The Mountain Gets Steeper: The Challenge of Building Net-Zero Public Buildings Now
The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author.
The recently released provincial budget identifies climate change as a driver for threats challenging British Columbian communities. It introduces a new $2.1 billion fund to help communities recover and prepare against future threats.
Keeping our homes, businesses, and public assets safe from disaster is an urgent concern. Rebuilding after a crisis is also pressing, and in emergencies, the underlying cause of the catastrophe can seem like a distant priority to solving the immediate situation. With good planning, it can also become an opportunity to combat the underlying forces of climate change.
The construction of new green buildings can use more environmentally responsible methods, and renovation of older structures can reduce energy use. Legislative plans are in place to push and pull everyone – from industry to private homeowners - to make greener choices. The BC government created the Clean BC fund to incentivize organizations to build green. At the same time, BC’s Carbon Tax puts a price on carbon pollution. These incentives and penalties may be the most helpful tool the provincial government has to bring British Columbia to net-zero, the state where greenhouse gases created in building construction are balanced by removing GHGs out of the atmosphere.
Many governments – including Canada and the United States – are aiming for ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, with significant reductions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. Smaller jurisdictions like states and provinces reacted to these national declarations, with some going beyond the commitments of their federal governments (California and British Columbia).
But what about the buildings and renovations the public sector constructs? Why can’t new hospitals, government buildings, and schools build to net-zero right now?
What is the Path to Net-Zero?
Why haven’t all new public buildings become examples of cutting-edge green architecture and energy management? Why aren’t all government owned and operated sites net-zero now? Let’s talk about some reasons. One factor most people would guess right off the top is cost.
The majority of capital construction funds come from the province, not local school districts. School districts contribute a portion, but they just do not carry the tens of millions of dollars required to construct new schools. A ‘school tax’ appears on residential property tax bills, but those funds go directly to the province, and are sent back to school districts rolled into much larger grants. Without additional funds from the province, school districts find it near-impossible to construct new schools. More than 90% of operating budgets for districts go into student-centered services, like staffing, and there is no room for a $50 million dollar expenditure. One good reason for having central provincial funding is equitable distribution amongst all British Columbians. By and large, students in BC receive the same basic funding – rather than having wealthy neighbourhoods with high funding and poorer areas be able to raise far less. An exception to this system is Indigenous students on reserve, who are funded by a combination of federal and provincial funds, and historically and unfairly received less than students off reserve.
One cost pressure is the constant need for new buildings. The floods in the Fraser Valley, magnified by the effects of climate change, swept away four schools that will need to be immediately replaced. Growing families in population centres mean space must be made for new students. In Metro Vancouver, the rising cost of real estate is a familiar pain. School districts feel this acutely when trying to purchase land for new schools.
Another piece of the cost equation is understanding that a different, massive reconstruction project already taking place in British Columbia – the race to ensure all public buildings, especially schools, are seismically safe. Renovating for seismic protection and environmental safety can overlap, but in a limited budget, big dollars are already assigned to modernizing buildings to resist earthquake damage.
The province of BC wants large public builders, such as school districts, to move from using high GHG emission construction materials, like cement, to newer options like more environmentally friendly options like mass timber. The approvals process that each school district must go through before building a new school now requires districts to explore more conscious building choices, and outline plans for buildings to be net-zero ready.
Despite the best strategies of higher powers, the playing field is not ready for this new game. Municipalities, which authorize building permits, but still operate within provincial and federal constraints, don’t always have the regulatory framework in place to approve large builds with cutting edge materials. In 2019, the City of Coquitlam applied to be a pilot district in a provincial initiative to be an early adopter of tall mass timber construction. The hope was to provide more options for the type of construction permitted in the City, and they are still pursuing those opportunities, but the future is not quite here yet.
Once these new buildings are up and ready to receive their students, what about their on-going energy use? Locally, SD43 is well on its way to meet – or exceed – the provincial 2030 targets of a 40% reduction. But organizations that are on-target to meet their 2030 goals may find the 2050 goal of 80% reduction a much steeper climb. Dramatic energy reductions can be made by replacing or upgrading elements of buildings – the windows, old lighting systems – but it is much more challenging to change the source of the energy.
Unless they are capable of generating power onsite, buildings require connection to local utilities to keep the light and heat on. Temperature regulation is by far the largest consumer of energy. This limits choice in what power source buildings use for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). In Metro Vancouver, that means hydro-powered electricity versus fossil gas-driven heating systems.
When making a choice between these two energy sources, which are substantially different in their GHG emissions, cost pressure is key. Construction projects are a careful balance between many factors, including environmental responsibility, and crucial for schools in growing districts – size. With set budgets, local authorities weigh their desire to build green against the knowledge that the increasing number of new students means they need to prioritize floor space.
In building hydro infrastructure, the past and current human costs to Indigenous peoples and the environment cannot be ignored. In order to have stable electricity in our homes and businesses, we need firm power source able to consistently meet a given demand, scaling generation up and down as energy use soars and dips during the day. Going forward into the future, renewable but variable sources like wind or solar power can be continuously integrated into the grid, supported by constant hydro power. In the present, however, most local authorities immediately need a consistent power supply that takes up very little room on site, so are constrained to using what currently exists.
In British Columbia, electrical heating has significantly lower GHG emissions. But at the current time, it is much more expensive to heat commercial buildings with hydro power on a day-to-day basis, as well as a sunk-cost basis. Upgrading old infrastructure from fossil gas-based systems to accommodate new electric HVAC systems is expensive. Budgets provided to school districts do not cover the full costs of “investment level” upgrades – infrastructure changes that will cost more upfront but repay in dividends over time in saved costs and improved environmental outcomes.
In using current gas-based HVAC systems, ‘renewable’ natural gas (RNG) is made from the breakdown of organic matter, and consumers can choose to support this option, which is certified as a carbon-neutral energy source. Capturing the methane gas released during decomposition of food or cow manure keeps this GHG from escaping into the environment. However, the level of production is limited – there is not enough RNG in the current market to heat every building, and using it is more pricey.
If costs are a restriction, how do public buildings get to the ambitious but necessary greenhouse gas reduction targets of 2050?
In newer buildings, updating regulations to allow for larger buildings to use safe and greener choices will allow the use of new materials and technologies. Local authorities can continue, within their limited means, to pursue and advocate for better options.
The carbon tax penalties are one tool that evens out usage and environmental responsibility – as GHG emissions go up, the carbon penalty increases. Eventually the cost of the penalty outweighs any savings from the cheaper energy sources, and will force organizations to make changes.
Waiting for the balance line to even out is one option. Pursuing innovation and positive change ahead of the curve is a better choice. Expanding currently available funding for green upgrades to also include recognition of the environmental costs of climate change related disasters is a more accurate reflection of the cost savings to our communities. Making the buildings that shelter students the greenest of all just makes sense – the future belongs to our children.
The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author.
The recently released provincial budget identifies climate change as a driver for threats challenging British Columbian communities. It introduces a new $2.1 billion fund to help communities recover and prepare against future threats.
Keeping our homes, businesses, and public assets safe from disaster is an urgent concern. Rebuilding after a crisis is also pressing, and in emergencies, the underlying cause of the catastrophe can seem like a distant priority to solving the immediate situation. With good planning, it can also become an opportunity to combat the underlying forces of climate change.
The construction of new green buildings can use more environmentally responsible methods, and renovation of older structures can reduce energy use. Legislative plans are in place to push and pull everyone – from industry to private homeowners - to make greener choices. The BC government created the Clean BC fund to incentivize organizations to build green. At the same time, BC’s Carbon Tax puts a price on carbon pollution. These incentives and penalties may be the most helpful tool the provincial government has to bring British Columbia to net-zero, the state where greenhouse gases created in building construction are balanced by removing GHGs out of the atmosphere.
Many governments – including Canada and the United States – are aiming for ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, with significant reductions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. Smaller jurisdictions like states and provinces reacted to these national declarations, with some going beyond the commitments of their federal governments (California and British Columbia).
But what about the buildings and renovations the public sector constructs? Why can’t new hospitals, government buildings, and schools build to net-zero right now?
What is the Path to Net-Zero?
Why haven’t all new public buildings become examples of cutting-edge green architecture and energy management? Why aren’t all government owned and operated sites net-zero now? Let’s talk about some reasons. One factor most people would guess right off the top is cost.
The majority of capital construction funds come from the province, not local school districts. School districts contribute a portion, but they just do not carry the tens of millions of dollars required to construct new schools. A ‘school tax’ appears on residential property tax bills, but those funds go directly to the province, and are sent back to school districts rolled into much larger grants. Without additional funds from the province, school districts find it near-impossible to construct new schools. More than 90% of operating budgets for districts go into student-centered services, like staffing, and there is no room for a $50 million dollar expenditure. One good reason for having central provincial funding is equitable distribution amongst all British Columbians. By and large, students in BC receive the same basic funding – rather than having wealthy neighbourhoods with high funding and poorer areas be able to raise far less. An exception to this system is Indigenous students on reserve, who are funded by a combination of federal and provincial funds, and historically and unfairly received less than students off reserve.
One cost pressure is the constant need for new buildings. The floods in the Fraser Valley, magnified by the effects of climate change, swept away four schools that will need to be immediately replaced. Growing families in population centres mean space must be made for new students. In Metro Vancouver, the rising cost of real estate is a familiar pain. School districts feel this acutely when trying to purchase land for new schools.
Another piece of the cost equation is understanding that a different, massive reconstruction project already taking place in British Columbia – the race to ensure all public buildings, especially schools, are seismically safe. Renovating for seismic protection and environmental safety can overlap, but in a limited budget, big dollars are already assigned to modernizing buildings to resist earthquake damage.
The province of BC wants large public builders, such as school districts, to move from using high GHG emission construction materials, like cement, to newer options like more environmentally friendly options like mass timber. The approvals process that each school district must go through before building a new school now requires districts to explore more conscious building choices, and outline plans for buildings to be net-zero ready.
Despite the best strategies of higher powers, the playing field is not ready for this new game. Municipalities, which authorize building permits, but still operate within provincial and federal constraints, don’t always have the regulatory framework in place to approve large builds with cutting edge materials. In 2019, the City of Coquitlam applied to be a pilot district in a provincial initiative to be an early adopter of tall mass timber construction. The hope was to provide more options for the type of construction permitted in the City, and they are still pursuing those opportunities, but the future is not quite here yet.
Once these new buildings are up and ready to receive their students, what about their on-going energy use? Locally, SD43 is well on its way to meet – or exceed – the provincial 2030 targets of a 40% reduction. But organizations that are on-target to meet their 2030 goals may find the 2050 goal of 80% reduction a much steeper climb. Dramatic energy reductions can be made by replacing or upgrading elements of buildings – the windows, old lighting systems – but it is much more challenging to change the source of the energy.
Unless they are capable of generating power onsite, buildings require connection to local utilities to keep the light and heat on. Temperature regulation is by far the largest consumer of energy. This limits choice in what power source buildings use for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). In Metro Vancouver, that means hydro-powered electricity versus fossil gas-driven heating systems.
When making a choice between these two energy sources, which are substantially different in their GHG emissions, cost pressure is key. Construction projects are a careful balance between many factors, including environmental responsibility, and crucial for schools in growing districts – size. With set budgets, local authorities weigh their desire to build green against the knowledge that the increasing number of new students means they need to prioritize floor space.
In building hydro infrastructure, the past and current human costs to Indigenous peoples and the environment cannot be ignored. In order to have stable electricity in our homes and businesses, we need firm power source able to consistently meet a given demand, scaling generation up and down as energy use soars and dips during the day. Going forward into the future, renewable but variable sources like wind or solar power can be continuously integrated into the grid, supported by constant hydro power. In the present, however, most local authorities immediately need a consistent power supply that takes up very little room on site, so are constrained to using what currently exists.
In British Columbia, electrical heating has significantly lower GHG emissions. But at the current time, it is much more expensive to heat commercial buildings with hydro power on a day-to-day basis, as well as a sunk-cost basis. Upgrading old infrastructure from fossil gas-based systems to accommodate new electric HVAC systems is expensive. Budgets provided to school districts do not cover the full costs of “investment level” upgrades – infrastructure changes that will cost more upfront but repay in dividends over time in saved costs and improved environmental outcomes.
In using current gas-based HVAC systems, ‘renewable’ natural gas (RNG) is made from the breakdown of organic matter, and consumers can choose to support this option, which is certified as a carbon-neutral energy source. Capturing the methane gas released during decomposition of food or cow manure keeps this GHG from escaping into the environment. However, the level of production is limited – there is not enough RNG in the current market to heat every building, and using it is more pricey.
If costs are a restriction, how do public buildings get to the ambitious but necessary greenhouse gas reduction targets of 2050?
In newer buildings, updating regulations to allow for larger buildings to use safe and greener choices will allow the use of new materials and technologies. Local authorities can continue, within their limited means, to pursue and advocate for better options.
The carbon tax penalties are one tool that evens out usage and environmental responsibility – as GHG emissions go up, the carbon penalty increases. Eventually the cost of the penalty outweighs any savings from the cheaper energy sources, and will force organizations to make changes.
Waiting for the balance line to even out is one option. Pursuing innovation and positive change ahead of the curve is a better choice. Expanding currently available funding for green upgrades to also include recognition of the environmental costs of climate change related disasters is a more accurate reflection of the cost savings to our communities. Making the buildings that shelter students the greenest of all just makes sense – the future belongs to our children.