Category Archives: Environment

Energy’s Innovation Race

Rendering of a GE combined-cycle natural gas-burning plant.

Rendering of a GE combined-cycle natural gas-burning plant.

Foes of fossil fuels are wondering if natural gas production in the United States is peaking. While some observers depict the supply  of natural gas as lasting decades, maybe a hundred years, others see signs that gas wells in the Marcellus shale formation are playing out more rapidly than anticipated. As supply becomes constricted, prices will rise, punishing electricity consumers who in Virginia will relying increasingly upon natural gas for electric generation. To protect against inevitably rising gas prices, the argument goes, states should mandate the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

Environmentalists aren’t the only ones making the argument that gas production in the Marcellus formation has peaked. Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin Publisher Keith Schaeffer, among others, makes the same case.

But that sentiment is far from universal. “The U.S. may have far more natural gas than anyone imagined, all reachable at a profit even with today’s bargain-basement prices,” states the lead of a Wall Street Journal article today. The article quotes Mark Papa, a partner of Riverstone Holdings LLC, an energy-oriented private equity investor, as saying, “There’s a large likelihood that the United States will be enjoying very low gas prices for a very long time, maybe 20 years.”

Fossil fuel producers are showing remarkable resilience in the face of incredibly low fuel prices. They are embracing new technology, pioneering new drilling methods and figuring out how to slash production costs. Meanwhile, designers of power plants that burn natural gas are developing combustion systems that can extract 50% more energy from a BTU of gas than the previous generation. Traditional gas turbines convert 32% to 38% of the heat content from gas into electricity. The latest gas turbines incorporating advances in materials and aerodynamics and running in combined cycle mode can operate at 60% efficiency under optimal conditions.

The competition between different types of energy source is good news for consumers. The price of solar power and wind power continue to drop as R&D efforts yield technology breakthroughs, as supply chains mature, and as the solar and wind industries move up the learning curve. If the gas production/ generation industry had remained static, solar and wind might well be broadly competitive today. But the gas industry continues to innovate as well. Wind and solar (and coal, too) are chasing a moving target.

There is something to be said for hedging Virginia’s bets by encouraging the diversification of energy sources used in generating electric power, as there is for investing in energy efficiency, another field rife with innovation. But there’s also something to be said for committing to the lowest cost energy source, especially if, like natural gas, it is clean burning and emits significantly less CO2 than coal. Rather than approach energy policy with preconceived ideas that one energy strategy or the other is “the best,” Virginia should aim for an energy strategy that is flexible, adaptable and capable of exploiting opportunities created by an innovative energy economy.

— JAB

Why Doesn’t Virginia Have More Wind Power?

Map credit: National Renewable Energy Lab

Map credit: National Renewable Energy Lab

Why hasn’t Virginia made more progress in generating energy from wind power? This map from the National Renewable Energy Lab highlights the problems we face. Unlike the plains states, where almost every square mile is wind blown, Virginia has few suitable locations. Wind power is practical only offshore and on scattered mountain ridges.

Putting windmills on mountaintop ridges poses a problem because it disrupts viewsheds. Every mountain-ridge wind project proposed in Virginia has generated opposition from the surrounding population. In several instances, local governing bodies have used their zoning powers to thwart the projects. Of the half-dozen wind farms proposed over the past decade, not one has been built. As long as (a) people believe they have a right to exercise veto power over land uses for aesthetic reasons, such as protecting viewsheds, and (b) local governments have the power to restrict land uses based upon aesthetic impact, wind power projects likely will be blocked at the local level.

Building wind power projects off-shore avoids the viewshed issue because  turbines can be placed far enough at sea that they won’t be visible from the shore. However, offshore wind power on the East Coast of the U.S. faces a chicken-or-egg problem. Wind power is incredibly expensive because the supporting maritime infrastructure is not available on the East Coast; specialized ships and equipment must be brought in from Europe at great cost. But the wind-power industry is not willing to invest in establishing an East Coast presence until there is sufficient volume of business to support it.

It might be possible to overcome the chicken-or-egg problem if enough players committed to enough wind projects within a relatively narrow time frame to make it financially worthwhile for the wind industry to make that commitment. So far, no one has undertaken such an effort. Offshore wind initiatives remain frustratingly piecemeal.

Perhaps one thing the McAuliffe administration could do to advance wind power in Virginia and the East Coast would be to convene a meeting of every East Coast state with an interest in wind power along with major wind industry players to build the necessary critical mass. Hampton Roads, with its large existing shipbuilding fabrication industry and central East Coast location, is the logical location for the wind industry to be situated. We have the most to gain, so we should take the lead.

— JAB

Apex Encounters Headwinds in Botetourt Wind Project

by James A. Bacon

An interesting player is emerging in the Virginia renewable energy scene — Apex Clean Energy. The Charlottesville-based company has announced that it has erected two test towers for a proposed wind farm in Botetourt County to gather data about wind strength and frequency. The company has proposed constructing up to 25 wind turbines on a ridgeline about five miles east of Eagle Rock, according to news reports.

But the Rocky Forge project is encountering legal headwinds. A lawsuit filed a month ago sought to block the project on the grounds that “industrial turbines are known to catch fire, to collapse, emit audible and low frequency noise, cause shadow flicker and to throw ice from spinning blades in the wintertime,” reported the Roanoke Times. The lawsuit also noted that turbines kill birds and bats and destroy their habitat.

Dominion Virginia Power is running into similar obstacles in Tazewell County, where the energy giant faces stiff local opposition. The Tazewell County has proposed a zoning plan that would classify solar panels and wind turbines with other undesirable developments such as medical waste facilities that require a special permit.

For Apex Clean Energy, Rocky Forge is one of two wind power projects in Virginia. The facility would have a capacity of 80 megawatts, enough to power 20,000 houses. The expected completion date is 2017-2018, according to the company website. Another project, Pinewood Wind in Pulaski County, would have a capacity of 180 megawatts, enough to power 50,000 houses. All told, the company lists 53 projects in its portfolio, with the greatest concentration in the plains states of Texas and Oklahoma.

The company was founded in 2009 with the mission of building “a new kind of energy company.” The founders, who had sold their previous company, Greenlight Energy, to BP Alternative Energy, assembled a team of wind and solar energy professionals with skill sets that could originate projects, finance them, build them and manage them.

It’s not clear from the company website or news reports what the business model is for the Virginia wind farms. Among the possibilities: Purchase Power Agreements, in which a customer signs a contract to purchase a specified amount of energy from a project; project ownership in which Apex delivers a turn-key facility along with asset-management services over to a buyer; and a Structured Purchase Agreement, a long-term price agreement that allow companies to hedge against volatile fuel prices. Or Apex simply may sell electricity into the PJM electric bid, which supports a market for green energy.

Circuit Court Judge Upholds Pipelines’ Right to Survey

pipelineA circuit court judge in Montgomery County dealt a setback to foes of the Mountain Valley Pipeline yesterday by finding constitutional a controversial state law allowing natural gas companies to survey private property without an owner’s permission. Turk said that the Virginia law allows a natural gas company to enter private property for surveying even if its owner has denied permission, reports the Roanoke Times.

Temporary access to a landowner’s property for purposes of conducting a survey does not represent an unconstitutional “taking” of property without compensation, Turk ruled. “There’s no transfer of property,”  he said. The law in question “takes away the criminal aspect of trespass, something the Virginia legislature has the right to do.”

Turk’s ruling in the Giles County case could have implications for lawsuits filed by landowners in the path of both the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), who say that the activity of survey teams on private property can impose costs for which they are not compensated.

Attorneys representing landowners said that they intend to file lawsuits in other counties where clients could be impacted by the proposed pipelines. They will challenge state law on the grounds that MVP does not meet the criteria of a public service corporation. Pipeline foes have advanced the argument that there is no “public necessity” for either the MVP or the ACP, despite the fact that both pipeline companies have signed contracts for most of the pipelines’ capacity. Foes argue that existing pipelines could handle much, if not all, of the volume of natural gas required by the shift from coal- to gas-fired utilities and growth in the economy, and that there is no justification for acquiring rights of way through their land through eminent domain.

— JAB

Yes, Virginia, the EPA Is Still Cracking Down on You

EPA_CPP_and_Vaby Bill Tracy

Many folks are trying to interpret the Environmental Protection Agency’s final Clean Power Plan (CPP) and its impact on Virginia. The EPA, along with its August 3 rule announcement, released a large volume of on-line support material including the popular State-at-a-Glance Summary sheets.

Unfortunately, Virginia’s state summary sheet is misleading. EPA made relatively large adjustments to Virginia’s 2012 Base Case, not shown on the state summary sheet. The adjustments were necessary to account for natural gas power plants that were already under construction. The 2030 final targets for Virginia do not seem logical unless you compare them against EPA’s adjusted 2012 base numbers.

Fortunately, EPA does give us enough source data in the State Goal Visualizer spreadsheet to allow me to calculate the adjusted 2012 base, shown below, according to my math:

Carbon intensity (pounds of CO2 emission per megawatt/hour of electricity):
2012 lbs CO2/MWhr: 1,477
2012 lbs CO2/MWhr: 1,366 (EPA Adjusted 2012 Base)
2030 lbs CO2/MWhr: 934

Total CO2 emissions permitted:
2012 CO2 Short Tons Mass: 27,365,439
2012 CO2 Short Tons Mass: 35,733,501 (EPA Adjusted 2012 Base)
2030 CO2 Short Tons Mass: 27,433,111

Now we can see that Virginia’s mass CO2 reduction target (23.2%) makes a lot more sense. The actual degree-of-difficulty is better described by the carbon intensity data (CO2 per MWhr), and Virginia’s 934 lbs target works out to a 31.6% CO2 reduction mandate.

To see how Virginia compares, I’ve hand-entered the data for all 50 states and plotted them up (see the graph above). The first conclusion that jumps out is how well Virginia (in purple) is doing, already operating at relatively low CO2 emission rates. The second conclusion is that Virginia does indeed seem to fall above the trend line, with our 31.6% CO2 reduction target. A bit lower target (27.5% reduction) would appear more equitable, assuming my trend line is correct. Virginia’s final carbon intensity mandate (934 lbs CO2/MWhr) could have been closer to a more manageable 1,000 lbs CO2/MWhr.

Those familiar with these numbers will recognize that 934 lbs CO2/MWhr is the approximate CO2 yield of a clean natural gas power plant. In others words, Virginia probably cannot operate many coal plants and still meet their 2030 CO2 target. In fact, EPA seems to be assuming that Virginia will shut down all but one coal plant by 2020, before CPP even kicks in. I’ve asked EPA to check their numbers to see if there is an error on the Virginia state summary sheet data for 2020.

Bottom line for me is that the Virginia CO2 targets appear very challenging. But somebody needs to check my numbers, and preferably EPA should show their adjusted 2012 base numbers on the State-at-a-Glance summary sheets. Meanwhile please be advised that most of the Virginia CPP information out there on the Web is using our non-adjusted 2012 base data.

Bill Tracy is a retired engineer, concerned citizen, and grandfather residing in Burke, Virginia.  

More Questions about Virginia’s Solar Energy Policy

Solar panel harness energy of the sun

by James A. Bacon

I’ve been covering business in Virginia four nearly four decades now, and I have to say, the electric power industry may be the most complex and difficult to understand. I freely admit that I have a steep learning curve ahead of me, and it’s pretty clear that other Virginia journalists do, too. But at least the Richmond Times-Dispatch appears to be trying. The latest case in point is a front-page feature story about solar energy published Sunday.  The article by John Ramsey omitted some critical pieces of the debate but he did surface some valuable perspectives. In itself, the story was incomplete. (The same can be said of my coverage.) But if seen as part of an ongoing dialogue in which the Virginia public builds a workable knowledge of the issues, it makes a worthwhile contribution.

The thesis of Ramsey’s story is that Virginia lags neighboring Maryland and North Carolina in the installation of solar energy and is missing a major economic opportunity as a result. The Old Dominion ranks 30th nationally in installed solar capacity, with only 14 megawatts installed, compared to 242 megawatts in Maryland and 1,011 megawatts in North Carolina. Admittedly, that gap will diminish if Dominion Virginia Power makes good on plans to install 400 megawatts by 2020, and as merchant providers such as Amazon Web Services, which has announced plans to build an 80-megawatt facility on the Eastern Shore, start coming on line.

The unstated assumption of the article is that large-scale installation of solar power is a desirable thing, that it would create thousands of construction jobs, and that it should be expedited by state policy. Nowhere in the article, however, does Ramsey acknowledge the  inherent variability of solar: Panels don’t generate electricity at night and output plummets when it’s cloudy. Intermittent production creates huge challenges for the reliability and stability of the electric grid, and companies must maintain expensive backup capacity to fill in when solar output is deficient. To my mind, it is impossible to discuss intelligently the benefits of solar without acknowledging these challenges.

Ramsey does raise one interesting issue, however. “Dominion’s incentive to build and own its solar farms at the expense of private developers,” he writes, “could continue to stifle the market in Virginia, even in the face of the new federal law requiring power companies to reduce carbon emissions with clean energy.” He quotes Francis Hodsoll, president of the Virginia Advanced Energy Industries Association (VAEIA), as saying, “Here in Virginia, [solar] hasn’t really been allowed to grow. Our policies don’t support it. Now we have a situation where Virginia wants to see solar being built and our utility wants to build it themselves.” Building its own solar plants, Hodnoll contends, is more lucrative than buying production from independent power producers because Dominion can generate a 10% return on equity on its own facilities, which it can’t do when it buys power from someone else.

Does Dominion suppress independent solar power production in order to maximize its own profit? Dominion is a profit-making institution, so it would surprise no one if it pursues policies designed to maximize its profitability. But is that, in fact, what it is doing? Could Dominion be shaping its actions to obtain regulatory approval from the State Corporation Commission, whose job it is to juggle the priorities of electric rates, grid reliability and green energy?

Another factor to consider: Independent producers do not require SCC or Dominion approval to build solar plants in Virginia. They can, as Amazon Web Services proposes to do, sell into the PJM wholesale energy market, of which Dominion is a part. PJM maintains a separate market for green energy, which sells for a price premium over non-green energy. If an independent power company wants to sell green kilowatts into the wholesale market, there is nothing to stop it. I confess, I do not fully understand how the wholesale markets function. But any discussion of solar policy in Virginia is incomplete without such knowledge.

More questions that need asking… During a July General Assembly hearing, Dominion announced that it was issuing a Request for Proposal for third parties to generate up to 20 megawatts of solar power to come online by 2016 or 2017. Hodsoll’s response on the VAEIA blog:

While Dominion’s announcement appears to provide the remedy sought by the industry, Dominion’s description of the process raised concerns about unreasonable deadlines and the complete lack of transparency.

Is Dominion stacking the deck in its own favor? Is this RFP a token gesture to appease greenies and other critics? Or is Dominion genuinely seeking to diversify its solar sourcing? Fair-minded journalists cannot presuppose answers either way. I would dig into this issue if I wasn’t already up to my neck in other unanswered questions. Perhaps the Times-Dispatch will go the extra mile and follow up on the questions arising from its article.

Next Step for Offshore Wind

Alstom wind turbine like that contemplated for installation off Virginia Beach.

Alstom wind turbine like that contemplated for installation off Virginia Beach.

Earlier this year Dominion Virginia Power received a bid for building two experimental offshore wind turbines that exceeded internal cost projections by more than half, making the proposed project unlikely to win State Corporation Commission approval. In a July stakeholder meeting, DVP executives laid out their analysis of what went wrong. Now stakeholders will convene in three “problem solving cohorts” to determine how to bring down the cost of the project.

According to Nancy Lowe, with the Virginia Center for Consensus Building, which Dominion has engaged to lead the process, the groups will be broken down as follows:

  1. “Contract process and logistics – horizontal vs. vertical contracting, how to cut costs and balance risk through implementation and execution strategies, including multiple contracts versus a single contract, etc.
  2. Technology – focus on  balancing the cost issue with the amount of innovative technology to be developed and explore other technology issues.
  3. Policy Issues – determine the laws or regulations that could be changed to improve the chances of success. Determine the likelihood of being successful in achieving the modification noted, identify and quantify benefits to Virginia ratepayers.”

The stakeholders will not address the issue of cost sharing. Finding other groups to help shoulder the cost of funding the project, which would demonstrate the efficacy of new technologies benefiting the wind power industry broadly, would best be pursued by “the facilitator,” i.e. DVP, wrote Lowe in a communication to stakeholders.

Among the critical technologies to be demonstrated in this proposed pilot test are adaptations to the kind of hurricane-force winds that turbines are likely to encounter in the Atlantic Ocean. Without that technology, investing billions of dollars in an offshore wind farm might be too risky to win regulatory approval.

— JAB

Clean Power Plan: What Comes Next?

by James A. Bacon

I may be like the proverbial three-year-old playing with matches with this blog post, but as I decipher the Clean Power Plan, Virginia’s final CO2 emission goals should be fairly easy to attain — far easier than anyone was anticipating based upon the draft goals published last year.

According to the EPA’s “State at a Glance” document for Virginia, the Old Dominion can pick from one of two ways to determine its CO2 emission goals — pounds of CO2 emitted per megawatt of electric power generated or total tons of CO2 released by the electric power system. Let’s look at each in turn.

First, pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt of energy produced:

virginia_co2_goals

Virginia is already on track for major CO2 reductions thanks to the retirement of several coal- and oil-fired power plants implemented in response to the EPA’s previous mandated reductions of toxic emissions. As the EPA “State at a Glance” profile of Virginia indicates, the state is projected to cut CO2 emissions from 1,477 pounds in 2012 to 959 pounds per megawatt-hour generated in 2020. That reduction exceeds EPA goals through 2029, and it falls short of the final 2030 goal by only 25 pounds, or 2.6%!

In other words, assuming they stay on their current course, Virginia’s power companies will have another ten years to devise a 2.6% reduction in carbon intensity over what they’re already planning.

Second, total CO2 emissions (in short tons):

co2_short_tons2

These goals would not require Virginia to make any changes at all. Indeed, the final 2030 goal for CO2 emissions is the same as the 2012 level! If Virginia’s power companies hew to current projections, they will exceed the final 2030 goal without any changes! If Virginia adopts this metric, the state won’t have to modify its electricity policy at all. So much for pushing through scads of new solar and wind plants!

I think it’s safe to say that a lot of key players in the Virginia debate got caught flat-footed. An hour after President Obama formally rolled out the plan, General Assembly Republicans issued a statement citing a $6 billion State Corporation Commission cost estimate, based upon the cost of achieving the far tougher draft goals,  in criticism of the plan. Stated House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford:

The E.P.A. rule released today is not only another example of an overreaching federal government, but more importantly it will drive up energy costs for hardworking Virginians and further damage our already struggling economy.

Oh, really?

Environmentalists seemed to be caught equally off guard. The Southern Environmental Law Center issued a press release just before Obama’s speech praising the plan for forcing CO2 cuts nationally. Senior Attorney Frank Rambo, leader of the organization’s Clean Energy and Air program, released the following statement regarding the regional impact:

The release of the Clean Power Plan today is a milestone event for the country, but for states in the Southeast the real work now begins. We need to make smart choices about how we can meet these targets, which will improve public health by reducing pollution while also providing the opportunity for new jobs through clean energy investments.

Real work? What real work?

Even today, environmentalists had not absorbed the significance of the new target. In a fund-raising letter, the League of Conservation Voters referred to the Clean Air Act as “good news here in Virginia.”

I can’t imagine that Virginia environmentalists will be happy when it sinks in that modified targets lock the status quo into place.

The big question at this point is which metric does Virginia choose? I’m not sure who does the choosing, but I would expect environmental groups to lobby for the “rate” metric, which requires at least modicum of additional tightening for Virginia, and I would expect the McAuliffe administration, which has a stated goal of fighting climate change, to go along because it will cause little economic pain. However, unless closer analysis by the experts finds otherwise — and I’m totally open to the possibility that I may be overlooking something — it appears that Virginia  has enacted nearly all of the changes it needs.

Update: I stand corrected. The final CO2 emission targets represent a 37% reduction for Virginia. For details, see “Yes, Virginia, the EPA Is Still Cracking Down on You.” I also take back the snarky things I said about Bill Howell’s quote and Frank Rambo’s quote. Sorry, guys, I was wrong.

EPA Cuts Virginia Slack with New CO2 Emission Targets

dodging_bulletby James A. Bacon

Virginia dodged a bullet today: In final rules for its Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has significantly scaled back  its carbon intensity goals for Virginia’s electric power sector. The final rule establishes an interim goal of 1,047 pounds per megawatt hour of electricity produced for the period 2022-2030. That compares to the interim goal of 884 pounds set for Virginia in the initial goal proposed last year.

Dominion Virginia Power, the State Corporation Commission and the McAuliffe administration all argued that the goals gave insufficient recognition to progress Virginia had made in recent years in driving down the carbon intensity of its electric power system. The SCC had estimated that implementation of the rules would cost $6 billion for Dominion alone, not including the impact on Appalachian Power Co. or Virginia’s electric cooperatives.

The roll-back represents a significant victory for Governor Terry McAuliffe, who had lobbied EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to give consideration to Virginia’s previous progress in replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas, which, though a fossil fuel, releases less CO2 per unit of electricity generated than does coal. Virginia has reduced CO2 emissions 16% since 2008, according to the EPA’s own data.

The new EPA guidelines were well received by Virginia’s largest electric utility. “The compliance targets for Virginia have moved in a positive direction that fairly recognizes the role of natural gas generation in reducing emissions,” said Thomas F. Farrell II, Dominion CEO in a prepared statement. “I commend Administrator McCarthy for making critical changes to the proposed rule.”

In remarks today, President Barack Obama described the Clean Power Plan as “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against Climate Change.” The plan, he says, is aimed at ending “the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants.”

Environmental groups were supportive of the final rules. “The reality is that the strategies to meet the Clean Power Plan reflect the energy shift already under way in our states: We’re embracing smarter, cleaner, cheaper energy options that would be happening with or without this plan,” said Frank Rambo, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). “As a result, our states are well-positioned to meet these reasonable and inevitable pollution reduction targets.”

Appalachian Power Company is still reviewing the 1,600-page rule, so it cannot yet say whether it is reasonable or not. Extending the initial compliance target to 2022 is a “positive,” said John E. Shelpelwich in the company’s corporate communications office, but “simply moving the date forward a few years won’t be enough to address the negative reliability impacts if the initial reduction targets are still too stringent. … Any plan to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be accompanied by a thorough assessment of the impact on the electric grid.”

The new, less draconian CO2 emissions for Virginians likely means that electric rates will not jump as much as the SCC had previously anticipated, if they rise at all. As the SELC and other environmental groups frequently noted, Dominion was already on track to meeting 80% of the draft goals, thanks to major investments the company had made to meet a previous round of EPA rules designed to reduce toxic emissions. While some states fought those rules, Virginia complied by shutting down, or scheduling the shutdown, of several coal- and oil-powered electric generating units and building cleaner gas-fired units in their place.

“The final rule is complex and will require further study,” stated a Dominion press release, but the company is encouraged by the easier CO2 emission targets and the extra time given to achieve them. Dominion also stated that it was “pleased” that the final EPA rule recognized the environmental benefits of natural gas and its ability to backup intermittent renewable fuels such as sun and wind. The company’s main reservation: The rule “falls short” in acknowledging the value of zero carbon-emitting nuclear generation.

Note: This article has been updated to include a response from Appalachian Power Co.

The Democratization of Data

Map showing green coverage in Tysons. Image credit: UVa Today.

Map showing density of green coverage in Tysons. Image credit: UVa Today.

Andrew Mondschein, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, is studying how the redevelopment of Tysons affects the pedestrian experience. The first step is collecting data. Accordingly, he is dispatching students equipped with sensors, wearable cameras and smartphone apps to monitor temperature, light levels, green cover, noise pollution and carbon monoxide emissions in ever nook and cranny of the what he calls the “archetypal American edge city.”

The goal of Fairfax County planners is to transform the autocentric mix of offices, shopping malls and plate-of-spaghetti road network from the epitome of suburban sprawl into a smart-growth poster of mixed-use development and pedestrian-friendly streets.

tysons_illumination

Map showing intensity of illumination.

“Tysons Corner is on the forefront of transforming suburban places into more urban places and all that entails,” says Mondscheinin an article published in UVa Today. “For city and urban planners, it is exciting, because if we densify suburbs we could reduce driving and emissions, provide more housing and make transit, walking and biking easier and more pleasant – hopefully improving public and environmental health. The Tysons Corner project embodies all of these wonderful goals.”

The data collected by students will provide on-the-ground measures of the pedestrian experience as Tysons evolves.

Map showing temperature variations in Tysons.

Map showing temperature variations in Tysons.

Mondschein says other communities can do the same thing. “With devices like these, communities could self-organize and self-initiate studies that can show what they need in an objective manner, with hard data. That can be arguably more persuasive when speaking to policymakers, fundraisers and politicians.”

(Hat tip: John Blair)

— JAB