. The Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge
Dropoly
Dropoly is an application that allows participants to input their zip code information, home
details, and a recent energy bill to create a representation of their home and energy usage. The
program then makes recommendations about strategies to reduce energy usage and utility
bills. The program works for single and multifamily dwelling units and for all income groups.
This application focuses mainly on the physical features of the home and changes and updates
that can be made to maximize energy usage reduction (rather than behavioral changes).
Figure 1.2 Dropoly
9
Power House
Power House, the most “gamey” of this selection, focuses on familiarizing and educating
players on the typical energy usage of a household and the importance of paying close
attention to managing utilities. The game begins with the player assisting a virtual family with
typical household chores, turning lights on and off as a family member enters the room. As the
game progresses, more family members are added, increasing the difficulty and highlighting the
difficulty of keeping up with the household’s growing energy demand. Throughout the game,
players are also offered tips and information on how to decrease their energy usage through
behavior changes. This information can help the player not only in the next round of the ga me
but can also be transferred to real life. Players can exchange the points they earn in the game
for virtual upgrades to the home, such as energy efficient appliances, to increase their score in
the next game. Players can also trade score points for real life items such as gift cards.
Figure 1.3. Powerhouse
Recommendations for Public Outreach
We recommend that the JCED adopt a public outreach strategy that takes elements from each
of the programs and applications described in this section , as well as utilize lessons learned
from these programs. First, from the Chicago Neighborhood Energy Challenge, the JCED should
identify buildings and tenants, promote active participation and “gamify” social pressures for
resident participation. Small monetary incentives would be ideal to boost program adoption
and to achieve critical mass. Participants should be able to track their progress and share this
progress with their neighbors, e.g., using a social media platform. Additionally, the JCED should
create a resource repository for energy-conscious residents to further explore energy reduction
techniques. This can be done by utilizing programs such as Dropoly, Power House, or other
similar programs alongside typical sources of information.
10
2. Contractor Certifications
The Johnson County Energy District has also identified ensuring that local programs exist for
contractor certification as an organizational goal. Energy efficiency within a household can only
be achieved if the energy efficient systems and appliances are being installed by qualified
contractors (at the time of construction or when upgrades are made). Currently, there are no
local recognized certification programs relating to residential energy efficiency that operate at a
large enough scale to fit the needs of the JCED.
To provide a trained and educated contractor workforce, the JCED would ideally collaborate
with Kirkwood Community College to develop and expand certifications and continuing
education courses for contractors in the Johnson County area in the areas of building science
and energy efficient technology and appliance installation. Continuing education and
professional development will also give local contractors the skills and resources required for
the further development and maintenance of energy efficient technologies and systems that
will become more widespread in the coming years.
First, we describe existing contractor certification programs and courses, focusing on their
merits and scope to determine their applicability to Johnson County. We focus primarily on the
certification programs and continuing education courses provided by organizations such as
LEED, the Building Performance Institute (BPI), Energy Star, and the Department of Energy
Building America Program (BAP). These programs serve as a roadmap for the principles and
content of an effective contractor certification program that can be applied to the Johnson
County area. Our recommendations stem from this research, as well as insights provided by
Prof. Joe Greathouse, Associate Professor of Construction Management in the Industrial
Technologies department at Kirkwood Community College, who focuses on construction and
building science. We interviewed him over the phone and by email in April 2020.
Building Performance Institute Core and Advanced Certifications
The Building Analyst Certification offered by the Building Performance Institute (BPI) is a
certification program that aims to educate contractors and building professionals on the basics
of building science, and develop the skills necessary to perform energy audits, assessing
building airflow, combustion safety, and data collection. These skills aid contractors in
installation work by providing them the tools to consider the overall structure’s energy usage,
and the impacts and interactions of each sub-system on building safety and efficiency. The
building Analyst Certification, a part of the broader Core Certifications offered by BPI, does not
require hands-on training. These relatively low-cost core certifications act as entry points for
contractors and building professionals to develop a baseline understanding of building science
techniques that will aid in further certifications offered by BPI such as their Advanced
Certification programs. Advanced Certifications, such as the Retrofit Installer Technician
Certification, provide training to contractors and building professionals on how to install
upgrades to A/C systems, building envelopes, roofing, ventilation, etc. The testing for these
Advanced Certifications is far more rigorous, requiring candidates to complete both an online
written exam and a field exam in which candidates complete hands-on tasks in their respective
11
certification field of study. Because the Advanced Certifications require a more in -depth
examination process and come with a higher seal of professionalism, each certification can cost
close to $1000, making them cost prohibitive for small firms.
LEED Certifications
The certifications offered by the Leadership in Energy and Design, a part of the U.S. Green
Building Council provide contractors and building specialists with a highly regarded standard
certification program that focuses on the green and efficient design and operat ion of
structures. The certifications offered through LEED include the LEED Green Associate (GA), the
foundational certification which denotes a basic competency in green building and building
science principles, and the LEED AP with specialty, the advance d professional credential which
signifies an expertise in green building, building science, and other components of the LEED
rating system. Both certifications present LEED principles, explain the importance of green
building and the role they serve in society, as well as recent technological advances that
support LEED principles. The LEED GA certification educates professionals on the
interrelationships between systems in retail and residential spaces, both new and old
construction. The certification covers water efficiency, energy and atmosphere principles,
material use, indoor environmental quality, as well as integrating the project into the
surroundings and encouraging public outreach. The US Green Building Council provides
educational material and various study resources through their website and the test is provided
in an online format as well. The LEED AP Operation + Maintenance (LEED AP O+M) is design ed
for professionals and contractors to improve performance, heighten efficiency, and implement
sustainable practices in existing buildings.
Recommendations
The JCED could adopt and endorse one or more of the existing contractor certification
programs described above. If costs are prohibitive for small local construction firms (we did not
explore this possibility), JCED could fundraise to support professionals in small local
construction firms interested in receiving this training. In exchange, grant recip ients could
commit to implementing energy efficient strategies in their subsequent projects. This would
require some fundraising and some tracking, but would be the fastest way to implement a
certification program.
Alternatively, JCED could work with Kirkwood Community College faculty to develop a lower
cost alternatives. Discussions with Joe Greathouse revealed that there are few of these
continuing education certifications currently available, and that the largest barrier to creating
such courses is class size. A minimum of 15 students need register for course offerings to be
economical for both the college and individuals or businesses. This creates a considerable
challenge in the development of a certification program, but the JCED could partner with
Kirkwood Community College to get large groups of contractors (at least 15) to take the course
at one time. The JCED could offer small incentives to cover part of the cost of the program.
Since these courses are generally offered for $200 or less, incentives would be relatively low
cost.
12
Chapter 2. Electrifying Transportation
While electrification represents a longer term goal for the Johnson Clean Energy District (JCED) and the
electrification of transportation across the region may be taken on by many other stakeholders, there
are a number of areas in which JCED can positively influence the development of a local, electrified
transportation system. This chapter explores three areas of opportunity for the JCED to engage in.
First, we present a policy toolkit which contains potential policies and building codes the JCED can use to
support contractor, city council, and county government decision-making and provide a framework for
enacting policy around the electrification of transportation. This section will propose roles JCED can play
in the formulation of local building and residence codes, provide recommendations aimed at improving
Electric Vehicle (EV) readiness in Johnson County, and select a sample code adapted for Iowa City with
particular attention to multifamily developments. To further develop tools that align with JCED’s values
of equity and access, we also propose a framework for developing a clean vehicle assistance program,
which would be unique for a Clean Energy District in Iowa.
Second, in line with JCED’s aspirations for improved consumer and contractor education, we provide
guidance for a consumer and contractor education event for EVs. The creation of an EV event modeled
after Winneshiek Energy District’s Fest(EV)al will help achieve consistency with the Energy District model
used in other parts of the state.
Third, in line with JCED’s goal to reduce energy consumption, and to support local goals to reduce
demand for parking and increase clean transportation options, we propose tools to develop an E-Bike
Network. In this section, we evaluate various sites in North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City for their
suitability and propose an initial pilot program supplemented by a map of six proposed sites in the
region. At the end of the section, a potential funding source and tools for assembling a compelling
funding application are explored.
1. Policy Toolkit: Building Codes
Although range anxiety and vehicle cost are beginning to wane as concerns for prospective EV adopters,
many are unable to transition to EVs because their existing residences and buildings do not have EV
Capable or EV Ready parking. One way to alleviate this concern is to build EV Readiness or EV Capability
into building codes for new construction.
In January 2020, the International Code Council (ICC) approved EV Ready building codes to be published
in the ICC’s 2021 codes released October 2020 (Coren, 2020). While the codes are not binding, leading
construction companies, states, and municipalities utilize the ICC in one form or another. For simplicity
and consistency, we adopt the electric vehicle related definitions used in the newly approved ICC to
inform a proposal of potential codes for Johnson County’s municipalities to adopt. The definitions are
included below, verbatim. These “general definitions” will be found in Section R202 (IRC N1101.6) in the
International Residential Code as they were originally proposed by Frommer et al. in the 2019 document
(Frommer et al., 2019).
13
Definitions
Electrical Vehicle Supply Equipment
The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded, and equipment grounding conductors, and the
Electric Vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, 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 (Frommer et al., 2019).
Electric Vehicle Capable Space
Electrical panel capacity and space to support a minimum 40-ampere, 208/240-volt branch circuit for
each EV parking space, and the installation of raceways, both underground and surface mounted, to
support the EVSE (Frommer et al., 2019).
Electric Vehicle Ready Space
A designated parking space which is provided with one 40-ampere, 208/240-volt dedicated branch circuit
for EVSE servicing Electric Vehicles. The circuit shall terminate in a suitable termination point such as a
receptacle, junction box, or an EVSE, and be located in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV
parking spaces (Frommer et al., 2019).
EVSE-Installed Space
This refers to the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment being installed in the parking space, ready-to-charge.
We assume a 240V, or Level 2 EVSE charger.
For reference, we also include the text for the new EV-Ready building code. This will provide a baseline
off which to plan, as well as educate local entities what changes to building codes are forthcoming.
R404.2 (IRC N1104.2) Electric Vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. New construction shall
facilitate future installation and use of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) in accordance with the
National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) (Frommer et al., 2019).
R404.2.1 (IRC N1104.2.1) One- to two-family dwellings and townhouses. For each dwelling unit, provide
at least one EV Ready Space. The branch circuit shall be identified as “EV Ready” in the service panel or
subpanel directory, and the termination location shall be marked as “EV Ready”. Exception: EV Ready
Spaces are not required where no parking spaces are provided (Frommer et al., 2019).
R404.2.2 (IRC N1104.2.2) Multifamily dwellings (three or more units). EV Ready Spaces and EV Capable
Spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table R404.2.2. Where the calculation of percent served
results in a fractional parking space, it shall round up to the next whole number. The service panel or
subpanel circuit directory shall identify the spaces reserved to support EV charging as “EV Capable” or
“EV Ready”. The raceway location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV Capable” (Frommer et
al., 2019).
14
Screenshot of Table R404.2.2 (IRC N1104.2.2) EV Ready Space and EV Capable Space requirements
(Frommer et al., 2019).
R404.2.3 (IRC N1104.2.3) Identification. Construction documents shall indicate the raceway termination
point and proposed location of future EV spaces and EV chargers. Construction documents shall also
provide information on amperage of future EVSE, raceway methods, wiring schematics and electrical
load calculations to verify that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any
on-site distribution transformers, have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required
EV spaces at the full rated amperage of the EVSE (Frommer et al., 2019).
JCED as an Information Repository for Contractors, Municipalities and Others
To further the impact of JCED, the organization could serve as an online hub, or clearinghouse of
information on clean energy and energy efficiency education for the citizens, governments, and
contractors of the region. In this case, it would be beneficial to create a page on JCED’s website which
links to PDFs or other associations to help municipalities create or update their building codes, for local
businesses and contractors to understand what developments they may have to plan for. JCED could
also include specific building codes the organization supports. Beyond the creation of the website, JCED
could serve in a consultant role for local government leaders, guiding them through the implications of
various codes. JCED could also provide guidelines and consultation to contractors on what new codes
will require of them in terms of labor, equipment, or additional skill, and on how codes may vary among
cities. Please refer to table 3.1 for each city’s current building code status.
JCED as a Lobbying Partner to Reform State Code
According to the ICC, “The Iowa Code is based on the 2015 IBC, IRC, IMC, IECC, and IEBC for state owned
and rented structures” (ICC - Iowa, 2017). A lobbying priority for the coalition of Energy Districts in the
state could be to codify a more up-to-date IBC/IRC, one which includes the 2021 modifications for
electric vehicles. This is likely to find allies with Iowa Environmental Council and other organizations. For
municipalities who view or use the state as a reference for their own building and residential codes, this
is likely to drive change within communities.
15
Working with Johnson County Cities on Code Implementation
Because Iowa is a home-rule state, local jurisdictions are not required to adopt the most current version
of the Iowa Code (ICC - Iowa, 2017). Based on each local municipality’s city code provided on their
website, we assemble their current building and residence code status:
Table 2.2
City IBC / IRC Status
Coralville, IA 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC
Hills, IA State Code (2015 IBC / 2015 IRC)
Iowa City, IA 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC
Lone Tree, IA 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC
North Liberty, IA 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC
Oxford, IA 2009 IBC / 2009 IRC
Shueyville, IA 2015 IBC / 2015 IRC*
Solon, IA 2003 IBC / 2003 IRC**
Swisher, IA 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC
Tiffin, IA 2006 IBC, unique residential
University Heights, IA Could Not Locate – Assume Similar to IC
West Branch, IA State Code (2015 IBC / 2015 IRC)
*- Code does not verify which IBC/IRC Shueyville references, but in 2016 the City appeared to have held
a hearing on approving the 2015 IBC/IRC.
**- 2005 Code is the newest code shared on Solon’s website. Some changes are likely not accounted for.
Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty and University Heights appear to have the most up to date building
and residence codes, which may make them likely cities to adopt the updated 2021 IBC and IRC. In this
case, JCED may act as a resource to provide them with information on what the major changes are.
Rural towns like Lone Tree and Swisher have also adopted the 2018 IBC / 2018 IRC, and JCED could take
a similar approach with these municipalities.
Tiffin is considered part of the urban metropolitan area, but appears to have not updated its building
codes. Given that Tiffin is expected to continue to grow and develop single and multifamily residences,
JCED could work with Tiffin to develop a modernized EV code that makes Tiffin an attractive site for
energy efficient home buyers. With respect to non-residence building codes, working with Tiffin on
support tools and communicating the benefits of adopting the 2021 IBC may be beneficial. While Tiffin
and other municipalities may be concerned that updated building codes will increase the cost of homes
to residents and developers, it should be noted that people aged 25-44 are among the most likely to
purchase an Electric Vehicle, according to surveys (Plautz, 2019). As Tiffin considers how it will grow, the
adoption of EV friendly building codes may give it a competitive edge in attracting future, young and
environmentally conscious populations when they reach a home-buying age. Another benefit to
16
adopting EV Ready building code early is to avoid up to thousands of dollars per parking space in
retrofitting costs in the long run (Frommer, 2018).
Cities with less up-to-date IBC/IRC adoptions include Hills, Oxford, Solon, Shueyville, and West Branch.
Including updated IBC/IRC adoptions to their city code as part of broader comprehensive planning
strategy may be a way to introduce this building code change to these cities.
A city’s IBC/IRC status is important to understand because if the city makes use of an IBC, IRC, or both as
reference, this is likely how it will implement changes with respect to EVs and building codes. A city may
also use its own ordinance, or zoning ordinances. Understanding which cities adopt what help us to craft
the best possible way about contributing to their EV Readiness. The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project
documents case studies of cities who have developed EV Ready and EV Capable Codes, depending on
what process their building code is based on here (Frommer, 2018). The document also provides insight
on percentage based requirements for EV Readiness and EV Capability. Depending on the population, EV
demand, municipality’s climate action and adaptation goals, and municipal government’s expertise, they
may wish to modify codes accordingly.
Sample Residential Code
Palo Alto, California is a city of approximately 66,000, which makes it roughly comparable in size to Iowa
City. The City’s requirements are among the most ambitious in the country, calling for a minimum
installation requirements of EVSE, as well as specific direction for an ambitious access plan for
multifamily dwellings. The code goes beyond the requirements of the 2021 ICC code. References to
California, specific code numbers, and terms have been removed and replaced with the terminology
used by the City of Iowa City’s code where applicable. Where location specific wording is not relevant,
the exact phrasing will be used verbatim. The following adaptation of Palo Alto’s code is proposed
below. Please note that terms used will be consistent with the ICC’s 2021 Codes as indicated in the
definitions provided at the beginning of this chapter.
“EV Charging for Residential Structures. Newly constructed single family and multifamily residential
structures, including residential structures constructed as part of a mixed use development, shall comply
with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment. All parking space calculations in
this section shall be rounded up to the next full space.
Single Family Dwellings. The following standards apply to newly constructed Single Family Dwellings.
(a) In general. The property owner shall provide conduit only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed
for each residence.
(b) Location. The proposed location of charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling
and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space consistent with City guidelines, rules,
and regulations.
Multiple Dwellings. The following standards apply to newly constructed residences in a multi-family
residential structure. Multiple dwellings are defined as any dwelling containing 3 or more dwelling
units. Exceptions may apply.
(a) Resident parking. The property owner shall provide at least one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE
Installed for each residential unit in the structure.
(b) Guest parking. The property owner shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed
for at least 25% of guest parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be
EVSE Installed.
17
(c) Accessible spaces. Projects shall comply with relevant accessibility regulations, ensuring
accessible electric vehicle parking.
(d) Minimum total circuit capacity. The property owner shall ensure sufficient circuit capacity, as
determined by a relevant City Official or inspector, to support a Level 2 EVSE in every location
where Circuit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed is required.
(e) Location. The EVSE, receptacles, and/or raceway required by this section shall be placed in locations
allowing convenient installation of and access to EVSE. If parking is deed-restricted to individual
residential units, the EVSE or receptacles required by subsection (a) shall be located such hat each
unit has access to its own EVSE or receptacle. Location of EVSE or receptacles shall be consistent
with all City guidelines, rules, and regulations.
Exception: Multiple Dwelling Structures with Individual, Attached Parking. The property owner shall
provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for each new constructed residence in
multiple dwelling structure featuring a parking space attached to the residence and a shared electrical
panel between the residence and parking space (e.g., a multiple dwelling structure with tuck-under
garages.)”
The baseline code, from the City of Palo Alto, also provides for non-residential buildings and hotel-
specific EV code. This information and the remainder of the building code can be accessed here (“Palo
Alto Municipal Code,” 2017).
2. A Local EV Subsidy Program
Action 2.2 of the Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan identifies an area in which the Johnson
Clean Energy District can provide policy support to the City of Iowa City and potential neighboring cities
on the electrification of transportation. Per Action 2.2, “The City will … explore community opportunities
offering financial incentives to residents and businesses who purchase clean vehicles, including potential
subsidies for buying or leasing an electric vehicle and at-home charging stations, and other potential
incentives” (“Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan,” 2018).
The development of a clean vehicle assistance program in Johnson County would be the first of its kind
in Iowa, and provide an exciting future area for Energy Districts to work on. Johnson Clean Energy
District can be a lead partner in the development of this program or simply provide a policy toolkit for
other stakeholders to work with. Based upon comparable California assistance programs for clean
vehicles, we recommend the development and consideration of the following.
Alternatively (or in addition), JCED could lobby for a Statewide Clean Vehicle Assistance Program.
Forming a coalition of energy districts and environmental advocates, JCED and allies may wish to
advocate for a statewide clean vehicle assistance program, and to serve as an administrator of the
program. Given that the State of Iowa does not have a funded agency comparable to the California Air
Resources Board and does not participate in emissions fees or cap-and-trade, we rule this out at this
time and instead will proceed to provide a framework of considerations for building a localized clean
vehicle assistance program.
18
Establishing a Clean Vehicle Assistance Program
This section will identify the core stakeholders involved in the California Clean Vehicle Assistance
Program, identify their potential Johnson County area equivalents, and propose a framework based on
the CVAP for developing a locally scaled program with cost estimates.
The development of the Clean Vehicle Assistance Program in California provides guidance on developing
a subsidy program to expand access to Hybrid, PHEV, and BEV as well as supporting charging station
infrastructure to lower income individuals (“Clean Vehicle Assistance Program,” 2020). The California
Clean Vehicle Assistance Program is a collaboration between the California Air Resources Board and the
Beneficial State Foundation, which is an extension of the Beneficial State Bank, a community
development bank/credit union based in Oakland, California (“Clean Vehicle Assistance Program,”
2020). This system awards up to $5,000 in grants and opens access to low-risk, affordable financing to
income qualified applicants for the purchase new and used clean vehicles (“Clean Vehicle Assistance
Program,” 2020).
Based on our review of the system, we propose the following 5-point structure:
1. Consider and Determine Where Financial and Administrative Resources Will Come From
• State program (California utilizes Cap & Trade)
• Municipal or County additional taxation measure, or included in budget
• Iowa City Climate Action Grants program and other city equivalents
• Iowa Economic Development Authority Possible Funding and Administrative Support
• Partnership with a community development credit union, similar to Beneficial State
o May be able to develop foundation to help find funding for grants.
o Can be used to approve and disburse grant funding.
o Can provide favorable financing for low income groups.
Table 3.2 represents the financial institutions which are classified as Community Development Banks
(CDBs) or Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) in Eastern Iowa. If there is a physical
branch located in the JCED area, we identify this in the column titled “Branch in Johnson County.”
Table 2.3: Possible Community Development Financial Institution Partners
CDFI Name Branch in Johnson County
Ascentra Credit Union NO* (*- Johnson County is in service area)
Veridian Credit Union YES (Coralville, Iowa City)
Neighborhood Finance Corporation NO
IH Mississippi Valley Credit Union NO* (*- Johnson County is in service area)
Dupaco Community Credit Union NO (*- Johnson County is in service area)
Community 1st Credit Union NO (*- Johnson County is in service area)
Information synthesized from NerdWallet.com
19
The initial evaluation suggests Veridian may be the most readily accessible partner in the region to work
with in the development of a comparable vehicle assistance program. Additionally, Hills Bank and
GreenState Credit Union, which are not registered as CDFIs per our research, could be considered as
candidates for local partners with multiple branches in the region if a special agreement is reached.
2. Establish How Much The Clean Vehicle Incentives Cover
The California Clean Vehicle Assistance Program awards grants up to $5,000 for PHEVs and BEVs
depending on income. For a hypothetical scenario in which we want 50 EV cars purchased annually in
the Johnson County area by income qualified individuals, we calculate the following costs:
Not accounting for administrative costs, a county wide program which awards 50 grants of the
maximum $5,000 each year would cost $250,000 per year. Further financial modeling analyses would
need to be done and feasibility studies of where funding can come from is necessary to determine
whether such a program can be administered locally at this time.
In addition to clean vehicle incentives covered in a local program, JCED and supporting stakeholders may
be able to promote EV and EVSE rebates which may be stackable.
Stackable Existing Incentives for EVs in Iowa through the end of 2020:
• MidAmerican Energy Company $500 Rebate for New EVs (“Electric Vehicle Rebate,” 2020).
• Alliant Energy Company offers up to $500 Rebate for EV Charging Stations – Level 2 (“Electric
Vehicle Home Chargers and Rebates,” 2020).
Beneficial State Bank has agreed to offer interest rates of 8% or less in California (“Clean Vehicle
Assistance Program,” 2020). If a Johnson County Clean Vehicle Assistance Program is to launch, interest
rate ranges will have to be determined with the community development bank(s) that are chosen as
partner(s).
3. Establish Consumer Eligibility Requirements
The creators of a localized program in the Johnson County area will need to consider what income
ranges by household size are eligible for cars. California’s program sets the maximum gross annual
income, by household size, at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level 2020 (“Clean Vehicle Assistance
Program,” 2020). Alternatively, creators may look to the Iowa City Affordable Housing guidelines to set
eligible income ranges.
The creators will also need to determine if the program will only cover cars or the supporting charging
equipment as well, and if they do, whether there is a difference in how these are awarded.
4. Establish Requirements for Vehicles and consider what kind of vehicles will be eligible for
financing
- Decide whether to fund only Hybrid Vehicles, Partial Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Battery Electric
Vehicles, or only PHEVs and BEVs.
- Decide on any minimum requirement for the MPG or MPGe rating, minimum model year
requirement, maximum mileage, requirement for no open recalls, and/or Inspection and vehicle
history reporting requirement,
20
5. Establish Dealership Credentialing System
The California Clean Vehicle Assistance Program requires that a dealership be a franchise dealership or
members of the Credit Union Direct Lending Program, and allows for dealerships not under these
categories to be independently vetted.
According to a search query of CUDL AutoDirect, there are 3 qualified dealerships within 25 miles of
Iowa City. Only 2 are in towns within the Johnson County area, and only 1 is completely within Johnson
County boundaries. Table 3.3 presents potential nearby dealers which may pass the Credit Union Direct
Lending pre-vetting:
Table 2.4
Coralville Used Car Superstore, 404 2nd Street, Coralville, IA 52241
West Branch Ford, Inc., 346 West Main Street, West Branch, IA 52358
Westdale Used Car Superstore, 3220 Wiley Blvd SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
JCED could also help with credentials and/or set up the standards as to what qualifies for a dealership.
Special consideration may be applied to VERV, a MOXIE Solar company in North Liberty, now specializing
in used car sales of electric vehicles.
Leading EV Consumer and Contractor Education Events
The Winneshiek Energy District’s Fest(EV)al hosted in 2019 provides an excellent Case Study to inform
the creation of a unique event for the Johnson County Energy District.
The Johnson County Fairgrounds would be an ideal site for the event because it is well known, has
adequate space and facilities to house electric vehicles with access to electricity, and can host
alternative activities for family fun, educational forums, and vendors. The Winneshiek Energy District
hosted their Fest(EV)al in 2019 at the Winneshiek County Fairgrounds (“Electric Vehicle Fest(EV)al,”
2019).
Auto Dealers to invite include, but are not limited to:
Billion Auto – Chevy Buick GMC Cadillac, Billion Auto – Kia, Billion Auto – Honda, Billion Auto – Hyundai,
Deery Brothers Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, Deery Brothers Ford Lincoln, Toyota of Iowa City, Carousel
Mazda, Hartek Automotive, Iowa City Used Car Center, Coralville Used Car Superstore, Harris Boyz
Auto, Carousel Preowned, Sharpless Auto Sales, Cooley Auto Sales, Liberty Motors, West Branch Ford
and VERV Electric Vehicles.
The event should involve an Expo where dealers can showcase their new and pre-owned options for
EVs. If dealers want to allow test driving around the fairgrounds, that will also be welcomed. Similarly,
individual owners are invited to showcase their vehicles and charging equipment and share knowledge
from their years of EV ownership, and may volunteer their vehicles for short test drives.
21
Additional vendors who provide EV incentives, accessories to EV charging, and solar charging capabilities
can be invited. These include but are not limited to: MidAmerican Energy, Alliant Energy, MOXIE Solar,
Smart Solar LLC, Simpleray Solar. MidAmerican Energy and Alliant Energy offer rebates for EVs and EVSE
consumers can learn about, and solar companies could be invited to share possible Solar-EV systems
with prospective consumers.
Workshops will be encouraged to be set up. Potentially valuable workshop hosts and resources include:
- Kirkwood Community College, which has multiple staff and students involved in EV and Hybrid Electric
Vehicle courses and training programs. Kirkwood faculty who teach Photovoltaic Systems classes could
similarly be invited to host a standalone workshops or partnered forums with solar industry leaders.
- The City of Iowa City and other municipalities in the Johnson County region which have experimented
with electrifying their fleet should be invited to talk about their experiences, and network with other
Johnson Clean Energy District community leaders.
- Representatives from the Sustainable Energy Discovery District at the University of Iowa could be
invited to send staff to discuss their solar-charged EV system. Contractor education workshops about
adapting to the future of electric vehicles in housing development, solar energy, and other industries
could be planned.
- A partnership with Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA), which hosts dozens of workshops
every summer at their Energy Fair in Wisconsin, could be utilized to access a wider network of expertise
and specifically assist in the creation of a contractor education workshop. The MREA would also be able
to promote its Training program and wide range of course offerings, which range from “solar PV, solar
thermal, and small wind systems” and NABCEP training courses (Midwest Renewable Energy Association
Course Offerings, 2020). A mixture of policy discussion, technical training sessions for contractors,
interested students, and consumer programs on financing, owning, and maintaining EVs will make for a
well-rounded program.
Music and fun activities are advised for kids and family members who may not be immediately
interested in EVs. Local food restaurants with a history of supporting Climate Action in the region should
be considered for vendors.
3. E-Bike Network Development
E-Bikes represent a potentially compelling alternative to Electric Vehicles that is more in line with the
JCED’s immediate priority of reducing energy consumption, and can provide added benefits of reduced
car trips, reduced traffic, and improved air quality.
We propose a first round of docking stations for an E-Bike Network to be established at the sites shown
in “Map 1” below. The first round emphasizes pilot program visibility to the public and accessibility to
existing trail network, which was determined using Google Maps’ bike directions and trail map location
services.
The first will be a downtown Iowa City Docking Station near the Ped Mall, but it could also be included in
new apartment developments as a way to reduce vehicle parking volume downtown. Iowa City
Riverfront Crossings Park has been identified as another viable spot in Iowa City due to its proximity to
the Iowa River trails, mixed use development, proximity to businesses and other recreational
attractions. Iowa River Landing was chosen because of its proximity to an intermodal facility – an e-bike
22
docking station would help complete this area as a sustainable transportation hub. Iowa River Landing is
also an excellent place for e-bike visibility, which will prompt further interest in future development.
Coral Ridge/North Ridge Park area represents an area with close proximity to trails, housing – single
family and multifamily alike, and the shopping mall. The trail proceeds North to connect with the
Oakdale campus. North of the Oakdale campus is Creekside Commons Park, which is one of North
Liberty’s proposed docking points. Connectivity to the Oakdale campus and other major nearby
employers makes this a potentially attractive e-bike docking point. The northernmost stop is near the
North Liberty Community Center, which is in close proximity to major trails, businesses, and is a
recreational and resource hub for the community, which will further contribute to high visibility, which
should be a primary goal of the first rollout of the E-Bike Network. Exact locations of all points can be
shifted as needed for connectivity to electrical power sources.
Map 1. Potential docking stations for E-bikes
Picture retrieved from Bike-Energy at: https://bike-energy.com/en/produkt/radabstellanlage-8er/
23
Funding Application Guide
JCED can be the leading organization to develop an e-bike network in the Johnson County by providing a
clear funding plan for the project. People for Bikes funds bike infrastructure including bike racks and
supporting infrastructure up to $10,000, but does not fund feasibility studies, signs, trailheads, bicycles,
and educational programs (“Grant Guidelines - People for Bikes,” 2020). It should also be noted that
People for Bikes does not provide grant funding for projects in which their “funding amounts to 50% or
more of the project budget” (“Grant Guidelines - People for Bikes,” 2020). Using available information
about the price of e-bikes and e-bike charging facilities, we assemble a project cost estimate in “Cost
Estimate 1” below. Labor, permitting, and administrative costs associated with the project were not
calculated and would increase the estimate if applied.
The “Bicycle shelter SALZBURG” (pictured above) has 4 E-Charging points, can hold up to 8 e-bikes,
includes an already integrated charging system, and is priced at approximately (based on EU to USD
Conversion) $15,600 USD (“Wheel parking system,” 2020). An ideal system would have all 8 charging
points available. The professional design of the bike rack and room for design panels on the side would
allow for branding that advertises the E-Bike Network’s Name, and collaborators like Johnson Clean
Energy District. This makes the bike rack an easily-identified attraction and provides shelter from the
elements, reducing wear and tear on the e-bikes. The cost and specifications of the shelter shown are
meant only to provide a base estimate; there are likely more cost effective designs that can be
employed and docking station providers closer than the Austrian example used.
An estimate of $1,100 per E-Bike is used. The e-bike we base our estimates on is the Aventon Pace 350
E-Bike model, which has 20 MPH assist and 35 mile range (“Pace 350 Ebike,” 2020). If a user were to
travel from the northernmost docking station at the North Liberty Community Center to Riverfront
Crossings, the southernmost proposed station, and back to the North Liberty Community Center without
charging, approximately 5 miles of range would be left over on a full charge. Most trips are expected to
be shorter, but this allows for long-range trips (within reason) to be made without user anxiety. The
same model is assumed to be used across all charging stations for a consistent look and simplicity. The
price of e-bikes may be reduced with a bulk purchase, selection of a cheaper model, or in-kind donation.
People for Bikes grant funding would not be applied to the purchase of any E-Bike.
Cost Estimates:
Item Cost per unit Quantity Total
Bike Shelter/Docking Station w/
Charging System
$15,600 x6 $93,600
-10,000 People 4 Bikes Grant
E-Bike (4 per station) $1,100 X24 $26,400
Total project estimate
$110,000
The pilot program could be scaled down to one or two stations, which would reduce the cost
substantially. A scenario with one (1) bicycle shelter with charging system and four (4) associated e-bikes
would cost approximately $20,000. 2 charging shelters and 8 e-bikes would bring the cost up to $40,000.
24
Application requirements for People for Bikes grant funding and brief guidance for each element of
the application.
Application Requirement Supporting Information/Guidance
1. Mission and History: Summarize
your organization’s mission and
history. Pay particular attention to
why and how you are invested in
improving the environment for
bicycling in your community.
Use existing “New Vision Statement”
document.
While JCED is not explicitly focused on
transportation or bicycling, presenting the
relationship between e-bikes and a clean
energy transition and creating sustainable
communities
JCED’s unique position as an energy district – a
concept not familiar to much of the country –
gives it a unique funding angle. JCED should
emphasize its relationship with the Iowa City
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and
surrounding community’s broader goals of
clean transportation.
2. Project Description: Please use this
section to expand on the
information provided in the Letter
of Interest, if needed. In particular,
please include the context for this
project, information on related
projects or efforts, and project
partners, if relevant.
The project will create a network of e-bikes and
docking stations across the IC Metro
Area/Johnson County. The goal is to increase
use of e-bikes to replace trips made by vehicles
and promote sustainable behaviors across the
county.
Possible Partners:
Bike Library, World of Bikes, Sugar Bottom
Bikes, MPOJC, Iowa Bicycle Coalition,
University of Iowa Engineering and Computer
Science programs as app developer for e-bike
monitoring system, University of Iowa School
of Urban and Regional Planning
3. Community Benefits: Outline the
benefits you expect this project to
bring to the community, such as
increase ridership, improved safety,
changes in air quality, health, or
congestion, and economic impact.
E-bikes will increase interest in biking in the
region and introduce the region to a healthy,
sustainable alternative for short-range trips to
substitute for auto travel. Air quality
improvements from reduced emissions, and
reduced congestion are all anticipated.
4. Miles Built/Connected: State the miles of
path or trail or other bicycle facilities you
will be building and the miles of facilities
connected by your project, if applicable.
The MPOJC Iowa City Metro Area trail map
reports more than 70 miles of trail across the
region. Specifically, the proposed e-bike
25
docking stations pictured in Map 1 connect
roughly 15 miles of existing trail.
5. Evaluation a) Measurable Outcomes:
Describe what will change as a result of this
project. b) Measurement: Describe your
plans for measuring the success of your
project. What will you measure (i.e.
ridership, economic impact) and how.
Six e-bike charging station sites with fleets of
docked e-bikes will be available to the public.
We expect to see increased bike ridership,
reduced vehicle trips, and increased social
connectivity in the communities in which the e-
bike networks are implemented.
We will measure ridership by counting the
number of times e-bikes are checked out, for
what length of time, their overall destinations,
and calculate the vehicle trips equivalent. We
plan to use an app to collect this information.
6a. Support Letters • Elected officials
(required) – mayor, city councilmember,
alderman, state representative, governor,
or federal elected official
Federal legislator (recommended) –
Congressional Representative or Senator
Bicycle industry representative (required)–
owner or manager of a bike-related
business
Business association representative
(recommended) – leader from a Business
Improvement District, Business
Development office, Chamber of
Commerce, or similar organization
Business representative (required) –
owner, manager, or principal employee of a
business/corporation not related to
bicycling
For Contact Information on All Elected Officials
for Johnson County, visit Johnson County’s
website
Federal Representatives: Sen. Chuck Grassley,
Sen. Joni Ernst, Rep. Dave Loebsack
Bicycle industry businesses from which to draw
representatives:
World of Bikes
Geoff’s Bike and Ski
Iowa City Bike Library
The Broken Spoke
Sugar Bottom Bikes
Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Member
Directory can be utilized to find potential
business references.
b) List of Board Members including their
affiliations, (for applying non-profit
organizations only)
c) IRS determination letter for applying
non-profit organizations only
IRS Documentation, board member lists need
to be assembled by JCED.
d) Map/Plan of the project and area See Map 1. The MPOJC Trail Map of Johnson
County may also bolster the application’s
strength.
26
e) Photos (2-3) of existing bicycle facilities,
related event, or “before” shot of location
where infrastructure will be installed
Desired photos can be acquired from MPOJC,
community parks and recreation departments,
and University of Iowa.
f) Project Budget including pending or
committed sources of funding and
indicating how PeopleForBikes funding will
be used
g) Organizational Budget for the current
year; you may alternately provide a link to
your annual budget
See “Cost Estimate 1” on possible costs of e-
bike fleet and charging equipment for a cost
mock-up to inform a potential project budget.
Organizational budget documentation needs to
be assembled by JCED.
27
Chapter 3. Rental Units, Landlords, and Energy Consumption
Johnson County, Iowa has a population of approximately 151,000 people -as of 2018, 40% of
whom live in rental properties (Occupied Housing Units: Renter Occupied, 2018). In order to achieve
Johnson Clean Energy District’s goal of reduced energy consumption in the residential sector, rental
properties cannot be ignored. Homeowners have the capacity and incentive to make energy efficient
changes to their homes because they can reap the benefits of long-term investments. Renters, on the
other hand, do not have that incentive. According to the Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
“renters of multi-family housing do not have the same ability to implement and gain the benefits of
energy efficiency as owners and residents of other forms of housing” (page 28). Landlords or rental
property owners have the ability to make energy efficient changes but not the incentive, if their tenants
pay their own utilities.
F IGURE 3.1 : Buildings make up 56% of consumption -based greenhouse gas emissions for
Iowa City. Source: Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan page 16 , (Nations,
2020).
In Iowa City, buildings make up 56% of consumption -based greenhouse gas emissions
and the residential sector makes up 21% of the total energy consumption of end-use sectors in
the US (Nations, 2020) (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018). Energy used by buildings
is created mainly from natural gas and coal. The use of these materials creates greenhouse
gases which contribute to climate change. By reducing energy consumption, greenhouse gas
emissions can also be reduced.
28
FIGURE 3.2: Residential sector makes up 21% of the total share of US energy consumption by end-use
sectors in 2018. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
This chapter reviews the literature on energy consumption and reduction in rental properties, discusses
best practices, and provides recommendations for the Johnson Clean Energy District on how to promote
energy use reduction in rental units across Johnson County.
1. Rental Energy Consumption: Landlord and Tenant Split Incentives
Typically, in a landlord-tenant relationship only one party pays the utility bill and whoever does not pay
does not have to bear the burden of inefficient decision-making and in turn will not behave optimally.
Where landlords pay utility bills, they may chooses energy efficient investments in order to reduce the
cost of utilities. However, tenants have no incentive to reduce energy consumption, and may, for
instance, leave the lights on. Where tenants pay utility bills, they are more likely to seek to reduce their
energy consumption, e.g., by turning down the thermostat. However, in this scenario, landlords are less
likely to make energy efficient investments such as insulating walls and ceilings. The excessive energy
used due to this underinvestment is responsible for approximately 0.5% of the total rental residential
energy usage. Both situations result in “unnecessarily high energy usage, leading to higher utility bills
and excessive carbon emissions” (Melvin, 2018).
As appliances and technology becomes more energy efficient, we could expect thatresidential energy
usage decreases over the decades, but researchers have found that this is not the case. While electronic
items are becoming more energy efficient, overall households today have more electronic items than
ever before. This negates the energy use reduction that we would expect to see with new efficient items
in households. A large portion of residential energy is used for building heating and cooling, water
heating, and refrigerators. Researchers have determined that when landlords pay the tenants heating
29
bill, they were more likely to convert from oil-fired furnaces to natural gas fired furnaces, this would
decrease the utility bill and energy usage after paying an upfront cost (Melvin, 2018).
Figure 3.3: residential electricity consumption by end use. Source: EIA’s residential energy survey now
includes estimates for more than 20 new end uses, 2018
Heating and Cooling Degree Days
Iowa is located in the West North Central US Census Division which had 6,969 heating degree days in
2018 and 1,134 cooling degree days.
“Degree days are measures of how cold or warm a location is. A degree day compares the mean (the
average of the high and low) outdoor temperatures recorded for a location to a standard temperature,
usually 65° Fahrenheit (F) in the United States. The more extreme the outside temperature, the higher
the number of degree days. A high number of degree days generally results in higher levels of energy
use for space heating or cooling. Heating degree days (HDD) are a measure of how cold the
temperature was on a given day or during a period of days. For example, a day with a mean
temperature of 40°F has 25 HDD. Two such cold days in a row have a total of 50 HDD for the two-day
period. Cooling degree days (CDD) are a measure of how hot the temperature was on a given day or
during a period of days. A day with a mean temperature of 80°F has 15 CDD. If the next day has a mean
temperature of 83°F, it has 18 CDD. The total CDD for the two days is 33 CDD.” (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2020).
30
FIGURE 3.4: Heating Degree Days by Census Division in 2018 map. Iowa f alls in the
West North Central division and had the highest number of heating degree days
FIGURE 3.5 Cooling Degree Days by Census Division in 2018 map
The heating and cooling degree day maps show that the state of Iowa has many heating degree days
and a moderate number of cooling degree days, indicating high expenditures on heating and cooling.
Energy efficient investments, such as insulation, double pane windows, and seals around windows and
doors, can reduce energy consumption by maintaining indoor temperatures.
31
Iowa City Climate Action and Adaption Plan
The 2018 Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan was updated in the Fall of 2019, and the city has
declared a climate emergency. One of the focuses of the plan is to increase the energy efficiency of
buildings. One of the targets for existing buildings is to retrofit 10% of all buildings by 2025 and 90% by
2050. Action 1.1 calls for an increase in energy efficiency in residences, which includes single-family and
multi-family buildings, and expects a large impact on local greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 3.1 Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan page 22 summary of actions.
Action 1.1 is an increase in energy efficiency in residences, both single -family and multi -
family.
The city’s climate action plan states “Residents can reduce energy consumption in homes across Iowa
City—from single family homes to apartments in multi-family buildings— through a more
comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, including air sealing and insulation, efficient heating and
cooling equipment, replacement of gas appliances with electric, and “quick fixes” like programmable
thermostats, efficient lighting, and smart power strips. Building owners and renters can leverage existing
programs to obtain energy audits that identify energy efficiency opportunities, and also to help finance
the cost of implementation, such as those offered by MidAmerican Energy and Eastern Iowa Light and
Power. The City will also work to align existing City loan programs to include energy efficiency where it is
not specifically mentioned already, and identify external partners to develop appropriate additional
outreach and financial mechanisms that facilitate large-scale participation. Residents can also use
several free tools from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) such as the ENERGY STAR®
Home Advisor tool for single family homes, or ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager for multifamily
buildings”
2. Best Practices
Rocky Mountain Institute Framework
The Rocky Mountain Institute’s framework for developing minimum energy standard for rentals
contains seven steps.
• Step 1 Fit: Identify efficiency standards that are the right fit the rental housing stock.
o Option 1: Integrate efficiency standards into short -term rental licensing
o Option 2: Start a new rental licensing program
o Option 3: Consider other triggers to improve efficiency of existing properties
32
• Step 2: Preform a preliminary analysis to forecast impacts
o Energy saved
o Carbon saved
o Program implementation costs
o Additional metrics as needed
FIGURE: RMI, step 2 impact, potential impact of MESRS in five us cities
• Step 3: Consult and partner with key stakeholders in the residential housing sector
o Understand and address their concerns
o Develop a cost-recovery strategy to ensure affordability
o Identify compelling value proposition(s)
• Step 4: Co-develop financing options and incentives with utilities and lenders
o Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (DOE)
o Utility incentives
o Utility on-bill financing
o Fannie Mae Homestyle Energy Loans
33
o Home equity line of credit (HELOC)
o Green banks/credit unions
• Step 5 Develop an implementation framework
o Select energy efficiency measurement tool
o Select energy target
o Identify energy data collection requirements and reporting framework
o Determine how approach differs between single-family and multi-family
o Determine human capital needs
• Step 6 Develop compliance framework
o Compliance timeline and pathways
o Alternative compliance path
o Cost caps
o Exemptions
o Noncompliance penalties
o Verification
o Multifamily considerations
• Step 7 Disclosure: Develop disclosure framework (Petersen, 2018)
The case of Boulder, Colorado
In 2010 Boulder, Colorado adopted and implemented the Rocky Mountain Institute Framework to
create an energy standard for rental units. See the Petersen and Lalit’s (2018) Better Rentals, Better City:
Smart Policies to Improve Your City's Rental Housing Energy Performance for a detailed description of
the framework. Boulder incorporated Smart Regulations (SmartRegs) into the Standard Long-Term
Rental Housing License. This means that all rental properties in the city undergo SmartRegs inspections
that evaluate buildings’ energy efficiency. The inspector makes recommendations on ways to increase
the energy efficiency, e.g., including wall and ceiling insulation, duct leakage, new heating and cooling
systems, LED lighting, etc. Landlords had until January 2, 2019 to be compliant with the energy efficiency
requirements set by the city. If landlords were not compliant, their rental license would expire.
In order to help landlords make the necessary investments, the city offered advising and rebates.
According to a City of Boulder Rental Properties database, almost all rental properties within the city are
compliant with the SmartRegs (City of Boulder, n.d.).
34
Figure: Boulder, CO SmartRegs compliance flow chart. Source City of Boulder, Colorado, 2020
To learn more about Boulder’s SmartReg policy please visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-
develop/smartregs (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2020).
35
Iowa City, Iowa
In the Fall of 2019, Iowa City demonstrated its dedication to addressing climate change by declaring a
climate emergency and updating the City’s Climate Action Plan. The City Council expressed a desire to
adopt a stricter energy code than the states’. However the city attorney advised against that. There was
an opportunity to make a new apartment complex more sustainable than previous developments. The
developers applied for a height bonus, typically granted for affordable housing provisions. In addition,
the city council added several sustainability requirements:
“1. Meet LEED Silver certification with at least 8 points in the “Optimize energy performance” category.
Points can be accrued through outperforming baseline building performance ratings.
2. Install enough rooftop solar to generate 150,000 kWh annually. If the project is phased, the first
phase’s solar installation must produce a minimum of 75,000 kWh annually.
3. Install “low flow” fixtures.”
The building will also feature LED lighting. This amendment was unanimously approved by the city
council and supported by the developers (Smith, 2019). This action, along with the City’s Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan, demonstrates the political will necessary for making changes to reduce residential
energy consumption.
Recommendations
In order to reach JCED’s goal of reducing energy consumption in rental units, the focus should
be on the landlords because the changes they make will have longer-term outcomes than changing
tenants’ behaviors. There are several ways the Johnson Clean Energy District can promote energy
efficiency in rental units across the county. One is helping cities in Johnson County develop minimum
energy standard requirements. The second is to advocate for an additional requirement for rental
permit approval, similar to Boulder’ SmartRegs. These two recommendations focus on advocacy and
therefore can be pursued during this era of social distancing.
Minimum energy standard requirements (MESR) can be developed using the Rocky Mountain
Institute’s framework described above. Each town in Johnson County may have unique minimum energy
standard requirements based on current energy consumption, financial resources, and political will. This
framework will help identify and reach energy consumption reduction goals.
In order to encourage landlords to meet the new minimum energy standard requirements, the
Johnson Clean Energy District should work with each city and advocate making those standards a
requirement for rental permit approvals. Landlords will be required to make changes and energy
efficient investments for their properties, e.g., replacing large appliances with energy efficient ones. This
new requirement for rental permits could exempt landlords who pay utilities since, as studies have
shown, they are already more likely to make energy efficient investments in their properties. The JCED
should use Boulder, Colorado as an example and a starting point. See the Rental Housing License
Handbook + SmartRegs Guidebook from the City of Boulder (2020).
36
Chapter 4. The Potential of Anaerobic Digesters in Johnson County
This chapter explores farm-scale anaerobic digestion technology in Johnson County. Anaerobic
digestion is an innovative process that turns animal and other organic waste into a resource and an
opportunity for cost savings, additional revenues, and environmental stewardship. Iowa has a significant
number of confined feeding operations that require manure management systems. Despite the abundant
feedstock available in Iowa, only a handful of farms use anaerobic digestion technology. This report
examines the potential for growth of the use of anaerobic digestion systems in Johnson County.
JCED seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen local economies, and provide clean
energy. Anaerobic digestion systems at animal feeding operations in Johnson County promote all those
goals. Additionally, as JCED serves as an educational center for clean energy, the creation of an anaerobic
digestion educational resource hub in the form of a website could be disseminated with JCED’s help.
1. Anaerobic Digestion
Biogas recovery through anaerobic digestion (AD) is way to manage manure generated from
livestock operations and organic wastes, while at the same time providing financial and environmental
benefits. The basic process takes organic waste as a feedstock for bacteria to consume and produce two
main products: biogas and digestate, which have many potential uses. Figure 1 below describes the
process.
Figure 4.2. Anaerobic Digestion Process Overview
37
The US produces almost 340 million metric tons of manure per year (just in dry weight),
highlighting the need for sustainable manure management systems (EPA, 2019). Last year, manure
management systems were the fourth largest source of methane emissions in the US, totaling almost 62
million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (EPA, 2019). AD technology is a manure management process that
produces electricity and contributes to climate change mitigation by reducing methane and carbon
dioxide emissions. In 2019, AD systems on livestock farms reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.63
million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (EPA, 2019). Direct methane reductions accounted for the majority
of these reductions. Figure 2 shows the amount of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission reductions
from AD systems on farms since 2000.
Figure 4.3. Direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission reductions from AD systems on farms since 2000. The chart shows
greenhouse gas emission reductions are on the rise.
AD systems reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also providing renewable, clean energy in
rural areas. This is important because Iowa’s economy is relatively energy intensive, with the industrial
sector leading the state’s energy consumption. If energy can be produced and used locally on farms, this
will reduce the energy consumption burden on other sources of energy such as coal and natural gas. In
2019, the energy generation from AD systems on farms was approximately 1.28 million megawatt-hours
equivalent (EPA,2019). Figure 3 illustrates the increasing energy output from AD systems since 2000.
Figure 4 4. Energy generation from electricity and non-electricity projects on farms since 2000.
38
Some of the other direct benefits of AD for farmers include (AgSTAR, 2011):
- Additional farm revenue
- Renewable energy
- High quality liquid fertilizer
- Manure fiber
- Odor reduction
- Enhanced public image
- Rural job growth
- Flexible nutrient management
Despite the multitude of benefits, and increasing usage, AD utilization varies across the US. There are
currently almost 250 farm-scale ADs with 34 new ones currently under construction (EPA, 2019). The
upward trend of on-farm AD use for biogas is expected to continue, though there are some areas that are
unexpectedly stagnant in growth. There are only four operational AD systems in place in Iowa as of 2019,
even though there is widespread potential for the adoption of AD for agricultural purposes. As of 2019,
Iowa was home to 23 million hogs who are producing tons of manure every day. University of Iowa
professor Chris Jones stated that “Managing the waste from these animals is possibly our state’s most
challenging environmental problem," (Jones, 2019). There are over 13,000 animal feeding operations in
Iowa, 73 in Johnson County alone, each requiring manure management systems. AD systems using the
manure from animal feeding operations could be incredibly beneficial to Iowa due to the large number of
animal feeding operations located in the state. Additionally, Johnson County would be well suited to such
systems due to the large urban areas in the county. AD systems work best when co-digesting manure with
other sources of organic wastes, including cities.
2. Johnson County Farms and DA potential
The goal of this project is to create a map of the farms in Johnson County to advance the use of
AD technology. The map examines the potential for growth by identifying candidate farms in the county
as well as highlight spatial clustering where shared AD systems could be installed.
To determine the potential of implementing AD systems in Johnson County, data from all the
animal feeding operations were collected from the Iowa Open Spatial Data regulated by the Iowa DNR.
The database is updated on a daily basis by the Iowa DNR. The data was processed and filtered to retain
the following characteristics: facility name, address, city, township, county, latitude, longitude, operation
type, production type, and number of animal units. The data was then mapped by longitude and latitude
according to the animal feeding operation type and size to determine the technically feasible farms where
AD systems could be implemented. In addition, the map also shows clustering of farms that are not large
enough individually, but that could, if combined, support AD systems. This could keep the economic and
environmental benefits of AD technology but reduce the individual burden and responsibility of
implementation and management operation.
In addition to this map, an interactive website was designed and created to serve as a resource
for the Johnson County Clean Energy District and farmers interested in AD systems.
The feasibility of implementing an AD system on a farm depends on the following factors and
other site-specific details: the type and scale of the livestock operation, how the manure is handled, the
frequency of manure collection, and the potential end uses of the recovered biogas. Other important
factors include farmers’ financial goals, operational and management responsibility, the ability to connect
39
to electrical and/or gas lines, energy agreements, and up-front costs and funding sources. This chapter
focuses on the type and scale of livestock operation to highlight where potential systems could be located.
AD systems are technically feasible for farms that produce manure from cattle and swine and are
large enough to support successful recovery projects. Potential candidates need to have a minimum of
500 head of cattle or a minimum of 2000 swine. Further analysis will need to be conducted for all
candidate farms to identify farmers’ interests and determine specifically how farm operations could
support an AD system.
Findings
The data for all 73 Animal Feedlot Operations (AFOs) in Johnson County were mapped using
longitude and latitude according to type and size. Figure 2 displays farm products (blue for swine, orange
for cattle beef, and red for cattle dairy). The size of the markers is scaled according to the number of
animal units located at the farm. Swine animal units were scaled according to the 2000 animal units
minimum threshold, and cattle were scaled according to the 500 animal units minimum threshold. This
means that all farms with the largest scaled markers are large enough to support AD systems. According
to Figure 4 and the requirements for the type and size of farm needed to be technically feasible, there are
only four farms (two swine farms and two cattle farms) large enough to sustain AD systems on their own.
The details of these farms are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 4.1. Candidate Farms sufficiently large to support AD systems in Johnson County
Swine farms larger than 2000 animal units:
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Jim Shenk Home Farm 2171 500TH ST SW Kalona Confinement 2000
Ray Slach Farms - All sites 4306 Oasis Road West Branch Confinement 3840
Cattle beef farms larger than 500 animal units:
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Thomas C. And Jane Hotz 5308 540th St. SE Lone Tree Confined/Open 550
Roger C. Stutsman 3154 480th St. SW Iowa City Confined/Open 675
40
Figure 5.4. There are four animal feeding operation Johnson County that are technically large enough (minimum of 500 cattle of
minimum of 2000 swine) to support AD systems.
While there are only four AFOs in Johnson county large enough to support AD systems on their
own, more farms could use AD if they combine their manure. The map shows a clustering of farms of the
same type. Figure 5 shows that there are five clusters of individual swine farms in Johnson County that
when combined, would be large enough to support AD systems. The details of these swine clusters and
farms are shown in Table 2. Figure 6 shows that there is one cluster of cattle farms that, if combined, are
technically large enough to support AD systems. The details of these cattle clusters are shown in Table 3.
41
Table 4.2. Candidate swine farm clusters sufficiently large to support AD systems in Johnson County
Clusters of individual swine farms larger than 2000 animal units:
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Busy Bs Farm Inc. 1572 560th St SW Kalona Confinement 880
Troyer Farms Inc 1684 Johnson Washington Rd SW Kalona Confinement 800
Lavon Bontrager DERBY AVE SW Kalona Confinement 999
Sum 2679
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
David Schott 5241 MAIER AVENUE Riverside Confinement 800
Thomas W Schott 5272 MAIER AVENUE SW Riverside Confinement 960
Darlene Gingerich 3304 540th St. SW Riverside Confinement 400
Sum 2160
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Gama Home 5630 Johnson Louisa Rd SE Nichols Confinement 992
Todd Lorack - East Barn 5736 JOHNSON-LOUISA ROAD Nichols Confinement 1011
Sum 2003
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
James J. Ronan 660th Street Lone Tree Confinement 992
Rc Farms 4810 660TH ST SE Lone Tree Confinement 496
Jon Ronan 6565 Utah Ave SE Lone Tree Confinement 992
Sum 2480
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Home Site 4680 TAFT AVE SE Iowa City Confinement 1440
G2 Pork Llc 5140 480th St SE Iowa City Confinement 960
Sum 2400
42
Figure 4.6. There are five clusters of individual swine farms in Johnson County that when combined, are technically large enough
(minimum of 2000 swine) to support AD systems.
Table 4.3. Candidate cattle farm clusters sufficiently large to support AD systems in Johnson County
Cluster of individual cattle farms larger than 500 animal units:
Facility Name Address City Name Operation Type Animal Units
Bernard Prybil 5115 480th St. SE Iowa City Open Feedlot 300
Bernard L. and Rowena Prybil 4744 Vincent Ave. SE Iowa City Open Feedlot 300
Sum 600
43
Figure 4.7. There is one cluster of individual cattle farms in Johnson County that when combined, are technically large enough
(minimum of 500 cattle) to support AD systems.
44
3. Interactive Website
An interactive website was designed and created to serve as a resource for the JCED and farmers
who are interested in AD systems. Some of the design features include: resources to learn more about AD
systems and their benefits; success stories from livestock farmers who have successfully installed and
used AD systems on their farms; state and federal funding opportunities; a form for users to input new or
additional data about their farm; and a map with all of the AFOs in Johnson county that can be sorted by
type and size for future analysis. A screenshot of the website can be seen in Figure 7 below showing some
of these details.
Figure 8. The Potential of Anaerobic Digestion Technology in Johnson County Iowa interactive website landing page showing
some of the available resources the site provides.
4. Recommendations and Funding sources
The AFO data in the maps above show that there is potential to implement 10 AD systems in
Johnson County. Identifying candidate farms is the first step for introducing AD systems into Johnson
County. These farms need to undergo further analysis to determine whether they can support AD systems.
Additional analysis will be needed for the clusters of farms as well. Interviewing the farmers of candidate
farms to determine interest is the next step towards implementation. If farmers are interested, further
feasibility studies of the farm can be conducted to determine if their manure production and site can
support an AD system. The website can serve as a resource for the farmers of candidate farms and others
who are interested in AD systems.
One of the major drawbacks of AD systems is the large up-front capital cost of building the system.
Farmers cannot always finance these projects, in addition to the costs associated with maintenance and
operation. There are multiple state and federal funding opportunities that mitigate financial burdens for
farmers. Iowa provides multiple incentives and policies to support AD construction and operations on
45
livestock farms. Table 4 below shows some of the incentives that can be used for AD systems. Additionally,
as the data shows, cooperative AD systems that serve multiple farms can be of great benefit. Researchers
from NC State and the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently created a techno-economic optimization
model that showed that cooperative systems could actually be more economically beneficial than single-
farm AD systems (Sharara et al, 2020).
Table 4.4. State and federal policies and incentives that can reduce the financial burden on famers wanting to implement AD
systems on their farm.
Federal Polices and Incentives
Name Category Policy/Incentive
Type
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) Financial
Incentive
Loan Program
USDA - Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Loan Guarantees Financial
Incentive
Loan Program
USDA - Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants Financial
Incentive
Grant Program
Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) Financial
Incentive
Corporate
Depreciation
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) Financial
Incentive
Loan Program
Interconnection Standards for Small Generators Regulatory
Policy
Interconnection
State Polices and Incentives
Name Category Policy/Incentive
Type
Interconnection Standards Regulatory
Policy
Interconnection
Alternative Energy Law (AEL) Regulatory
Policy
Renewables
Portfolio
Standard
Methane Gas Conversion Property Tax Exemption Financial
Incentive
Property Tax
Incentive
46
Detailed financial modeling will need to be conducted on a site-specific basis for any farm
interested in implementing and AD system. Some of the ways to improve favorable project economics
include:
• Creating an additional source of revenue from electricity sales or other types of energy sales such
as tariffs for biogas, feed-in tariffs, or renewable energy certificates through renewables portfolio
standards.
• Obtaining direct financial assistances for up-front costs through loans and grant programs
• Seeking additional revenue generating options such as finding additional uses for on-farm heat,
accepting organic waste from other businesses, producing fertilizer, partnering with a local
educational institution for research, or tourism.
• Getting creative with financing mechanisms such as tax credits and low interest program
investment loans in addition to different business models for maintenance and operation.
To conclude, this chapter examined the potential of AD systems in Johnson county. AD provides
farmers with sustainable options for environmental and economic benefits as it is a manure management
system that produces biogas. Johnson County has ten sites where farm-scale AD systems could be
implemented as an AD system for one farm or a cooperative AD system serving multiple farms. A website
was created to serve as a resource to share this information with the people of JCED and farmers of
Johnson County who are interested in AD technology. This report and website lay the foundational
framework to meet the future goals of JCED. Future steps still need to be taken such as interviewing the
candidate farm owners, conducting further feasibility studies, and working through the economics of such
a project.
47
Chapter 5. Energy Burden of Low-Income Households in Johnson County
Johnson County Clean Energy District’s (JCCED) seeks to advance energy efficiency
through an energy justice lens. The Iowa City Climate Action plan lists social equity as a guiding
principle and lists two actions that are relevant to energy justice: Action 1.1 calls for utilizing
energy audits for energy efficiency in renter occupied residences and Action 4.1 calls for
assessing community vulnerability (City of Iowa City, 2017).
Energy justice seeks to redress the disproportionate burden of national and regional
energy policies on low income communities. Energy justice is based on the principle that all
people should have equal protection from the disproportionate costs and impacts of energy
policies and decision-making processes impacting power generation, distribution, transmission,
consumption, and maintenance of power systems, while ensuring equitable access to energy
resources (Joroff, 2017). An energy justice approach to reducing energy consumption and
increasing energy efficiency should consider the race, class, socioeconomic characteristics of
populations served, identify existing barriers to energy justice, and recommend strategies to
address those barriers. Applying justice principles in energy policy requires: identifying
unequitable distributions in terms of energy security and fuel poverty, recognizing when low
income, minority and otherwise disenfranchised communities are disproportionately burdened,
and remedying injustices through interventions in energy production, distribution and/ or
consumption (Jenkis, McCauley, Heffron, Stephan, & Rehner 2015).
In this chapter, we focus on the energy consumption dimension of energy justice.
Energy burden, the uneven proportion of households’ incomes devoted to energy costs, is a
form of inequity that disproportionately impacts low income communities. Low income
households will thus benefit the most from energy efficiency measures that can reduce their
energy costs burden. Energy justice principles promote opportunities and interventions in and
for low income communities to reduce energy costs for the households who are the most cost
burdened. This chapter maps out areas of the county where energy burdens are the highest
and proposes goals and strategies to reduce low income communities’ energy burden through
energy efficiency policies and outreach. This chapter also provides an overview of federal
energy assistance and weatherization assistance programs that can support JCED’s goals, and
makes recommendations based on the findings as well as conversations with Sara Baron of the
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition.
48
1. Johnson County Energy Burden Assessment
This assessment examines energy burden among low income households and maps
those by Census tracts to identify areas where interventions are most needed. We also
distinguish between owners and renters. We used the Low-Income Energy Affordability Data
(LEAD) tool of the U.S. Department of Energy (which uses 2010 census data and American
Community Survey 5-year estimates) to identify energy burden across housing tenure,
household income, energy type, and building type and all Johnson County’s census tracts (Ma,
Laymon, Day, Oliveira, Weers, and Vimont. 2019).
Electricity and natural gas make up the bulk of households’ utility costs. The costs of
electricity and gas are lower in Iowa compared to the nation, but can still be prohibitive for low
income households (figures 5.1 and 5.2 below for the US and Iowa). This chapter presents an
energy burden assessment of Johnson County for low income communities, defining low
income households based on the area median income (AMI).
Figure 5.2. Utility costs in Iowa Source:
www.spacesimply.com/iowaliving
Figure 5.1. Nationwide utility costs per month Source: www.move.org/utility-
bills-101
49
In this assessment, we use three AMI-based income thresholds (<30%, 30-60%, 60-80%
AMI). The graphs below show the energy burden for owner and renter occupied households in
2018 for Johnson County. Energy burden is calculated as a proportion of household income and
shown separately for gas and electricity costs.
Figure 5.3: Energy Burden Among Owner-Occupied Low-Income Households
Figure 5.4: Energy Burden Among Renter Occupied Low Income Households
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
60-80%60-30%<30%Energy Burden (% of Income)AMI
Energy Burden of Owner Occupied Households in 2018
Avg. Energy
Burden (% Income)
(Gas)
Avg. Energy
Burden (% of
Income)
(Electricity)
0
5
10
15
20
60-80%60-30%<30%Energy Burden (% of Income)AMI
Energy Burden of Renter Occupied Households in
2018
Avg. Energy
Burden (%
Income) (Gas)
Avg. Energy
Burden (% of
Income)
(Electricity)
50
Figure 5.5: Energy Burden Among <30% AMI Owner Occupied Households based on Census
Tracts in Johnson County
Figure 5.6: Energy Burden Among <30% AMI Renter Occupied Households based on Census
Tracts in Johnson County
0
5
10
15
20
25
6104103.01105114Johnson County3.0116110218.025101103.02215172318.014143.021312Energy Burden (% of Income)Census Tracts in Johnson County
Johnson County Energy Burden for Owner Occupied Households
<30% AMI
Other
Gas
Electricty
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
10221103.0221611123.02101Johnson County176410418.023.01518.0114103.012310511315Energy Burden (% of Income)Census Tracts in Johnson County
Renter Occupied Households
<30% AMI
Other
Gas
Electricty
51
Overall 3% of Iowa and 2% of Johnson County residents are energy-burdened (based on
2016 Census Data and American Community Survey 5-year estimates). However, those
averages hide wide disparities. In Johnson County, households earning <30% AMI experience
the most severe energy burden among all three income categories. About 12% of the poorest
homeowners and 17% of the poorest renters (<30% AMI) are energy-burdened. In contrast, 2-
4% of renters and homeowners earning between 60 and 80% of the AMI are energy-burdened,
and 5-6% of homeowners and renters earning between 30-60% of the AMI are energy-
burdened (Figures 5.3 and 5.4).
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 reveal the four census tracts with the highest proportion of energy-
burdened households: Census Tracts #6, 102, 103.01, and 104. A map of average energy burden
and average annual energy cost for low income households making less than 80% AMI is shown
for Johnson County in Figure 5.7. The darker shades indicate higher energy costs experienced
by households.
Figure 5.7: Johnson County Low Income Household Energy Burden Assessment
The areas with the highest proportion of energy-burdened renters are:
- Census Tract #102: Northwest quadrant of Johnson County
The areas with the highest proportion of energy-burdened homeowners are:
- Census Tract #6: Iowa City between the Iowa River and University Heights, between the
University of Iowa and Highway 6
- Census Tract #103.01: Tiffin and West of Tiffin between I80 and the Iowa River, between
Tiffin and the Western County Boundary
- Census Tract #104: Southwest quadrant of Johnson County
52
In addition, figures 5.3 to 5.6 reveal that most of the energy burden for low income
households stems from electricity costs, probably in part because natural gas is relatively cheap
in Iowa. We do not know how many households heat their homes with electricity, but if most of
the electricity usage goes to cooling, this would suggest that high energy costs for low-income
households are driven by cooling rather than heating costs.
Energy burden for the poorest households (<30% of AMI)
The poorest households are the most heavily energy-burdened. Energy efficiency efforts
in the homes of very low income households (<30% AMI), and especially reducing cooling
needs, have the potential to dramatically reduce energy burdens. Table 5.1 shows that there
are 1,815 homeowner households earning <30% AMI in Johnson County, and that energy costs
account for 15% of their total income (v. 18% for all of Iowa’s 58,274 homeowners earning
<30%AMI).
Overall, Johnson County’s 1,815 very low income homeowners (<30% AMI) spend
between 15% of their income on energy bills. Low income homeowners’ energy burden is the
highest in Census tract #6 (between University Heights and the Iowa River in Iowa City), where
low income homeowners spend 21% of their income on energy bills (Table 5.2). This amounts
to 46 homes, which could be priority targets for energy efficiency interventions.
The 9,346 low-income (<30% AMI) renters in Johnson County spend between 9% and
12% of their income on energy on average (Table 5.3). This lower energy burden (v.
homeowners) could stem from economies of scale in apartments buildings compared to
independent furnaces and H/VAC systems, and/or from the inclusion of utilities in rents. The
largest concentration of very low-income renter households is in Census Tracts #11 and #16,
the student residential area located in Iowa City on the North Side and between Iowa Avenue
and the Iowa Interstate Railroad Tracks in Iowa City.
Table 5.1: Average Energy Burden for <30% AMI Homeowner Households
Name Avg. Energy Burden
(% Income)
Number of Households
Iowa 18 58,274
Johnson County 15 1,815
53
Table 5.2: Average Energy Burden for homeowner households <30% AMI in Johnson County
Johnson County Energy Burden Assessment for Owners
Location Energy Burden (% of income) and
Utility Share
Housing
Count
Johnson County 15% 1815
Census Tract 103.01 in Johnson County 17% 202
Census Tract 103.02 in Johnson County 13% 56
Census Tract 18.02 in Johnson County 14% 38
Census Tract 2 in Johnson County 13% 60
Census Tract 3.01 in Johnson County 15% 48
Census Tract 13 in Johnson County 11% 67
Census Tract 15 in Johnson County 13% 85
Census Tract 16 in Johnson County 15% 20
Census Tract 17 in Johnson County 13% 71
Census Tract 21 in Johnson County - 11
Census Tract 23 in Johnson County 13% 15
Census Tract 5 in Johnson County 14% 116
Census Tract 6 in Johnson County 21% 46
Census Tract 11 in Johnson County 16% 24
Census Tract 12 in Johnson County 11% 37
Census Tract 18.01 in Johnson County 13% 153
Census Tract 105 in Johnson County 17% 229
Census Tract 4 in Johnson County 16% 71
Census Tract 104 in Johnson County 18% 217
Census Tract 3.02 in Johnson County 12% 13
Census Tract 101 in Johnson County 14% 57
Census Tract 1 in Johnson County 15% 83
Census Tract 102 in Johnson County 15% 37
Census Tract 14 in Johnson County 13% 58
Table 5.3: Average Energy Burden for Renter Households <30% AMI in Johnson County
Johnson County Energy Burden Assessment for Renters
Location Energy Burden (% of
income) and Utility Share
Housing Count
Johnson County 9% 9,346
Census Tract 21 in Johnson County 12% 453
Census Tract 103.02 in Johnson County 11% 184
Census Tract 2 in Johnson County 10% 311
Census Tract 16 in Johnson County 10% 2,114
Census Tract 11 in Johnson County 10% 795
Census Tract 12 in Johnson County 10% 113
Census Tract 3.02 in Johnson County 10% 758
Census Tract 101 in Johnson County 10% 58
54
Energy burden for households earning 30-60% of the AMI
Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the energy burden for households earning 30 -60% of the AMI. The
most energy-burdened homeowners at this income level are disproportionately in Tract #104
(Southwest Quadrant of Johnson County, shown in Figure 5.7). The most energy-burdened
tenants at this income level are in Tracts #102 (Northwest Johnson County), #104 (Southwest
Johnson County) and #17 (South Iowa City, between the Iowa Interstate Railroad Tracks and
Highway 6). Each figure includes the number of housing units concerned by high energy
burdens in each tract.
Figure 5.8: Energy Burden for Owner Occupied 30-60% AMI Households in Johnson County
Figure 5.9: Energy Burden for Renter Occupied 30-60% AMI Households in Johnson County
55
Energy burden for households earning 60-80% of the AMI
In this income category, there are more energy-burdened homeowners than renters.
Johnson County’s average energy burden for owners and renters earning 60-80% of the AMI is
5% and 3%, respectively (Figures 5.10 and 5.11). The housing counts estimates for each census
tract is included in each figure. Southwest Johnson County (census tract 104) has the highest
number of energy-burdened homeowners in this income category (251). The highest
concentration of energy-burdened renters in this income category (184 households) is in Iowa
City, between the Iowa Interstate Railroad Tracks and Highway 6 (census tract 17).
Figure 5.10: Energy Burden for Homeowners earning 60-80% AMI
Figure 5.11: Energy Burden for Renters earning 60-80% AMI
56
2. Priority interventions and recommendations
This assessment reveals how many low-income households are energy-burdened,
whether they own or rent their homes, and where they are located in the county. We found
that about 12% of the poorest homeowners and 17% of the poorest renters (<30% AMI) are
energy-burdened and spend on average 15% of their income on energy bills. In contrast, about
5% of those earning 30-60% and 60-80% of the AMI are energy-burdened and they spend 3-5%
of their income on energy costs. Thus, priority should be given to increasing energy efficiency
and reducing energy costs for households earning <30% of AMI.
We also found that electricity costs are the largest part of poor households’ utility bills,
suggesting that reducing electricity usage should be priority.
Finally, we identified the geographical areas where interventions are most needed:
Highest density of low-income energy-burdened renters
- Northwestern quadrant of Johnson County (Census Tract #102)
- Iowa City between University Heights and the Iowa River (Census Tract #6)
- Iowa City student residential area on the North Side (Census Tract #11)
- Iowa City student residential area between Iowa Avenue and the Iowa Interstate
Railroad Tracks (Tract #16)
- Iowa City between the Iowa Interstate Railroad Tracks and Highway 6 (Tract #17)
Highest density of low-income energy-burdened homeowners
- Southwest Quadrant of Johnson County (Census Tract #104)
- Iowa City between the Iowa River and University Heights, between the University of
Iowa and Highway 6 (Census Tract #6)
- Tiffin and West of Tiffin between I80 and the Iowa River, and between Tiffin and the
Western County Boundary (Census Tract #103.01)
Energy assistance programs
In Iowa, energy bill assistance is available through the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Both are
federal programs that support low-income households.
LIHEAP helps low income homeowners and renters pay a portion of their heating bills
during winter months. Currently, applicants must be at or below 175% of the 2020 federal poverty
guidelines to qualify. LIHEAP served about 82,00 Iowa households in 2019. According to
LIHEAP’s 2018 data, 68.3% of low-income households served by the program heat their homes
with gas, and 22.4% heat their home with electricity. Gas is relatively cheaper in Iowa than
other states, and as we saw above, electricity is a larger portion of low-income households’
57
energy bills. Thus, utility payment assistance that helps pay for electricity rather than gas would
better relieve Johnson County households’ energy burden.
If further analysis reveals that summer cooling creates more costs burdens than winter
heating, and thus that the LIHEAP program is insufficient, JCED could work with the County to
provide summer months cooling assistance to very-low income households.
Weatherization audits
Home weatherization and insulation improvements can reduce energy usage and costs.
Insulation leaks cost residents significant amounts of money. Home weatherization audits are
thus essential, especially for energy-burdened households. The Iowa City Climate Action Toolkit
includes state and federal-level resources for weatherization (City of Iowa City, 2019).
The Green Iowa AmeriCorps, based at the University of Northern Iowa, and funded by
the Iowa Energy Development Authority, can partner with JCED to assist energy-burdened
households. Green Iowa performs energy audits by visiting homes and identifying air leaks,
gaps in insulation, other sources of energy losses, mold, and humidity. Green Iowa provides
recommendations to homeowners, but does not implement home improvements or
recommend specific contractors. However Green Iowa coordinates small home improvement
supplies, with items donated by local providers, such as door and window seals. JCED could
increase access to weatherization supplies by coordinating donations from community
organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or local home improvement stores. Addressing the
dearth of local contractors knowledgeable about (and interested in) home energy efficiency
upgrades and improvements calls for the contractor training recommendations made in
Chapter 1.
Another consideration: Manufactured housing
An important consideration for implementing energy efficiency programs for low
income households in Johnson County is that many low-income households live in
manufactured housing (Sara Baron, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition).
Manufactures/mobile homes have very poor insulation properties. In older mobile homes, in
particular, the insulation can fall to the bottom of the walls, leaving large portions of the walls
uninsulated. Those households thus spend more money to heat and cool their homes. Since
manufactured homes are often not suitable for home improvements, weatherization programs
for mobile homes tend to be low priority.
An easy way to determine whether home have good or poor roof insulation is to
conduct an informal windshield survey after a light snowfall. Home with no snow on the roof
(i.e., where the snow melts) indicates poor roof insulation. This method offers a low-cost way
to further explore census tracts with the highest energy burdens to locate homes in most need
for home weatherization audits.
58
Relationship and trust-building
In order to implement energy efficiencies, JCED will need to build relationships and trust
with local communities. Renters may not feel comfortable, or may not be allowed, to make
changes in their home. Low-income households may experience shame associated with
poverty, and may not feel comfortable with in-home audits. Another barrier is that low income
residents may be undocumented or have issues with law enforcement, and could be reluctant
to let strangers into their home. It is therefore important that weatherization or energy
efficiency efforts take place in neighborhoods where JCED has built trust.
Thus, it may be most valuable for JCED to start building relationships in one
neighborhood rather than scatter its efforts throughout the county. Based on our results, we
suggest that JCED starts building relationships with the 46 homeowners in Iowa City in the area
located between the Iowa River and University Heights, and between the University of Iowa
and Highway 6 (Census Tract #6). This is the area where low income homeowners experience
the highest energy burden (21% of their income on average).
Coordination with other local organizations
In addition to the Green Iowa AmeriCorps, we identified several community
organizations that can work with JCED on increasing homes’ energy efficiency:
• Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, low income housing
• Habitat for Humanity, home improvements for low income households
• Beloved Communities Initiative, racial justice initiatives and coalitions
• Center for Worker Justice, Eastern Iowa worker and housing advocacy
• Black Voices Project, African American community organization
• IC Compassion, community immigration support
Conclusion
Low Income households are often burdened by high energy costs because their homes
are not energy efficient. We used the Department of Energy’s LEAD toolkit to conduct an
energy burden assessment for Johnson County and identify which households and parts of the
county are most energy-burdened. The assessment reveals that households earning under 30%
of the AMI are the most energy-burdened, and reveals the parts of the county where low
income renters and homeowners are most energy-burdened. We make recommendations
about which homeowners to target first.
Addressing energy burdens for renters will involve a different set of intervention
priorities, which are discussed in Chapter 3 (Rents, Landlords and Energy Consumption).
59
Chapter 6. Benchmarking Building Energy Consumption
Johnson County already receives a large portion of its power from renewable sources.
The next step towards sustainable energy is to increase energy efficiencies. A barrier to
addressing inefficient energy uses is that the only entity that collects buildings’ energy usage
data is the utility MidAmerican Energy. The lack of publicly available data on building energy
usage makes it difficult to track progress. Thus, to benchmark and track energy efficiency, the
county should require energy use data reporting (by the utility, residential, commercial and
industrial building owners, or property managers). This chapter reviews best practices for
energy benchmarking.
The idea of benchmarking energy usage has precedent in Iowa. In 2019, the Des Moines
City Council passed legislation requiring large commercial buildings to disclose their energy
usage, which will eventually be made public. When this legislation was passed, over 20 other
American cities had implemented similar requirements, e.g., Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Chicago
(whotv.com). Energy usage disclosure policies are adopted to track progress in energy
efficiencies and energy usage, allow comparisons across buildings, and to incentiviz e efficiency
improvements. Benchmarking gathers energy use data from buildings and evaluates how
efficient buildings are compared to similar structures. Buildings are evaluated in terms of
Energy Usage Intensity (EUI) (Harvard), which is the total energy use divided by the building's
total floor area. Benchmarking also supports ongoing energy auditing to track changes over
time (energyandfacilities.harvard.edu).
To propose a benchmarking program suited for Johnson County, we examine local,
national and international benchmarking programs, from Des Moines, San Francisco, Boulder
and the European Union.
1. Case Study: Des Moines
Des Moines is the only Iowa City that benchmarks energy (and water) usage. The
ordinance adopted by the Des Moines city council states that the benchmarking program goals
are: to bolster the health, safety, and welfare of the community by improving the energy
efficiency of city-owned buildings and other structures that fall into the scope of the
monitoring. By doing this, the city aims to “foster a sustainable local economy through
environmentally sound building practices and energy efficiency (City of Des Moines)”.
The Des Moines benchmarking program includes municipal and large commercial
buildings at or above 25,000 square feet in total building gross floor area (City of Des Moines).
Buildings that must report have two options to analyze their energy usage. They can use the
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . They
can also use the Iowa B3 Benchmarking Program. Both tools analyze the energy efficiency of
buildings, calculate a total score, and compare the building efficiency to other similar
structures. Owners that fails to comply with the benchmarking can be fined by the Community
Development Director.
60
In practice, in May of each year, building owners must generate a report stating the
building’s energy and water usage for the previous calendar year. This data is verified to ensure
that the required data is submitted properly. Starting in 2022 the program will start releasing
energy reports every July. Exceptions are made to the benchmarking requirement for
unoccupied buildings, buildings that averaged 1 person or less on a daily basis, and in the case
of undue hardships associated with the reporting (e.g., giving away trade secrets) or if the
building is LEED certified.
The city plans on using the data for “offering programs, services, and incentives related
to energy use and water use efficiency and man agement for the covered property (City of Des
Moines)”. The city can provide aggregated or anonymized data for research purposes to
academic and non-commercial research interests that aims to advance the goals of the
benchmarking program. The city will need written permission from building owners to provide
non-anonymized property data.
2. Case Study: San Francisco
Since 2015, the state of California has an overarching state benchmarking policy, which
includes utility companies, commercial buildings larger than 50,000 square feet, multifamily
residential buildings over 50,000 square feet, and state agencies (EnergyStar). The city of San
Francisco expands the state’s program to include all non-residential buildings over 10,000
square feet (SF Environment). Reporting mechanisms are is similar to Des Moines’. Owners of
eligible buildings must use the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool to report energy usage
annually (SF Environment). The is then used to calculate an energy intensity score, and a rating
on a scale of 1-100 assesses the performance of each building. The Portfolio Manager tool also
records the energy source for the building. This data is then used to calculate the greenhouse
gas emissions of each structure.
The San Francisco benchmarking program shows that benchmarking can be used for a
broader range of buildings than Des Moines. However, San Francisco resources are much
greater that Johnson County’s. A more viable model for Johnson County may be one based on a
similar size community.
61
3. Case Study: Boulder
Boulder, Colorado in similar to Iowa City in many ways. They are both mid-sized cities,
although Boulder has a slightly larger population. Both cities are home to large public
universities, and both are political outlier (generally more progressive) than their states. Unlike
California, Colorado does not have a statewide benchmarking policy. This leaves energy
benchmarking and reporting responsibilities to the cities that choose to do so. Boulder enacted
its benchmarking policy in 2015. Reporting requirements apply to commercial and industrial
buildings that are larger than 20,000 square feet, and to all the new commercial and industrial
buildings that are larger than 10,000 square feet (City of Boulder, 2020).
Boulder has ramped up the size requirement gradually since the policy passed, starting
at 50,000 sq. ft in 2016, shifting to 30,000 sq. ft in 2018, and then to 20,000 sq. ft in 2020 (City
of Boulder). This gradual increase gave businesses more time to prepare for the reporting and
makes the project more palatable for the business community. Like other benchmarking
programs, Boulder requires that building owners submit their data through the ENERGY STAR
Portfolio Manager once a year (City of Boulder).
In addition, Boulder also requires buidilng owners to pursue energy efficiencies through
retrocommissioning and lighting upgrades. This makes the Boulder model more impactful than
Des Moines’ and San Francisco. Retrocommissioning is a way to improve the efficiency of an
existing building. It is essentially the process of fine-tuning a building to be more energy
efficient (Building Efficiency Initiative). It does not necessarily require new equipment, and is a
low-cost way to improve efficiency. For instance, lights can be turned off when no one is on the
premises, and heating and cooling systems can be recalibrated so they not used at the same
time (Building Efficiency Initiative). Boulder requires that building owners go through with this
procedure within 5 years of their first energy report, and every 10 years after that (City of
Boulder). Owners need to provide the city with a report on the retrocommissioning and the
actions they took to make their building more efficient (City of Boulder).
Boulder also mandates lighting upgrades to improve efficiency. Within five years of the
first benchmarking report, the building owner need to improve their interior and exterior
lighting using options that meet the City’s power allowance (City of Boulder). Buildings also
need to implement time switches and occupancy sensors, which help using lights only when
needed.
Boulder’s benchmarking plan is very thorough in its efforts to achieve energy efficiency,
and its required efficiency improvements goes farther than San Francisco's. However, its
minimum square footage for existing structures is twice as large of San Francisco's.
62
4. Case Study: the European Union
The European Union has pursued greater efficiency amongst its building stock, but
through a different means. Instead of relying on data collection an educational approach with
benchmarking, they go further and require efficiency upgrades. The Energy Perform ance of
Buildings Directive (EPBD) covers small residential buildings, which are excluded from American
models so far (except for San Francisco which covers multi-family residential complexes larger
than 50,000 sq feet). This exclusion leaves out a large amount of the structures and all single-
family homes. The E.U.’s directive, on the other hand, applies to all buildings.
The EPBD has three goals: to decarbonize the building supply by 2050, to establish a
stable environment for investments, and to enable businesses and consumers to make more
informed decisions in regards to energy and money (EPD).
The E.U. requires all member states to create a plan for the long-term renovation of
their building stock. These plans mush show how they will meet decarbonized building goal set
by the E.U., and must provide progress reports every ten years in 2030 and 2040. While they
create their roadmap to efficiency, member states must reach energy efficiency targets along
the way (EPD).
The directive also sets out performance requirements. These levels must be set by
member states for all new buildings, structures that undergo major renovati ons, and with it the
replacement and retrofitting of building (EPD). Those improvements could be in the walls,
roofs, and heating and cooling systems of a building (EPD). With these requirements, the
building stock should become more and more efficient over time.
Finally, the E.U. gives ratings to each housing unit (each building, apartment and condo).
Consumers who search for rental apartments or a condos in any European city see the energy
performance of unit. Every time a house of condo is sold, a specialized inspector must conduct
an energy audit on-site and provide a performance certificate for the unit (EPD). All units’
efficiency is public information when they are on the market, allowing comparisons with other
units. Energy efficiency is measured in kWh per square meter, and expressed in an A to G score,
(D = 151 to 230 kWh/m2). Structures built to be extremely efficient have a more rigorous rating
model (D= 21-35 kWh/m2). See Figure 6.1.
Overall, the European Union's Energy Performance Building Directive is a sweeping
policy that aims at increasing energy efficiency in all types of buildings. It has ambitious goals
that it sets out to fulfill, and it lays the groundwork on how it is going to reach it. Lessons can be
learned from this model and implemented into U.S. cities.
63
Figure 6.1. French version of the European requirement for energy efficiency disclosure for all
buildings and housing units.
(Similarly, starting in 2020, New York City buildings over 25,000 ft 2 will be required to display
their efficiency score and corresponding letter grade near building entrances, using the
following scorecard, see Figure 6.2.)
Figure 6.2 Source: Letter Grade Law LL95, April 2019 New York City Climate Mobilization Act
5. Recommendations
An energy benchmarking system and the data generated will allow Johnson County
communities and building owners to better pursue energy efficiency. San Francisco’s model
includes many buildings under its mandate. Des Moines is the only city in Iowa with a
benchmarking policy, includes water consumption tracking, but it falls short of other systems.
Boulder’s plan is ambitious and goes further than San Francisco and Des Moines with its
emphasis on actual improvements. Ideally, Iowa City and Johnson County would model their
legislation on Boulder’s, and add a water consumption reporting component (as Des Moines).
Water consumption tracking is only going to become increasingly important in times of climate
change and droughts.
The San Francisco plan and the EU model show that benchmarking is feasible on
buildings under 20,000 square feet. Ideally, Iowa City and Johnson County should strive for
benchmarking all buildings over 10,000 square feet, perhaps starting at 20,000 square feet and
widening the mandate over time. Johnson County should include, as San Francisco, reporting by
multi-family residential structures over 50,000 square feet.
64
The E.U.'s directive is the most ambitious proposal, but is clearly feasible: Iowa City and
Johnson County could require energy use history be reported when a housing unit is sold. This
information would be gathered and, over time, the city would get a good picture of energy
usage of residential buildings.
Those benchmarking requirements will impose new costs on building owners, which cal
be alleviated by phasing in from larger to smaller buildings. They will also require a trained
workforce of energy auditors, and thereby create new green jobs. Chapter 1 touches on efforts
JCED could undertake to help create this new workforce in partnership with Kirkwood
Community College.
In sum, Iowa City and Johnson County should pursue energy benchmarking. It should
include all buildings that 10,000 square feet or larger (perhaps starting with those 15,000
square feet or larger). Building owners would be required to report energy usage for the past
year, as well as their water usage. Five years after the first report, and 10 years after that, all
eligible buildings will have to retrocommission their structure to improve energy efficiency,
and document those changes. In addition, they will have to change their lighting to the best
efficient option, including timers and motion sensors for interior lighting. Lastly, requiring
energy reporting for residential units (condos, duplexes, and single family homes) when they
are sold should be pursued. This would address a major blindspot of US benchmarking
programs which usually exclude residential buildings. This is not only feasible, but would also
turn Iowa City and Johnson County into models in the Midwest.
Figure 6.1. Visual representation of the benchmarking programs generated by Heather Flynn
65
Conclusion
This report is intended to assist the Johnson County Clean Energy District and its initiatives with
data, best practices, and recommendations. This report provides strategies to implement:
• A public outreach strategy that engages homeowners and tenants in energy savings efforts (via
social media and / or app. games)
• A contractor certification program with Kirkwood Community College
• A policy toolkit for developing a clean vehicle assistance program and electric vehicle event
• An electric bicycle network
• A strategy to addressing energy consumption and reduction in rental units
• Anaerobic digester technology on farms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide clean
energy
• Benchmarking to better pursue energy efficiency in residential, commercial and industrial
buildings
• Energy efficiency efforts through the lens of energy justice, prioritizing low-income Johnson
County residents who are the most energy-burdened.
In conclusion, Johnson County Clean Energy District will face challenges and opportunities in the
future. This report provides both general policy and specific directions to address barriers and
challenges building on best practices. This will allow the JCED to navigate the options that are
available and develop, strengthen and grow.
66
References
Chapter 1 Public Information and Outreach by Hunter Staszak
Bang, M., Torstensson, C., & Katzeff, C. (2006). The PowerHouse: A Persuasive Computer Game
Designed to Raise Awareness of Domestic Energy Consumption. Persuasive Technology Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. doi: 10.1007/11755494_33
BPI. (2014, January 1). All Certifications. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from http://www.bpi.org/certification-
grid
BPI. (2014, January 1). Retrofit Installer Technician. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from
http://www.bpi.org/certified-professionals/retrofit-installer-technician
Mayor Emanuel Announces Results of Energy Efficiency Pilot Competition. (2014, July 17). Retrieved
April 24, 2020, from
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2014/jul/mayor-
emanuel-announces-results-of-energy-efficiency-pilot-compe.html
Sansom, M. (2018, February 18). Dropoly Creates Competition for Going Green. Retrieved from
https://renewmo.org/re-news/dropoly-creates-competition-for-going-green/
USGBC. (2020, January 1). LEED rating system. Retrieved April 19, 2020, from
https://www.usgbc.org/leed
USGBC. (2020, January 1). LEED certification for existing buildings and spaces. Retrieved April 20, 2020,
from https://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/existing-buildings
Wolfson, M., Mazur-Stommen, S., Farley, K., & Nadel, S. (2015, February 11). Gamified Energy Efficiency
Programs. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from https://www.aceee.org/research-report/b1501
Chapter 2 Electrifying Transportation by Nolan Dewitte
Clean Vehicle Assistance Program. (2020, March 30). Retrieved from
https://cleanvehiclegrants.org/
Coren, M. J. (2020, January 15). New US building codes will make every home ready for electric
cars. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1781774/new -us-building-codes-require-plugs-for-
electric-cars/
Electric Vehicle Fest(EV)al. (2019). Retrieved from https://energydistrict.org/event/festeval
Electric Vehicle Home Chargers and Rebates. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.alliantenergy.com/InnovativeEnergySolutions/SmartEnergyProducts/Electric
Vehicles/EVHomeChargersandRebates
Electric Vehicle Rebate. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.midamericanenergy.com/electric -
vehicles-rebates
Frommer, M. (2018, October 23). Cracking the Code on EV-Ready Building Codes. Retrieved
from https://www.swenergy.org/cracking-the-code-on-ev-ready-building-codes
67
Frommer, M., Makela, E., Edelson, J., Rosenstock, S., Bresette, D., & Wahl, F. (2019, April).
CE217-19 Part II. Retrieved from https://newbuildings.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/CE217-P2.pdf
Grant Guidelines - PeopleForBikes. (2020). Retrieved from https://peopleforbikes.org/grant-
guidelines/
ICC - Iowa. (2017, October 11). Retrieved from https://www.iccsafe.org/advocacy/adoptions-
map/iowa/
Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. (2018). Retrieved from https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/0/edoc/1803121/Climate Action Plan.pdf
Midwest Renewable Energy Association Course Offerings. (2020, April 1 ). Retrieved from
https://www.midwestrenew.org/course-offerings/
Pace 350 Ebike. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.aventon.com/products/aventon-pace-
350-e-bike
Palo Alto Municipal Code . (2017, May 1). Retrieved from
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/14341/Staff-Handout---H6
Plautz, J. (2019, January 22). Survey: 1 in 9 Americans would consider buying an EV. Retrieved
from https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/survey-1-in-9-americans-would-consider-
buying-an-ev/546464/
Wheel parking system with 4 e-charging points: bike-energy. (2020). Retrieved from
https://bike-energy.com/en/produkt/radabstellanlage-8er/
Chapter 3 Rent, Landlords, and Energy Consumption by Jessica Oliver
City of Boulder. (n.d.). Rental Properties. Retrieved from https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/rental-
inquiry/?_ga=2.182606758.1875533428.1515087092-1102657128.1515087092
City of Boulder, Colorado. (2020). SmartRegs - Virtual Advisor. Retrieved from
https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/smartregs
EIA’s residential energy survey now includes estimates for more than 20 new end uses. (2018, June 5).
Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36412&src=‹ Consumption
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)-b1
Melvin, J. (2018). The split incentives energy efficiency problem: Evidence of underinvestment by
landlords. Energy Policy, 115, 342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.069
Nations, B., Fruin, G., Monroe, A., Cook, D., McMahon, S., & Linder, K. Iowa City Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan, Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.icgov.org/city-government/departments-and-divisions/sustainability
Occupied Housing Units: Renter Occupied (in Johnson County, IA) [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. ACE
2018 (5-Year Estimates) Retrieved March 20, 2020, from
https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore
68
Petersen, A., & Lalit, R. (2018). Better Rentals, Better City: Smart Policies to Improve Your City's Rental
Housing Energy Performance. Rocky Mountain Institute. Retrieved from
info.rmi.org/better_rentals_report
Smith, Z. O. (2019, July 3). State tells Iowa City the energy code stays as is. Retrieved from
https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2019/07/03/state-tells-iowa-city-energy-code-
stays/1629306001/
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (2020, January 2).
Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and-calculators/degree-days.php
Use of Energy Explained - EIA . (2019, August 28). Retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/
Chapter 4 Exploring the Potential of Anerobic Digester Technology in Johnson County by
Emily Schmitz
“50 Shades of Brown.” 2019. Chris Jones, IIHR Research Engineer.
https://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/cjones/50-shades-of-brown/ (March 5, 2020).
“Ad_data_report_v10_-_508_comp_v1.Pdf.” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-
09/documents/ad_data_report_v10_-_508_comp_v1.pdf (February 6, 2020).
“Animal Confinement Facilities.” https://open-iowa.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/iowadnr::animal-
confinement-facilities (March 5, 2020).
“Animal Feeding Operations | Iowa Geodata.” https://geodata.iowa.gov/dataset/animal-feeding-
operations (February 27, 2020).
“Digestate | Digestion.” http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/about/digestate/ (February 6, 2020).
Edwards, Joel, Maazuza Othman, and Stewart Burn. 2015. “A Review of Policy Drivers and Barriers for
the Use of Anaerobic Digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 815–28.
Elliott, Dan, and The Associated Press | The Associated Press. 2019. “EPA Sets Long-Term Goals for
Superfund Site Created by Gold King Mine Spill.” The Denver Post.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/03/13/gold-king-mine-superfund-site-cleanup/ (March 4,
2020).
“Got Manure? Want Energy? We Can Help!” : 2.
“Is Anaerobic Digestion Right for Your Farm? | AgSTAR: Biogas Recovery in the Agriculture Sector | US
EPA.” https://www.epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic-digestion-right-your-farm (February 20, 2020).
Linville, Jessica L., Yanwen Shen, May M. Wu, and Meltem Urgun-Demirtas. 2015. “Current State of
Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes in North America.” Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy
Reports 2(4): 136–44.
“Methane Emissions in the United States: Sources, Solutions & Opportunities for Reductions.” : 42.
“Methane Emissions in the United States Sources, S.Pdf.”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-
06/documents/methane_emissions_overview_may2019.pdf (March 5, 2020).
69
Pantaleo, Antonio, Bernardo De Gennaro, and Nilay Shah. 2013. “Assessment of Optimal Size of
Anaerobic Co-Digestion Plants: An Application to Cattle Farms in the Province of Bari (Italy).”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20: 57–70.
“Project Financing | AgSTAR: Biogas Recovery in the Agriculture Sector | US EPA.”
https://www.epa.gov/agstar/project-financing (February 20, 2020).
Shen, Li-Dong et al. 2012. “Microbiology, Ecology, and Application of the Nitrite-Dependent Anaerobic
Methane Oxidation Process.” Frontiers in Microbiology 3.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408237/ (February 6, 2020).
“What EPA Is Doing: AgSTAR | AgSTAR: Biogas Recovery in the Agriculture Sector | US EPA.”
https://www.epa.gov/agstar/what-epa-doing-agstar (February 20, 2020).
“CAFO Open Data Site with Live Data Download | Iowa Geodata.”
https://geodata.iowa.gov/dataset/animal-feeding-operations/resource/4abf720f-8ea9-418c-8ece-
94a09f80acd6 (May 12, 2020).
“DSIRE.” https://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program?fromSir=0&state=IA (May 13, 2020).
“Iowa - State Energy Profile Overview - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).”
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IA (May 13, 2020).
Sharara, Mahmoud A., Maxwell Y. Owusu-Twum, Troy M. Runge, and Rebecca Larson. 2020. “Planning
Methodology for Anaerobic Digestion Systems on Animal Production Facilities under Uncertainty.”
Waste Management 104: 262–69.
US EPA, OAR. 2014. “AgSTAR Data and Trends.” US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-data-and-
trends (May 13, 2020).
Chapter 5 Energy Burden Assessment for Low Income Households in Johnson County by Leon
Begay
City of Iowa City. (2017). Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
https://www8.iowacity.org/weblink/0/edoc/1803121/Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf
City of Iowa City. (2019). Iowa City Climate Action Toolkit.
https://www8.iowacity.org/WebLink/0/edoc/1899113/Climate%20Action%20Toolkit%20updated%2020
19.pdf
Hernandez, D & Bird. S. (2010). Energy Burden and the Need for Integrated Low Income Housing and
Energy Policy. Poverty Public Policy. 2010 Nov; 2(4):5-25. DOI 10.2202/1944-2858.1095
Joroff, A. (2017). Energy Justice: What It Means and How to Integrate It into State Regulation of
Electricity Markets. Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, 47, 10927.
Ma, Ookie, Krystal Laymon, Megan Day, Ricardo Oliveira, Jon Weers, and Aaron Vimont. (2019). Low
Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool Methodology. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-74249. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/74249.pdfU.S.
Department of Energy. (n.d.). Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from
https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/maps/lead-tool?scenarioId=5ebba551edf3f
.
70
Chapter 6 An Assessment of Benchmarking for Iowa City and Johnson County by Jack
Johansen
Benchmarking Overview. (2020, April 10). Retrieved from https://sfenvironment.org/benchmarking-
overview
City of Boulder. (n.d.). Boulder Building Performance. Retrieved from
https://bouldercolorado.gov/climate/boulder-building-performance-home
City of Boulder. (2020, April 30). Boulder, Colorado- Municipal Code. Retrieved from
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT10ST_CH7.7COINENEF
City of Des Moines. (2019). Ordinacne No. 15,779 (15,779). Retrieved from
https://www.dsm.city/document_center/City%20Clerk/Ordinances/15779.pdf?pdf=Ordinance%20No.2
015%2C779&t=1560289240252
EPB Center. (n.d.). The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) — EPB Standards EPB Center |
EPB Standards. Retrieved from https://epb.center/epb-standards/energy-performance-buildings-
directive-epbd/
Home | Harvard Energy & Facilities. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://energyandfacilities.harvard.edu/
Interactive maps for energy benchmarking data, programs, and policies. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/owners_and_managers/existing_buildings/use_portfolio_m
anager/find_utilities_provide_data_benchmarking
Mandatory Benchmarking: Des Moines Buildings Required to Report Energy and Water Efficiency. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://whotv.com/news/mandatory-benchmarking-des-moines-buildings-required-to-
report-energy-and-water-efficiency/
Retrocommissioning for Better Performance. (2006, March 1). Retrieved from
https://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/Retrocommissioning-for-Better-
Performance--4097
Retro-Commissioning: Significant Savings at Minimal Cost | Building Efficiency Initiative |WRI Ross
Center for Sustainable Cities. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://buildingefficiencyinitiative.org/articles/retro-commissioning-significant-savings-minimal-
cost
SF Environment. (2019). Existing Buildings Energy Performance Ordinance (Version: May16th, 2019).
Retrieved from
https://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/sfe_gb_ecb_ordinance_overview.pdf