You are on page 1of 33


june 2012 r:12-06-B

Looking Up: How Green Roofs and Cool Roofs
Can Reduce Energy Use, Address Climate Change,
and Protect Water Resources in Southern California
Authors: Contributing Author: Project Design
Noah Garrison Chris Ann Lunghino and Development:
Natural Resources Defense Council Jon Devine
Cara Horowitz David S. Beckman
Emmett Center on Climate Change Natural Resources Defense Council
and the Environment at UCLA
School of Law

© Adam Kuban

About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.3 million
members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the
world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at

About the Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment
Founded in 2008 with a generous gift from Dan A. Emmett and his family, the Emmett Center was established at UCLA School of
Law as the nation's first law school center focused exclusively on climate change. The Emmett Center is dedicated to studying and
advancing law and policy solutions to the climate change crisis and to training the next generation of leaders in creating these
solutions. The Center works across disciplines to develop and promote research and policy tools useful to decision-makers locally,
statewide, nationally, and beyond. Cara Horowitz is the Andrew Sabin Family Foundation executive director of the Center. More
information is available at

NRDC would like to acknowledge and thank: Environment Now, the Sidney E. Frank Foundation, the Pisces Foundation, the
Resources Legacy Fund, and the TOSA Foundation for their generous support of our work.

Cara Horowitz would like to acknowledge and thank all of the groundbreaking supporters of the Emmett Center on Climate Change
and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, including especially Dan and Rae Emmett, the Andrew Sabin Family Foundation, Ralph
and Shirley Shapiro, and Anthony and Jeanne Pritzker, whose vision and funding have made possible much of this work.

This report received substantial input and review from a number of individuals. Their participation contributed greatly to the quality
of the report and its conclusions and recommendations. We acknowledge that they may not necessarily endorse all of the report’s
recommendations. In particular, the authors wish to thank our peer reviewers: Kirstin Weeks, Arup; Haley Gilbert, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory; Dr. Ronnen Levinson, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Dr. Stuart Gaffin, Center for Climate Systems
Research, Columbia University; and Angelica Pasqualini, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University. The authors
would like to thank Alexandra Kennaugh for managing the production of the report, and Sue Rossi for the design and production.
The authors would also like to thank Aubrey Dugger, GreenInfo; Anna Berzins; Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah; Mark Grey
and Andy Henderson, Building Industry Association of Southern California; Mark Greninger, County of Los Angeles; and their
colleagues Becky Hammer, Karen Hobbs, Larry Levine, Alisa Valderrama, Kaid Benfield, Amanda Eaken, and Meg Waltner for their
expertise and guidance.

NRDC Director of Communications: Phil Gutis
NRDC Deputy Director of Communications: Lisa Goffredi
NRDC Publications Director: Alex Kennaugh
Design and Production: Sue Rossi

© Natural Resources Defense Council 2012

Table of Contents

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

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Challenges.............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Benefits of Green Roofs and Cool Roofs..................................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 20

Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix B..................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

PAGE 1 Looking Up

and protect human health.Executive Summary S outhern California faces multiple threats stemming from the expansion of our urban and suburban environment. improving air quality. sunny They have a strong regulating effect on the temperature of day. More runoff means more pollution carried by stormwater to our rivers. threatens our water supply. rainfall from a given storm event. Compared n Green Roofs and cool roofs can save energy. thermal mass. While temperatures on the beaches. and evaporative cooling that rainfall runoff. studies have found that green roofs can adversely impacted by climate change by reducing electricity reduce the energy needed for building cooling on the usage. these than traditional dark roofs. reducing the volume of rainfall runoff reduces temperatures on the roof surface and in the and pollutants that flow to California’s rivers. the urban heat island effect. brought about in part by increased energy use. and endangers human health. and building interior below. urbanization and development transform landscapes into impervious surfaces. cooler than the surrounding ambient air. resulting in human health problems and additional energy use for building cooling. the surface of a cool roof neighborhood temperatures. Together. often but not of stormwater runoff from rainfall events. reducing interior. dark impervious surfaces in our cities absorb and radiate heat back into the surrounding atmosphere at a far greater rate than the natural landscape does. Though results | PAGE 2 Looking Up . The plants and growing medium of a green roof provide They have substantial capacity to both absorb and delay shade. Third. reducing similar savings in building cooling energy demand as the energy needed for building cooling and the effects of green roofs. climate change. can be 50° to 60°F (28° to 33°C) cooler on a hot. jeopardizes progress in air quality. and to more efficiently smart roofing practices can provide many benefits: transmit heat from the building’s interior. the temperature of a green roof may actually be flooding and erosion. lakes. Green roofs can also greatly reduce the volume Cool roofs use reflective materials. n Green roofs can also protect our waters from pollution. footprint. Second. reduce to conventional dark roofs. and shrinking our carbon floor below the roof by upwards of 50 percent. causing a heat island effect that raises ambient air temperatures in developed areas. increasing the volume of runoff that results from precipitation. A green roof with a three. to reflect more of the sun’s energy California’s coastal and inland waters clean. with much of the heat transferred into the building’s green roofs can substantially delay runoff. Even when saturated. Green roofs and cool roofs can help protect water resources have varied. and beaches. sunny day. particularly the availability of freshwater resources like the Sierra snowpack. Studies have found that cool roofs can produce a underlying roof surfaces and building interiors. Green roofs and cool roofs offer the potential to address many of these issues and improve the sustainability of urban areas in Southern four-inch soil layer surface of a conventional dark roof may exceed those of can generally absorb between one-half to one inch of ambient air by 90°F (50°C) or more on a hot. lakes. First. helping to keep always light colored.

Municipalities and counties should provide guidance types could result in savings of up to one million megawatt. and incentives for residential and commercial private party hours per year by 2035 (corresponding to $131 million in installations of green roofs and cool roofs to increase their saved electricity costs based on 2012 rates). Even if green roofs existing roof surfaces in urbanized Southern California. If green greenhouse gas emissions reductions. standards for stormwater pollution controls that require the on-site retention of runoff through use of practices like green roofs that stop stormwater runoff at its source. and greenhouse use in our communities. the were installed only on 50 percent of new and redevelopment resulting direct energy savings from reduced building cooling projects. Even a much more aggressive set of policies and incentives to help considering the installation of green roofs and cool roofs on advance the adoption of green roofs and cool roofs in our new construction and redevelopment only. The analysis shows that if in Southern California. (now the offices of You Tube) in San Bruno. runoff could be reduced by 20 billion energy use could be up to 1. California by tens of billions of gallons each year. for green roofs. roofs were installed on 50 percent of existing roof surfaces stormwater volume reduction. using these roof region. saving residents up to $211 million in electricity of pollution reaching our local waters. and. municipalities and counties should adopt strong tons of CO2 equivalent annually. stormwater runoff would be reduced green roofs or cool roofs were installed on 50 percent of the by more than 36 billion gallons per year.6 million megawatt-hours gallons annually. including building cooling energy savings. cool roofs for our communities and quantifies some of and therefore can reduce stormwater runoff in Southern those benefits. with a substantial reduction in the volume per year. © William McDonough + Partners A green roof on the former headquarters of The Gap. California This paper looks at the many benefits of green roofs and Green roofs absorb and evaporate or transpirate rainfall. by 2035. | PAGE 3 Looking Up . Inc. costs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 465 The scale of these benefits is truly impressive and justifies thousand metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually. To promote the use of green roofs in gas emissions reductions of up to 288 thousand metric particular.

Conservancy. the snowpack is expected to shrink by 25 to 40 percent by 2050. which are effectively living rooftops. Green roofs.luthringer. and Addressing all of these concerns will require judicious policies concerning growth and development that employ multiple practices. They do not yield all of the benefits of green roofs. including the widespread use of green infrastructure—a term we use to mean a set of design principles and practices that restore or mimic natural hydrologic function. decreasing surface temperatures in cities. the source of up to one-third of the state’s freshwater supplies. Inc. among other uses. preventing stormwater runoff from carrying pollutants to surface waters. can cost-effectively help solve many of these challenges at once. Santa Monica Mountains picks up and carries vastly more pollution to our rivers. which in turn Green roof in Vista Hermosa Park. This results in greater emissions of the greenhouse gases that are contributing to the effects of global warming. but where installing a green roof may be impractical due to site-specific constraints. cool roofs can help address many of these same climate and energy issues facing our region. | PAGE 4 Looking Up .  Meanwhile. 2012. Largely because of temperature increases from global warming. Los Angeles lakes. and providing other benefits.  And when it rains over our expanding cities. the California Department of Water © Ken Weston and Reza Iranpour/City of Los Angeles Resources reported that the Sierra snowpack.INTRODUCTION On April 30. use smarter materials to reduce energy demand and lower temperatures compared with traditional rooftops. was only 40 percent of its normal level for this time of year. vehicle traffic. Cool roofs.  Though well below historical levels. as our urban and suburban environments expand further outward in Southern California. Looking onto the green roof of the former headquarters of The Gap. like green roofs.  © www. this reading may foreshadow major changes. and building cooling. rooftops and other paved surfaces create vastly more runoff than occurs in the natural landscape. meaning less water will be available for the tens of millions of Californians that rely on its runoff for their water needs. reducing energy used by buildings for cooling and heating. we use more energy for lighting.

| PAGE 5 Looking Up . calling it “one of the most significant reasons worsening. or evaporated. trash.”1 quality standards.80% @ 80 . and practice is that “polluted stormwater runoff is commonly other contaminants and carries them to nearby rivers.) Statewide.”3 and cool roofs can help to address these issues. bays. When In the vast majority of California’s municipalities. Rain that number of rivers.60% 60 .4 (See Figure 1. instead California experienced 5. according to the State Water Board.000 miles of shoreline Increased impervious surface area drastically increases the and rivers are impaired by one or more pollutants.5 25 Vista ME XIC O Source: NRDC “Clear Blue Future. set of sustainability challenges. bacteria and pathogens. been taken up by plants.756 beach closing and advisory days hits paved surfaces and is converted to runoff. transported through [the storm sewer]. and mostly in the country. from which it is often and beaches. 0 12. Green roofs that water quality standards are not being met nationwide. such as the one used by the city of San urban runoff as one of the greatest threats to water quality Francisco.40% Study Area Boundary 40 .”7 In combined The U.S. wetlands.5 the ground. Map created by Miles Chula GreenInfo Network. Figure 1: Map of impervious surface cover in Southern California Palmdale VENTU RA LOS ANGELES Victorville COUNTY @ COUNTY Santa Clarita SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Ventura Oxnard } } I C San Bernardino Los Angeles B Riverside @ B N Long Anaheim Palm Beach Springs Santa Ana C Hemet ORANGE COUNTY Temecula RIVERSIDE COUNTY @ IM P ERVIOUS NES S . more than half stormwater runoff is the result of the man-made hydrologic of all lakes. stormwater runoff is collected and conveyed in the same pipes as domestic sewage and industrial wastewater. and more than 30. the volume of runoff that results from precipitation. streams. lakes.SOUTHER N C AL IF ORN IA REGION Oceanside C SAN DIEGO Percent Imperviousness: COUNTY Escondido < 20% Public / Protected Open Space 20 .6 amplify levels of pollution in surface water bodies. metals. January 2009. it sewer systems are used to collect and convey stormwater picks up higher levels of automotive fluids and debris. and lakes in California exhibiting would have. under pre-development conditions. pet wastes. “most of acres of impervious surface. Overall.2 discharged untreated into local water bodies. and estuaries fail to meet water modifications that normally accompany development. Worse. showing Stormwater runoff poses a threat both to our water supplies that Southern California contains hundreds of thousands and to the health of our surface waters. independently of domestic sewage. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) views sewer systems. and polluted urban stormwater runoff continues to to increasingly severe flooding and erosion and can greatly be a major contributor. where.ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES Southern California is facing a complex. polluted stormwater runoff continues to be a leading cause of pollution in Santa Monica Urban Runoff and Stormwater Bay and throughout California. separate the increased volume of runoff flows over paved surfaces. soaked into overall toxicity increased by 170 percent from 2006 to 2010.” 2009. This is particularly the case in California.100% San A Diego Percent imperviousness based on NLCD 2001 Impervious Surface dataset. This can lead in 2010. A side effect of this pesticides.

In California.”10 system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or Use of these conventional. “the wastewater volume in a combined sewer the U. coastal resources and communities. and the San Francisco Bay Region. use of green infrastructure—a set of design principles and practices that restore or mimic natural conditions.”8 For this reason. and permitting programs. where it is treated before being EPA considers combined sewer overflows to be “a major discharged. physical. is “to restore and maintain the chemical. and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.11 The California Ocean Protection Council has called green infrastructure (or low impact development) “a practicable and superior approach” to stormwater management. or by investing their own money on public property. municipalities are required to obtain permits for the discharge of stormwater from their separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). that have combined sewer systems. roadside plantings. However. engineered solutions such as gutters. and elsewhere in the country. human and industrial waste. Orange County. zoning.14 Many cities and states are also encouraging use of green infrastructure through incentives. lakes. engineered controls has been treatment plant. before it can pick up pollutants and carry them to our rivers and beaches. the to a sewage treatment plant.”13 Under the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Under normal conditions the wastewater is transported pouring directly into receiving waters. rain barrels. Several MS4 permits in California. with size and discharge excess wastewater directly to nearby unfortunate consequences to the health of our nation’s rivers. drains. resulting in “stormwater…untreated surface water bodies. to capture rain where it falls.S. these permits have increasingly required that new development and redevelopment projects use green infrastructure practices to retain rainfall on site. rather than allowing it to run off and enter storm sewer systems. during periods of increased rainfall water pollution concern for the approximately 772 cities in or snowmelt. including those for Ventura County. passed by Congress in 1972.15 © Abby Hall/EPA © Haan-Fawn Chou A rain barrel in Santa Monica Vegetated swale in a parking lot | PAGE 6 Looking Up .”12 Green infrastructure techniques include use of porous and permeable pavements. stating that it can “minimize and mitigate increases in runoff and runoff pollutants and the resulting impacts on downstream uses. and green roofs.9 Consequently. In communities throughout the United States. require retention of the 85th percentile storm volume (roughly three-quarters of an inch of rain in coastal Southern California). as a better way of addressing stormwater pollution. parks. and debris” Green Infrastructure as a Stormwater Control Solution Though stormwater runoff presents a serious threat to the health of our country’s waters. The stated goal of the Act. One means of expanding the use of green infrastructure has been through permits issued under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). combined sewer systems the dominant paradigm for addressing the challenges posed are designed to overflow during rain events over a certain by stormwater across the United States for decades. and pipes. or beaches. allowing rainwater to infiltrate into the soil or evapotranspire into the air—has begun to replace conventional. toxic materials. there are practices that can help stop runoff at its source. which do not reduce the volume of runoff.

8°C). from 2070–2099 Source: California Climate Change Center. cities. with some regions likely Many areas of the country. and the the state’s water supply that will worsen over time and with Sierra Snowpack increases in warming. the state’s water infrastructure was designed to capture the trapping the sun’s heat and causing the planet to warm. Much of are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket. Some of these changes are already to shrink 25 to 40 percent by 2050.7°–3.5°F (1. California. and increased water demands will all contribute to continued viability of this vital water source. Carbon dioxide and other 40 percent of the state’s total annual freshwater supply. a loss of 1. 2006. is not shown. snowpack in the Sierra Nevada range forms California’s largest freshwater reservoir and is a critical source Securing an adequate. Most visibly. reliable water supply will become of water for the entire state.”17 However. abundant flowing water in warmer months. For example.4°–5.S. the Sierra snowpack is projected those in the western U. snowpack. as the snow melts. including Southern California. to see significantly less rainfall than historical levels and rely on annual snowpack cycles to provide reliable storage an increase in drought events. global warming pollutants.18 (Figure 2. simulations for conditions in Sacramento.) more frequent severe weather events and droughts. “Snowmelt currently provides increasingly difficult in the coming years and decades an annual average of 15 million acre-feet of water. predict 30- year precipitation averages that decline to more than Figure 2: Projected dry-climate reduction in the Sierra Nevada snowpack.S.” roughly because of climate change.”19 our water supplies.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage. Largely because unstable water supplies in many major U. resulting in less greenhouse gas Sierra Nevada decreased by about 10 percent during the last emissions that contribute to global warming and threaten century.”20 These changes will have consequences for Water Supply.3°C) (Lower Warming Range) and 5.5° to 8°F (3°–4. water because of climate change. including increased temperatures and percent by the end of the century. According to the California Department of energy for building cooling and mitigate the effects of the Water Resources. or greenhouse gases (GHGs).5°F (4. which projects a temperature increase of 8° to 10. climate change threatens the viability.16 In fact.4°C) (Medium Warming Range). statewide study. climate change threatens one of our main Precipitation will also become a less reliable source of natural sources of water supply and storage: snowpack. Projections are based on warming ranges of 3° to 5. Precipitation. especially of temperature increases. The High Warming Range estimate. This is in part because “more precipitation is falling as rain and less as snow. impacts on the snowpack from climate change are Green roofs and cool roofs can help reduce the use of already occurring.Climate Change and Water Supply For example. evaluated as part of a broader. “slowly released between April and July each year. slow spring runoff and deliver it during the drier summer Changes in precipitation patterns. and as much as 70 to 90 being seen today. the “average early spring snowpack in the urban heat island effect. recent climate of water during the winter months and. groundwater and fall months. | PAGE 7 Looking Up .

Figure 3: Differences in mean annual precipitation for 30-year periods in early. intermountain Southwest. purple). 5 percent below historical levels by the end of this century. with much of it statewide by 27 percent by 2085.5° to 8° F) by century’s end. dry periods observed in the region since the late 1800s. impacts on water supply are obvious. earlier Climate change is also likely to cause drought in areas outside snowmelt. Overall surface a source of up to 4. a less reliable and useful surface water supply. 2009. as illustrated by the historic in these simulations rivals or exceeds the largest long-term flood events seen across the country in 2011. with far greater decreases in runoff in the In places like Sacramento and the Los Angeles region.28 | PAGE 8 Looking Up . these effects—a reduction in snowpack. the figure is more flooding and runoff on a scale that today’s infrastructure has than 10 percent below historical levels. relative to 1961-to-1990 baseline for the Sacramento region 20 SRES A2 10 % 0 −10 −20 2005−2034 2035−2064 2070−2099 20 SRES B1 10 % 0 −10 −20 Source: Adapted from Cayan et al. the timing of that precipitation hot and dry conditions.22 The drying projected not been designed to handle. late-spring streamflow directly to drought.27 In the worst-case even where precipitation levels are likely to rise over time climate change scenario for water supplies. But could drop by as much as 30 percent. and changes in precipitation patterns—will mean of California that will affect the flow of the Colorado River.25 This may cause (See Figure 3. and late 21st century.21 falling in more frequent and intense storms. Projections from six global climate models for a medium-high emissions scenario (top.) For the Los Angeles region. reflecting both because of global warming.24 mid-century. blue) and a low emissions scenario (bottom.4 million acre-feet of water per year for runoff in California could decrease by up to 10 percent by the state. overall streamflow may decrease may make it more difficult to capture and use.23 Together.26 Under a median warming range where climate change will likely reduce rainfall or contribute scenario (5. middle..

which pumps water Recent studies project that by 2100. allowing saltwater to intrude into freshwater state’s greenhouse gas emissions. to limit the through Southern California’s streets and freeways. such as in the Central from Northern California or the Colorado River across Valley.8 million registered automobiles and 1. sea levels will be. “substantially above the national Groundwater basins are already stressed and overdrafted average. Without such adaptations. which are often viewed as a safety net capture would have benefits beyond ensuring reliable in California’s overall water supply picture. In California. overall impacts of climate change in the first place. the six Southern time. by capturing and using stormwater) helps to the surface. whether from just above sea level at the Delta nearly 3. California State Water Project.39 and Los Angeles County alone has an estimated 5. excessive groundwater pumping and other county in the United States. a figure gas usage are devoted to water systems. climate change will also take a toll on Increasing local supply of water through stormwater groundwater supplies. It will also degrade the quality and reliability of the freshwater supply pumped from the southern edge of the Sacramento– Greenhouse Gas Pollution in Southern California San Joaquin River Delta.29 portion of the electricity.1 metric tons of CO2 per year. almost 20 percent of our state’s total 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural water needs electricity and one-third of its non-power-plant natural are supplied by groundwater in an average year.4 million tons.36 is pumped from a groundwater aquifer. and Riverside counties are all among the communities more resilient to changes in water supply over top 40 carbon-emitting counties—in fact. We annual carbon emissions.000 feet at the earth’s surface or underground. that reduce energy use and the resulting release from the tremendous volume of vehicle traffic coursing of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Seawater intrusion is already a problem for to save energy.34 A significant that rises to 40 percent or more during periods of drought. handily beating out Texas’s Harris County.33 from which much of Southern California gets its water. at rates higher than they are recharged. which in turn helps to address the root coastal aquifers in Los Angeles County and Orange County. San Diego.” is used in the conveyance of water. to the next-highest emitter at 19. piping it in many places throughout the state. which will make our San Bernardino. this balance is This energy use is itself a significant contributor to the disrupted.40 Another significant portion of the region’s carbon dioxide emissions comes from electricity used to cool buildings. basins in major population centers will be additionally hundreds of miles and over mountain ranges into the threatened by increased salinity and saltwater intrusion as relatively parched southern parts of the state. normally prevents over the Tehachapi Mountains in the process—is the saltwater from moving far inland.6 feet) higher than they were Joaquin Delta to Southern California—lifting the water in 1990.37 Throughout the aquifers.38 should also be making use of practices. develop the capacity to use stormwater.35 The sea levels rise. All of this suggests we should be doing more. carbon per year.30 Freshwater flowing toward the ocean. today.32 Sea level rise will increase saltwater intrusion into these coastal aquifers.3 to 4. 1 to 1. Los Angeles County emits more carbon dioxide than any In other words. Approximately supply.4 meters (3. like green roofs and A substantial portion of these carbon emissions stems cool roofs.1 million trucks or commercial vehicles. | PAGE 9 Looking Up .31 The combination of freshwater withdrawals country. causes of climate change that threaten the security of where water has historically been withdrawn from aquifers our water supply. A typical passenger vehicle in the United States emits 5. Water Supply and Energy in California Impacts to Groundwater Supplies Unfortunately.4 million tons of reliable. A 2009 report found climate change will make our groundwater supplies less that the County of Los Angeles emits 21. Green roofs and cool roofs can help to reduce this energy usage. But when freshwater single-largest individual user of electricity in the state. on a distance of 444 miles from the Sacramento-San average. these serious constraints in California counties that form the focus of this study water supply are likely to come just as demand for water that combine to account for 45 percent of California’s total accompanies development and population growth soars. but especially in the West and in Southern from aquifers and rising sea levels increases the likelihood California. saving water or supplying the water locally that the saltwater layer in coastal aquifers will move closer (for example.

46 emissions of 483 pounds of CO2 per year per residence.58 kWh/ft2). the effects can (50 percent of existing residential structures. with the extreme high temperature opportunity exists to reduce the amount of electricity used. In Los Angeles. 2008. temperatures in 15 percent equipped with room air conditioners) uses highly developed city cores in the Northeast like New York. | PAGE 10 Looking Up . roughly 20 percent of all electrical on a citywide or region-wide scale. rising steadily from 97°F (36°C) in 1937 to 105°F (40°C) in the and the GHG emissions that result from its production.41 The average residence 100. This can have substantial effects not only for increases roughly 3 percent with every 1°F increase in the area immediately around the impervious surface—for temperature.48 lessening the need to cool building interiors. were an average of 13° to 16°F year (roughly 0.04 kWh/ significantly. as Los Angeles kWh/ft2). cities create their own heat islands—areas is “among the worst in the nation. modified by TheNewPhobia. The increased temperature in our urbanized areas leads to a number of negative impacts: The Urban Heat Island Effect n Poor air quality.”49 Maximum where surface and ambient air temperatures are higher than concentrations of fine particles.21 kWh/ft2). on a hot. Urban particles. This greater amount of impervious cover. with specific commercial sectors such as daytime effect.76 kWh/ft2) using substantially has grown over the past 70 years. offices (3. absorbs and radiates heat back into the surrounding conditions. air temperatures in the city more electricity for cooling than others. inhalable coarse those in surrounding undeveloped or rural land. with this effect sometimes exceeding the ft2/year for cooling.47 Southern California is equally susceptible retail (2. sunny day the surface of a conventional roof can exceed the ambient air temperature by up to Southern California 90°F (50°C)45—but also for the surrounding atmosphere Across the United States. from the urban heat island effect only exacerbate these in turn. and restaurants (5. and ozone (or “smog”) that can cause a variety development increases the percentage of impervious surface of significant health problems regularly exceed federal air in the landscape (rooftops.000 people can be impacted by the effects of an urban equipped with a central air-conditioning system in California heat island. approximately 766 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per Philadelphia.51 Hotter days are dramatically smoggier. food stores (2. with another be severe: Over a recent 3 year period. For example. Figure 4: Urban heat island profile across a densely developed city Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. and Boston. parking lots. the amount of smog pollution atmosphere.23 to the urban heat island effect. Cities with as few as energy used is for space cooling.43 Urban heat islands can also elevate nighttime temperatures Commercial buildings in California on average use 2. and other quality standards. For larger metropolitan areas.42 resulting in (7° to 9°C) higher than temperatures in nearby rural areas. significant have steadily increased. by 1990s.49 kWh/ft2/year) for cooling.50 Increased air temperatures resulting paved surfaces). The South Coast Air Quality Management In addition to increases in temperature that result from District states that Southern California’s air quality climate change.Climate and Energy Use in example.44 Clearly. roads.

3 percent in Los Angeles County and by 11. wwith ozone going from “acceptable to terrible” with an increase of only 10 to 15°C (18° to 27°F).58 While the challenges presented by climate change. there are practical. As urban temperatures increase. In Los Angeles. n Increased heat-related illness. Roughly 1.000 people die in the United States each year from extreme heat events. green infrastructure- based solutions that can address both their causes and their harmful effects.57 n Increasedwater consumption and stress on ecosystem health.55 n Increased energy use and GHG emissions. since air conditioners and centralized HVAC systems vent heated air into the atmosphere. resulting in increased need for building cooling. increased temperatures can interfere with photosynthesis—and the warmer temperatures can result in more water being used for irrigation to support stressed vegetation. Many plants and animals are sensitive to the increased temperatures that occur in urban cores—for example. and more GHG emissions.56 Additionally. we use more electricity to cool buildings than would be necessary without the effects of urban heat islands or climate change. their added use can further increase outside air temperatures. | PAGE 11 Looking Up . mortalities increased by 4. Higher temperatures result in increased heat stress and other heat-related illnesses. the peak energy load increases by 2 percent for every 1°F rise in outside air temperature. and the urban heat island effect are critical and complex.53 and a July 2006 heat wave in California resulted in 147 deaths. stormwater runoff. a number the California Climate Change Center states is almost certainly underreported.54 A statistical analysis suggests that for every increase of 10°F.52 resulting in additional cases of asthma and hospitalizations for respiratory ailments.4 percent in San Bernardino County. This results in correspondingly higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

the goal is often performance with minimal input: temperatures. urban studies of green roof and cool roof performance in order heat island reduction. where a principal medium (engineered soil) of a green roof shade and protect goal is not to increase the strain on already over-allocated the underlying roof structure from sunlight. the region’s millions of acres of Plant selections are typically hardy. the preferred directly from the growing medium. cool roofs can help address the climate can be installed. the surface of an adjacent conventional roof at midday. The region has mild winters but hot summers.61 | PAGE 12 Looking Up . Green roofs maximum cooling benefit from evapotranspiration. which can decrease or eliminate the need to transpiration. below. on the other hand. comes at significant cost in terms of necessary structural We have also analyzed the potential volume of stormwater support. Further. thereby domestic water supplies. One potential evapotranspiration: Plants take water in through their root option is use of captured rainwater or graywater for systems and release it through their leaves in a process called irrigation. open space for the building’s occupants. or “intensive. a drainage system. a study in New York City found that peak daytime and increased reflection of the sun’s energy. which are the focus of and. The can help preserve a building’s roof surface while providing potential need for irrigation raises significant concerns substantial environmental benefits. unless a reliable of water from liquid to gas—occurs from plant surfaces and source of nonpotable water is available. Climate. extensive we have analyzed land use. generally use a simple. meaning such roofs may require supplemental Green roofs are vegetated roof surfaces—essentially. evaporation—the conversion use potable water supplies.60 The summer surface albedo. a root protection into the atmosphere. and beaches and adding Intensive green roofs. or better than. experiences a dramatic urban this report. and Irrigation provide for Southern California’s urban areas with respect to reducing the urban heat island effect. no fertilizers or pesticides. and a waterproof membrane. and air-conditioning energy savings. with little limitation on the type of plant or tree that install a green roof. green roofs cool through substantial energy to deliver to end users. A potential issue for green roof installation in Southern California is that the region receives most of its rainfall between November and March. lightweight system that heat island. drought-tolerant varieties rooftops generate hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of that need little maintenance. Further. a thin layer (3 to 6 inches) of soil or cool building interiors. coupled with and increase ambient air temperatures is instead used in the a highly reflective aggregate in the growing matrix. energy use patterns. temperatures on green roofs averaged 60°F (33°C) cooler than on standard black roofs. we discuss the properties of green roofs and cool roofs and the results of our analyses. where it may be impractical to space. and green roofs in terms of stormwater runoff retention. This results in wasted energy and money to includes a vegetated layer. We also discuss additional benefits that green roofs and cool roofs can Green Roofs. or lowers surrounding air temperatures. long-term maintenance. rooftops irrigation during the hotter summer months to achieve the covered partially or entirely with living plants. (See evapotranspiration process. and runoff and pollutant load that could be retained by green irrigation water use. The region’s already worst-in-the. For green roofs will still provide cooling as a result of shading instance.62 With extensive green nation air quality is a problem that is exacerbated by rising roofs. intensive green To quantify the benefits these types of roofs can provide. when temperatures are Green Roofs—Basics and Benefits cooler. which themselves may require reducing its temperature. initial investment. generally serve as to flood events. acting more like a traditional garden or park all of these challenges.64 roofs.BENEFITS OF GREEN ROOFS AND COOL ROOFS Both green roofs and cool roofs make sense for Southern Green roofs are typically referred to as either “extensive” California. However. and in excess GHGs being released other growing medium. Green roofs offer an opportunity to address an amenity. At the same time. as described earlier. resulting in latent heat loss that discussion of roof properties such as solar reflectance.) While evapotranspiration may be reduced temperature of a green roof can be significantly cooler than in the summer months as a result of reduced irrigation. and stormwater runoff each year. While their purpose is usually shade and and energy issues facing our cities. The plants and growing for regions such as Southern California. contributing large amounts scant human intervention of any kind once established. lakes.63 of pollution to local rivers. and.” Extensive green roofs.59 Energy from incoming option may be the installation of non-irrigated green roofs solar radiation that would otherwise heat the roof surface made up of highly drought-resistant plants. to determine the energy savings that could result from a However. this performance for intensive green roofs generally reduced need for building cooling in Southern California. roofs typically perform as well as. In this section. system.

As a York. if not Traditional roofs are typically dark in color and get warm higher. green roofs: structures. save money on air-conditioning costs. there were an estimated 6. on commercial and individual building owners and neighborhoods and cities residential buildings. including ozone and particulate matter. and on roof surfaces with a slope of up to 30 degrees. and shingles. cool roofs reduce summer heat flux into buildings Oregon. California. Philadelphia. Maine and Portland. redevelopment. conventional roof on a hot summer day. thereby improving public health.68 Thus. | PAGE 13 Looking Up . including initiatives in Chicago. white. reduce energy demand and lower building and ambient in new development. offices.66 including paints. green roofs. and the city. and retrofit projects.67 These benefits are discussed in greater detail below. and A cool roof can be 50° to 60°F (28 to 33°C) cooler than a dark. cool roofs help reduce energy use and GHG emissions. result. make use of materials that will and government buildings. both Portland. roofs can be installed. A square feet of completed or ongoing green roof projects cool roof stays cooler in the sun because of materials that in the United States. green roofs: improve air quality. New reflect more of the sun’s light and efficiently emit heat. communities. and At the neighborhood or city level. n improveair quality by reducing temperatures and capturing air pollutants. heating the building and the surrounding air.6 million in the sun. At the building level. in new construction and on existing as a whole. they are increasingly being created in a range of colors n reducethe energy used and associated costs necessary and can look nearly identical to traditional roofing materials. Birmingham. by serving as a means of sequestering carbon. cool roofs can also reduce the urban heat island amount of energy needed to cool the building and. n reduce stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loading. air temperatures. for cooling the building. roof tiles. office building Green roofs can be installed on a wide range of buildings. educational Cool roofs. Although many cool roofs are light-colored or n increase the life span of a building’s roof. as compared with traditional rooftops. When enough are installed on a citywide n reduce greenhouse gas emissions by lessening the scale. Tucson. Cool Roofs—Basics and Benefits including residential and commercial structures. They can Green roofs can provide a number of benefits to both be installed on flat and sloped roofs. n reduce the urban heat island effect. coatings. demonstrating the breadth of conditions under which green Cool roofs may be made from a wide variety of materials. like n improve aesthetics.65 As of June 2007. and n provide habitat space. like green roofs. and industrial facilities. and Southern California. in effect—helping to lower temperatures across whole urban some cases.© Adam Kuban © Cara Horowitz A cool roof being created on the flat roof of NRDC’s Santa A green roof on the California Academy of Sciences Monica.

which provides evaporative cooling. installing a solar roof in combination with a the sun’s energy on the interior temperature of the building73 green roof. The thermal mass. and Surface (Concentional) (F) Temperature in Soil (Green) they contribute to urban runoff in the same way as traditional roofs. Weeks. shade cover.74 Though outside the scope of this report to quantify and While energy savings will vary with several factors related compare the total benefits of all three roof types. during the summer a green roof can reduce the average initiatives for smarter rooftops should push for green daily energy demand for cooling in a one-story building by roofs. building types at little cost. and reduce peak energy demand. such as a building’s load-bearing capacity. greatly reducing the effects of roofs. As a result.70 the surface immediately above a conventional rooftop can Increasing the number of rooftop solar installations in exceed ambient air temperatures by 90°F (50°C) or more. green roofs reduce energy use improves electricity production because photovoltaic and costs for indoor climate control and resulting GHG processes are more efficient in cooler conditions. cool roofs. especially for applications where site-specific constraints. on a hot. or Solar Power? Figure 5: Comparison of average roof surface temperatures of buildings with conventional (non-green) and green roofs in Hillsborough. Their Buildings use a tremendous amount of energy to cool interior energy-saving and urban-cooling benefits are immediate. Cool roofs can. and evapotranspiration provided by green roofs have a strong Solar roofs are also a vast improvement over traditional regulating effect on the temperature of underlying building roofs. In fact. actually (Figures 5 and 6). Policy roof. Solar roofs can of the roof surface below a green roof can actually be cooler also be installed in combination with green roofs or cool than the ambient air around it. while green roofs will provide insulation that saves heating energy during cold 30 Wed o3 Thu 04 Fri 05 weather as well. cool roofs do not reduce surface water pollution or 120 stormwater runoff.71 emissions by insulating and cooling individual buildings.) In general.” as they may require higher heating costs during colder weather 60 due to their ability to transmit heat from the building interior through the roof surface. based to the building’s construction (including the roof’s insulation on the benefits each can provide we see the different properties) and with the specific characteristics of the green types of roofing strategies as complementary. livable.Green Roof.69 or coupled with increased insulation to increase energy benefits during Source: K. providing building-cooling benefits through shading roofs and interiors.75 colder periods of the year. the temperature capacity. sustainable. it is important to note their limitations. even on a hot and sunny day. Unlike green roofs. sunny day in addition to serving as a renewable energy source.72 Southern California would help mitigate climate change. Given their cooling energy and other benefits (including improving air quality through the mitigation of climate change and the urban heat island The Benefits of Green Roofs and Cool effect). however. California.77 healthy. As stated earlier. because they are impervious surfaces. Green Roof Energy Benefits may make installation of a green roof impractical. be combined Date with rooftop rainwater capture systems that can provide Green Roof 1 – Temperature (measured in soil) substantial benefits in terms of stormwater runoff volume Conventional light grey roof temperature (measured on surface) Green Roof 2 – Temperature (measured in soil) reduction and increased water supply. and solar roofs to make our cities more more than 75 percent compared with a conventional roof. Further. with much of that heat transmitted into the building below. environments. and resilient to a changing (See Figure 7 for an example of energy used for cooling from a climate. a green roof’s impact | PAGE 14 Looking Up . Cool Roof. resulting in the release of large quantities of and they can be installed easily and quickly on a host of GHGs to the atmosphere. cool roofs may result in a “winter heat penalty. strengthen renewable and distributed en­ergy generation By contrast. Cool roofs also do not sequester carbon 90 from the atmosphere or capture air pollutants. 2008. in the fall of 2008 While cool roofs have many significant benefits. case study in Pennsylvania. cool roofs provide an important “smart” roofing Roofs for Southern California alternative.

and declines with each can provide additional energy savings for buildings with additional story below the roof.86 Green roofs tend to maintain a the majority of precipitation falling in the cooler winter localized air temperature below that of ambient air. result in significant energy a green roof reduced its cooling load by 11 percent but cited savings. though varied. In general.85 on electricity use for cooling is greatest on the top floor.17 kWh/ft2 (equivalent to about 35 percent of the electricity use of an average California residence with central air-conditioning). the state’s Title 24 building efficiency in Santa Barbara.80 cool roofs generate savings of 10 to 43 percent of a building’s Modeling results for green roof applications have shown cooling energy demand. By reflecting and emitting solar energy very the building’s relatively low energy use to begin with as a efficiently. 2009. and the entire building’s cooling load by 15 to 39 percent per month. cooling energy savings. depending on roof slope. and a years. with an average energy savings of 0. dry summers. allowing months). 2009. whose Mediterranean climate air-conditioning systems begin to decrease in operational is similar to Southern California’s (warm. found that from May to September the presence of cooler air to enter the air-conditioning system and reducing a green roof reduced the cooling load for the building’s top costs and energy used for cooling. n 17 percent of the cooling load for a hypothetical five-story These potential benefits have been recognized for many commercial building in Singapore with a turf roof. In n more than 10 percent for a one-story commercial building California. Further. green roofs. the tempered microclimate on a green roof immediately below the roof surface. rooftop air-conditioning or HVAC systems.89 n 12 percent for a one-story building in Portland.81 For example. they can also climate.88 Because cool roofs generally maintain a local air cooling load reductions of up to 25 percent. like green roofs.87 Studies vary widely but have shown that in energy demand. story office building in Athens. in modeling analyses of extensive allow cooler air to enter a building’s air conditioning system.82 certain conditions as an energy efficiency measure. California.78 A recent case study of a two. like green roofs.79 A similar study Cool Roof Energy Benefits of a residential building in Athens estimated that installing Cool roofs. generally that a residence in Sacramento achieved a savings of 69 indicating overall annual (as opposed to monthly) building percent. depending temperature that is significantly lower in comparison with on building and green roof characteristics and the site’s a conventional roof surface.76 Source: Penn State Center for Green Roof Research. building type.83 and standards mandate cool roofs for some buildings. story by 27 to 58 percent per month. Figure 6: Comparison of interior temperatures of buildings Figure 7: Electricity used for air-conditioning by four small with conventional (non-green) and green roofs from a case buildings in central Pennsylvania study in Pennsylvania 120 Outside Air Temperature Green Average Inside (Non-Greened) Non-Green Average inside (Greened) 100 40 80 Energy used (KWH) Temperature (C) 30 60 40 20 20 10 0 6/24 6/25 6/26 6/27 6/28 6/29 6/30 8/3 8/13 9/2 9/12 9/22 10/2 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Date Date Source: Penn State Center for Green Roof Research. and cool roofs are already being mandated under 47 percent reduction for a rooftop covered by shrubs. with one case study documenting similar.84 | PAGE 15 Looking Up . with efficiency at about 95°F. researchers have estimated energy savings of: reducing building cooling costs. Oregon. for example. cool roofs directly reduce the energy required for factor in what the study considered a relatively low reduction air conditioning. and climate zone.

which is a true field measurement our methodology. percent on the top floor below the roof and. Solar reflectance is the fraction of solar energy that is and GHG emissions reductions that could be achieved by reflected by a surface. which in particular. Higher emittances assumes in its high-end estimate that both green roofs help to keep building interiors cool and to lower energy and cool roofs will result in a cooling energy savings of 25 demands. assuming coverage of 50 percent (high) or 30 percent (low) of existing Southern California rooftops Roof Area Roof Area Over Direct Elec. that 50 percent of time to a relatively stable aged solar reflectance. and the percentage surfaces. a white reflective coating or energy savings observed for green roofs and cool roofs. a 10 percent ability to stay cool in the sun. SRI is calculated from cooling may be reduced during dry summer months and solar reflectance and thermal emittance.. office buildings). existing rooftop surfaces in urbanized Southern California. and is expressed an aggressive program to adopt green roofs or cool roofs on as a number between zero and one. to account for the potential that evaporative white surface has an SRI of 100.640 565 73 162 | PAGE 16 Looking Up .90 all existing rooftops for selected categories of development Green roofs generally have a lower albedo than white will have either green roofs or cool roofs installed.98 Table 1: Electricity. our analysis the better the roof radiates heat. Savings CO2 Reductions (square feet. for additional description of is similar to its albedo. which is still the low end.92 As a result. at or cool roofs (on the order of 0. The solar reflectance of a material estimates and assumptions.1 (it reflects 10 percent while The results of this analysis are based on the following absorbing 90 percent).067 1. In our low-end standard black surface has an SRI of 0 and a standard estimate. expressed n Consistent with the range of observed and modeled as a number between zero and one. membrane may have a reflectance value of 0. the possibility that cool roofs may weather over time and reflect less solar energy. The higher the value. for building types likely to have multiple stories (e. The higher the value. 50 percent does not represent roofs can cool as effectively as the brightest white roof an upper bound for coverage area. The analysis further takes into account surfaces. see Appendix A: of a material’s reflectivity in sunlight conditions. such as a roof. while asphalt concrete may potential region-wide energy savings that could be achieved. which can be added to a wide variety of have albedos of 0. in millions) of MWh) ($.18). multi- Solar reflectance index (SRI) is a measure of a surface’s unit residential housing. at the high end. and greenhouse gas emissions savings per year. have a reflectance of 0. our estimate is 30 percent. Definitions of key roof properties relating to building STUDY RESULTS temperature and the urban heat island effect Transforming Existing Roof Space Table 1 shows the annual electricity savings. green buildings and roof types.e.91 Nevertheless.94 energy savings of 15 percent on the top floor below the roof and 5 percent on the second floor below the roof. It is defined so that a savings on the second floor below the roof.8 (i.286 kg CO2 per kWh of electricity. research indicates that vegetation may have a of roofs employing this technology could actually be stronger influence on temperature than the albedo of built significantly higher.g. it we have elected to treat the energy savings for both types reflects 80 percent of incident solar energy and absorbs of roof as equivalent for the purposes of quantifying the the remaining 20 percent). n Our analysis assumes an average annual retail rate for electricity in Southern California of 13 cents/kWh97 and an emissions factor of 0. For example.433 3. the analysis assumes a cooling Adapted from California’s “Flex Your Power” website.08 to 0. in millions) metric tons) High 9. cost. cost savings.85.. the “equivalent albedo” of green the percentage of existing buildings that use either central roofs. For cool roofs more reflective than traditional tar or gravel roofs.96 of absorbed heat that is radiated from a roof. A/C Space (square (in thousands Cost Savings (in thousands of Scenario in millions) feet. A material’s initial solar reflectance often weathers over n Our analysis assumes.055 6. generally falls between 0.95 the better the roof reflects solar energy and the more Given the overlapping range of potential building cooling it keeps cool. building-cooling savings discussed above.625 211 465 Low 5. accounting for latent heat loss from evaporative or room air-conditioning (up to 65 percent of residential cooling.25 or 0.3.7 and 0. high rises.93 buildings and roughly 75 percent of commercial and institutional buildings) such that installing a green roof Emittance (also called thermal emittance) is the amount or cool roof would provide an energy savings benefit.

green roofs may be This model again assumes a conservative rate of installation able to be designed to contribute some of this same benefit. over the next 23 years by 2035. that is comparable to the is discussed below. afternoons. and GHG emissions reductions that could result gases.8°F (2°C).000 single-family homes in California. redevelopment projects. as mini-reflectors and reducing the balance of heat in our Table 2 shows the potential annual electricity savings.101 Studies simulating widespread cool roof adoption 91.000 cars from the road each year. as discussed above.104 Like the polar ice caps. This latter benefit temperature.077 3. cool roofs may help to cool the earth itself by acting built environment. for example. for both green roofs and cool roofs compared with what is likely possible: 50 percent of all new or redevelopment roofs in the high-end estimate and 30 percent of all new or redevelopment roofs in the low-end estimate.103 insulating effects of a green roof. Using the high-end estimate. particularly for cool roofs. where feasible. Even non-irrigated green roofs would have more than 127. Simulations have predicted. Table 2: Annual electricity savings. cost savings. they do not significant air quality improvements and cooling energy account for the indirect electricity and GHG savings that savings. and greenhouse gas emissions savings in 2035 in Southern California. million megawatt-hours per year. a reduction could be achieved from a reduced need for building cooling in population-weighted smog in Los Angeles of 10 to 12 due to an overall reduction in ambient urban temperatures or percent resulting from a 2.8°C). A/C Space (square (in thousands Cost Savings (in thousands of Scenario in millions) feet. For some scenarios. in millions) of MWh) ($. would offer substantial benefits over time. and a cost savings of up to $211 million for would reduce ambient air temperatures citywide by up the region. higher-albedo roofs reflect from requiring green roofs or cool roofs to be installed on energy out of the atmosphere and thereby have the potential new development and redevelopment projects in Southern to result in a cooler planet. The energy saved would be enough to power to 3.007 131 288 Low 3. reducing city temperatures by 1.046 2.402 1. which can be substantial. the removal of hundreds For example.041 350 46 100 | PAGE 17 Looking Up .7° to 3.5°F on hot summer a low potential area of coverage. for both green roofs and cool roofs. Nor do these results account for potential effect of replacing all gasoline-powered vehicles with electric reductions in heating energy required for buildings due to the models.102 Lowering temperatures citywide results in Moreover. Savings CO2 Reductions (square feet. assuming coverage of 50 percent (high) or 30 percent (low) of rooftops on new development and redevelopment only Roof Area Roof Area Over Direct Elec.6°F reduction in ambient from increased air conditioning efficiency.99 in Los Angeles have shown reductions in urban ambient These results are conservative in that they assume only temperatures on the order of 1° to 3.105 By making use of white or California. one study found that adding irrigated green of thousands of metric tons of CO2 equivalent from the roofs to 50 percent of the available roof space in Toronto atmosphere. installing green roofs or cool Reducing the Urban Heat Island Effect roofs on 50 percent of existing rooftop surfaces for selected Studies have consistently shown that installing green development types across urbanized Southern California roofs and cool roofs across urban landscapes can play a would result in direct electricity savings on the order of 1. rather than on the entire existing Finally. cooling ambient air temperatures both locally on the roof surface and on a Installing Green Roofs and Cool Roofs on citywide basis may produce a secondary cooling benefit: Only New Development and Redevelopment The lowered temperatures can increase the efficiency of Even adopting policies that would require installing roof-mounted central air-conditioning systems whose air green roofs or cool roofs only on new development and intakes are located near the green roof or cool roof. directly counteracting the effects of greenhouse savings.100 Further. the a substantial effect.6 significant role in reducing the urban heat island effect. light-colored aggregate in soil matrices. cost atmosphere.4°F CO2 reductions would be equivalent to removing more than (0. in millions) metric tons) High 5.

vastly reducing the quantity of stormwater annual rainfall.409 acres months. typically ranging from California.S. with most studies concluded that green roofs sequester approximately demonstrating greater retention in summer months when 1.111 In a study in New York. the volume of captured water is substantial: to surface water pollution. enough to fill more than 54. green roofs can also reduce strain on public storm sewer systems and the costs of operating and maintaining them.113 During summer months. if all 36.000 to-back storm events. seasonal variation may be of commercial and industrial rooftops in the Detroit minimal due to increased rainfall and mild temperatures in metropolitan area were greened.109 | PAGE 18 Looking Up . green roofs can delay runoff even Olympic-size swimming pools in our high estimate for after they become saturated and no longer absorb water.112 they grow.110 A North here. means of protecting California and its water resources against Oregon.121 According to their findings.52 metric tons of carbon per acre over the two plants are active and transpire greater volumes of water. and that the green roofs inch of rainfall from a storm event. substantially reducing peak flow rates that contribute to stream erosion and flooding. In either of runoff from ever flowing to storm drains and contributing scenario. green roofs can serve as an effective tool for stormwater and that the green roofs will retain 50 percent of the total management. preventing that volume will retain 35 percent of the total annual rainfall. years of the study (375 grams of carbon per square but significant retention will still occur during cooler winter meter).2 gallons of rainfall per square foot per year. (In Southern California.) A yearlong study in Pennsylvania found their plants and growing media together would sequester that despite the presence of snow and freezing conditions in 55. and beaches. which both reduced the from the air by plants through photosynthesis and the volume of soil media and constrained the horizontal flow of storage of that carbon in the plants and the soil in which water on the roof. they would be additive with the electricity and GHG Carolina study found that a green roof reduced total annual savings resulting from reduced need for building cooling runoff from the roof’s surface by 60 percent and reduced calculated above. which can reduce green roof performance. Our low-end estimates assume that green runoff and the amount of pollutants that flow into Southern roofs cover 30 percent of existing development or will be California’s rivers.106 A green roof with a installed on 30 percent of roofs on new development and layer of soil 3 to 4 inches deep can generally absorb 0. equivalent to taking more winter months. over a two-year period winter and spring. study found that an extensive green roof with a soil the impacts of climate change and rising temperatures. This is the theorized that the lower retention value was the result of the removal of carbon dioxide and other forms of carbon green roof’s modular construction.120 Researchers at Michigan State University Retention of runoff can vary seasonally. substantial opportunity exists to use green roofs and Estimated stormwater retention rates for extensive green cool roofs to reduce the urban heat island effect in Southern roofs across the U. existing development.108 By reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff. Our high-end estimates Loading to Local Waters assume. In that case. depth of 4 inches (10 cm) reduced total runoff by nearly 70 percent.114 Table 3 shows the volume of stormwater runoff that could be retained by green roofs in Southern California under our Reducing Stormwater Runoff and Pollutant various development scenarios.000 midsize sport utility vehicles or trucks off the green roofs were still able to retain on the order of 20 percent road for a year. Additional Benefits—Carbon Sequestration the roof was nevertheless able to retain roughly 10. which found only 30 percent annual rainfall retention by an extensive green roof. and in combination could provide a strong runoff from peak rainfall events by 75 percent. than 10. the study’s authors atmosphere through carbon sequestration. While we do not quantify those additional benefits 40 to 80 percent of total annual rainfall volume. again. the equivalent of well over Green roofs reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the 12 inches of rainfall annually. new development and redevelopment occurring by 2035.122 of total monthly precipitation. In all.252 metric tons of carbon. lakes. a Portland. that green roofs cover 50 percent of existing development or will be installed on 50 percent of roofs on Because of their capacity to absorb and delay rainfall runoff.5 to 1 redevelopment occurring by 2035.107 For larger storms or back- billions of gallons per year. are impressive. nearly all precipitation was retained.

avoiding or delaying replacement costs. landscape. and that roof were $5. cost differences.131 Although neither conventional Further.75 per square foot greater than for conventional “newly planted roofs are likely to have much higher runoff roofing.25 per square foot per year for a green roof and pollution entering local surface waters. $0. estimates comparing maintenance costs of while care needs to be taken to ensure that green roofs are extensive green roofs and conventional roofs have found no. Table 3: Green Roof Stormwater Retention A green roof’s growing medium and vegetation protect a roof’s waterproofing layers from temperature fluctuations Roof Area Annual Rooftop and solar radiation and can extend their useful life by 20 (square feet.134 In air-conditioned buildings. as well Oregon. Although the construction and annual operation cool roofs also can extend the lifetime of roofing membranes and maintenance costs of green roofs may exceed those due to dramatic reductions in surface temperature of conventional roofs in the short run.117 The study noted that ranges from 5 to $20 per square foot.132 Green roofs also may reduce costs for maintenance by protecting the roof surface from human traffic. on average. as a less intensive option for development. while concentrations of roofs nor green roofs (once plants are established) typically some pollutants may be higher in green roof runoff than in require significant maintenance. they can serve as a tool for reducing the $0.10 to $0.20 per their effective lifetimes when compared with traditional square foot more. EPA found additional positive benefits beyond stormwater mitigation. of nutrients such as phosphorous and potassium. dust.128 The city of Portland. green roofs runoff from traditional roofs. and the long-term costs associated with conventional roofs often exceed those of extensive green roofs. not over-fertilized or over-irrigated to produce unnecessary or low. roofs.077 20.2 analysis determined that over a 40-year period the cost of (35% capture) an extensive green roof would be 20 to 25 percent less than High—2035 the cost of conventional roofing. a study by the U.133 Like green roofs.1 have flourished for as much as 90 years with minimal (50% capture) repairs and upkeep. of the practices considered.129 A second Portland concentrations of nutrients may decrease with time after the study assumed construction costs for a basic extensive green initial fertilization of growing plants is completed. and debris. 50 percent of the runoff of traditional roof surfaces. including weed removal. with prices on Both green roofs and cool roofs are cost-effective over par with traditional roofs or ranging up to about $0.127 that “green roof runoff appears similar to what might be Studies tend to agree that initial construction costs of expected as leaching from any other planted system in the green roofs are greater than those of conventional roofs. conventional roofing).046 8. green roofs fluctuations. the study found that.20 to $1.119 Thus. but there were higher concentrations square foot for green roof installation.433 15. Low—2035 Moreover. are and Cool Roofs cost-competitive with conventional roofing.”116 Runoff from green roofs contained nitrate in though they differ greatly as to the extent of the increased concentrations that were similar to what would be found in cost. estimates that the installation cost of a green roof as of calcium and magnesium. though retaining storm-water runoff and preventing combined sewer research results regarding pollutant loading are mixed and overflows in the city—and that the green roofs would provide inconclusive.130 while an analysis in New York assumed an loading rates than established roofs” in general. and plant care. Runoff Captured Scenario in millions) (gallons. The Cost of Green Roofs Cool roofs. Nonetheless.118 Installing average cost of roughly twice that of a conventional green roofs that do not require fertilization is one means of roof ($18 per square foot for a green roof versus $9 for significantly reducing potential pollutant loading rates.0 (50% capture) the cost savings from reduced building cooling energy use. the overall pollutant load was in may require slightly more maintenance than conventional many cases lower. a recent study of stormwater mitigation controls 3. a net present value Low—existing 5.25 for conventional roofs. Estimates generally range from $10 to $25 or more per traditional roof runoff.135 times).4 (35% capture) in New York concluded that. irrigation. Maintenance estimates range from or wasteful runoff.055 36. in billions) years or more.123 | PAGE 19 Looking Up . green roofs represented the most cost-effective means of Green roofs can also filter pollutants from runoff. depending on roof type.125 As a result.124 A study from Germany reported that green roofs in Berlin High—existing 9.115 Broadly. since the green roofs produced only about roofs.126 without even considering 5.S. any incremental have demonstrated longevity that is superior to that of costs of cool roofs are quickly recouped due to lower energy conventional roof surfaces (on the order of two to three bills and other cost savings.

Alternatively. or even re-roofing projects can entail opportunity to greatly reduce the volume of stormwater substantial permitting requirements. and beaches.137 | PAGE 20 Looking Up . fast-track permitting procedures have to environmental challenges. several policy options and incentives can be used to to projects incorporating green infrastructure practices: promote use of green roofs and cool roofs. Chicago gives density and building height bonuses for projects with green roofs in the city’s business district. While green roofs communities can offer advantages in the permitting and cool roofs are increasingly finding acceptance in the process to projects that incorporate green roofs or cool urban environment. For example. lakes. communities often offer permitting bonuses However. To reduce barriers runoff from rooftop surfaces. by reducing the use of electricity for building cooling and resulting GHG emissions. they are often overlooked as a solution roofs. Green roofs also offer the infill.CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS © California Academy of Sciences A green roof on the California Academy of Sciences Building in San Francisco Green roofs and cool roofs offer the potential to improve Provide incentives for residential and commercial the sustainability of urban areas in Southern California. because their benefits are not widely known. pollution to rivers. redevelopment.136 water resources. particularly those related to been instituted for buildings with green roofs in Chicago. private-party use of green roofs and cool roofs protecting water resources and improving air quality n Permitting incentives: Installing roofs in smart growth. which can pick up and carry to green roof or cool roof construction and conversions.

the community.141 offer Fund. and Portland. is green infrastructure. and green roofs may individually manage only grant programs that directly pay for the installation of a relatively small volume of urban stormwater runoff. n Financialincentives: Construction or re-roofing projects and technical manuals. n TheEnvironmental Protection Agency is planning to stormwater rebate programs can provide strong incentives reform the minimum requirements applicable to urban for property owners to retrofit existing development that and suburban runoff sources nationwide. Implementing standards that focus on the volume of discharges is often a concurrent rebate program for practices that reduce the first step in developing more protective water quality stormwater runoff can. knowledge and tools necessary to achieve their widespread installation. incentivize private regulations and promoting sustainable use of water investment in making green infrastructure improvements resources. cities should also reduce or waive certain permit fees for green roof or cool roof installations. To incentivize installation of green roofs and cool roofs. might otherwise contribute to stormwater runoff pollution in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that runoff sources and flooding. which. Other assistance may include often entail substantial permitting fees139 and other costs. In particular. tax rebate programs for green roofs and cool roofs that As a result. Adopt stormwater pollution control standards that require on-site volume retention Adopt and implement stormwater fee and n Thegrowing interest in use of green roofs is partially driven rebate programs by their utility for stormwater pollution management. Adopting stormwater infrastructure practices on a regional level. is fully funded. This fund provides critical assistance for projects strong opportunities to implement requirements to retain that repair and rebuild failing water and wastewater runoff on site. Communities can also implement energy use. Given the clear codes can also set specific targets for installation of green benefits that practices such as green roofs can provide to roofs and cool roofs. If these national standards are sufficiently rigorous.138 Communities can n Through guidance and policy reform.S. identifying and overcoming code and zoning barriers. in the case of urban runoff. which in turn promotes the use of green infrastructure. like installing green roofs and can reduce strain on municipal stormwater infrastructure. has offered developers proposing Provide guidance or other affirmative assistance buildings in the Central City Plan District floor-area for green roof and cool roof projects bonuses if a green roof is installed. in turn. Oregon. n Implementing a parcel-based stormwater fee can provide On-site stormwater volume retention requirements that reduce pollution of surface waters are also effective at cities with funding to address stormwater using green encouraging the use of green roofs. they Fully Fund the U.140 as receive support via the Clean Water State Revolving well as statewide regulations and local ordinances. Green roofs and cool roofs may individually 143reduce communities can reduce or waive these fees for green roof a relatively small portion of urban or suburban cooling or cool roof projects. gaining benefits in terms of building cooling across the country have modern pollution controls— energy at the same time. and green roofs to to the local government. Additionally. Local ordinances and building infrastructure projects in recent years. but green roofs or cool roofs on private land. Guidance includes demonstration projects. | PAGE 21 Looking Up . planning workshops. Congress should ensure that this program. These permitting advantages proactively promote the use of green roofs and cool roofs provide an incentive for smart practices at little or no cost to provide cooling energy savings. This is a once. cities should provide their residents with the indirectly finance the cost of installation. which has been the unfortunate target of cuts during recent federal budget debates. provide stormwater volume reduction benefits. Revolving Fund regional permits and water quality improvement plans n Greenroof projects and programs may be eligible to developed under the current federal requirements. EPA Clean Water State will help expand the use of green roofs. and it has increasingly focused on green roofs to absorb rainfall. or they can adopt collectively their installation can have a significant impact.

Cities. “The Waste Discharge Requirements Council (March 2008). and Biodiversity in the United States. Environmental Protection Agency.g.S.pdf. Bryson C. “Combined Sewer Overflows. “Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Change Scenarios Assessment.” prepared for the California Energy Commission.. | PAGE 22 Looking Up .cfm?program_id=5.pdf. 104. at 35. Natural Resources Defense Council (2011).org/globalWarming/west/contents.S.” “Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies guidance. Assessing the Risks to California. “Climate Change water/oceans/ttw/ 6 Natural Resources Defense Council (2011).nrdc.” at 86. 2003-0005-DWQ. NPDES Permit 25 Bates. www. www. 18 Ibid.nrdc.” cfpub.PDF. Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2009 Climate 7 U. 195-SF. “Our Changing Climate: NPDES Permit No. “Water Quality.” at 138. yosemite. 4 27 California Climate Change Center (2006). Also: San Francisco Regional Water www. 26 U. “Resolution of www. CAS004002.pdf.” Water Quality Order “Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for No.P. and Evaluation of Urban Runoff Programs Needed to Assess Effective.pdf. “The Future Is Now: 5 U. “Hotter and Drier: The West’s Changed Climate. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.” IPCC Secretariat.g. e. (2006). Nonpoint On the 22 Ibid. eds. Geneva.opc. 11 See. 9 Ibid. “Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge 29 California Department of Water Resources (October 2003). and J. R2-2009-0074.” news release. at 15. sures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. at 13-14 http:// Sewer Systems (MS4s).cfm#municipalhandbook. 2003).water.” Order No. Climate Change Science Program (May 2008). lutions/LID%20resolution. infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_policy.pacificcouncil. www. Kundzewicz.rockymountainclimate.” CEC-500-2005-195-SF. Also: San Diego Regional Water Quality Assessing the Risks to California.” www. State of the Art and Energy Potential 16 See. Z. EPA International Policy. 12 California Ocean Protection Council (May Resources.pdf. www. R9-2009-0002. CAS000004.W.” Pacific Council on Sewer Overflows. e. “Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure. www. (2008).gao.cfm. Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watershed of the County of Orange. 20 California Climate Change Center (May 2009). CAS612008. at 1. and the Orange County Flood 28 California Climate Change Center (March 2006). Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (July the California Ocean Protection Council Regarding Low Impact 23 Natural Resources Defense Council (2011). at 3.S. “Climate Warming Control District Within the San Diego Region. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System California’s The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Investigation Source Control Branch (2007). 2009).gov/new. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture. General Accounting Office (2001). revised November 28. www. 2011. pers.” Order Quality Control Board (October 14. at 12.S. “National Management Mea.pdf. “Our Changing 21 California Climate Change Center (August 2009). CEC-500- gov/opa/admpress. and Water Supply Management in California.” Green Roof System: Selection. “EPA Finalizes California’s An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options List of Polluted Waters.g.” at 3.epa. e. the Incorporated Cities of Orange County. Ventura County Municipal Separate Stormwater National Pollutant climatescience. at Finding 1.C.” cfpub. 17 California Department of Water Resources (October 2008).” EPA 833-F-08-007–EPA 833-F-08-010. Related Impacts of Climate Change in American 014-F.” Also: Natural Resources Defense Control Board (December 16. “Climate Change and Water: Technical Paper of the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. NPDES Permit No. Order No. “Testing the Waters: A 071/CEC-500-2008-071. the…San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP).epa.. “Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer 1 U. at at section 0.S. for California.” at 6.items/d01679.” GAO-01-679. Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater “California’s Groundwater—Bulletin 118 Update 2003. Assessing the Risks to California”. S. 2 U. www.” at 4. Guide to Water Quality at Vacation 2008-071. water/files/thirstyforanswers. “Thirsty for Answers: Preparing for the Water- reducingstormwatercosts. EPA.” for Discharges of Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer at 9-10. Also: California Climate Change Center (2006). §1251(a). “Reducing Stormwater Costs Resources Defense Council (2011).6. Water Resources.nsf/0/ water. 2008). e. October 11. Palutikof.” www. Resources. “Thirsty for Answers: Preparing for the Water-Related Impacts of Climate Change in American 10 Ibid. “Our Changing Climate.” municipal handbook.” www.pdf. www. “Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from 19 California Department of Water Resources (October 2008).ca.epa.ipcc. 2010). for California’s Water.S. NRDC (2011). ca. California State Water Resources Control Board (April 30. Land 14 See.” EPA Extreme 3 U. Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) of water. EPA.” at 7.doc?id=183.asp. 841-F-07-006. “Doubled Trouble: More Midwestern Through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices.” at CA. at 37.nrdc..S. Also: California Climate Change Center ment.PDF.epa. www.nrdc.T7OzSBz5MpQ.” at 24. “Preparing for the to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Effects of Climate Change—A Strategy for California. “Rooftops 24 California Adaptation Advisory Panel (2010). (2008). Better Data ClimateChangeWhitePaper.. Climate. CAS0108740. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trouble.shtml#. Office of Water (2005). 2009. www. www.Endnotes 15 See Natural Resources Defense Council (2011).cfm/.htm. 8 U.PDF.S. Wu. General Permit No. “Water 13 33 U. 2011).gov/npdes/ home.PDF.

Stanley A.B. “California Commercial End-Use Survey.pdf. A.wrd. 49 South Coast Air Quality Management District (June 2007). 1497-1506. pubs. 44 Itron. and treatment of Big City: Keeping L.pdf.” at 2. “Drops of Energy: Conserving Urban Water Revision—2006.PDF. and R. Hayhoe. K. “Estimated Vehicles gov/assets/docs/Papers/EnergyandBuilding-98%20%28RosenfeldAkbari- Registered by County for the Period of January 1 Through December 31. http:// Meteorology 34(7). at 9-10. 59-69. 10. 50 U. California Energy Commission.pdf. Khanbilvardi. (1996).gov/abs/ga00100w. S. D. Glickman.. Also: California Energy Bromirski. See also. San Bernardino. EPA. Dettinger. at 74-75. “Integrated Hillel (2008).gov/2010publications/CEC-200- 036-D. Inc. Fischer. R.S.” at 298-99.ucla.aspx. Pacific Coast Geographers Yearbook 70. Geological Survey 46 NASA. WRD Technical Bulletin. | PAGE 23 Looking Up . the number of individual days over 90°F increased by nearly 23 days. cdn. 34 California Energy Commission (November 2005). CoolCommunities%29. J.R. and Ventura counties are home to 53 Changnon. www. to the 1995 Heat Wave: A Call to Action. Johnson.eren. Also: Geethakumar. (2009).aqmd. M. Energy Efficiency aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Complete_Document. Sci.pdf.” www. 2009).pdf. 2010. Rahmstorf (December 22.D. the 48 City of Los Angeles. 21527-21532. This includes the collection.fypower. (October 2010). S. in Climate Impacts Group. Ted (Fall 2007). “Impacts of Climate considerably higher.” dmv. “Reduc- California. A. at 1498. and K. “2007 Academy of Sciences 106(51). “The Vulcan Project: High Resolution Fossil Fuel Combustion Policy Brief No. 1694-1704.pdf. “Heat Waves in Southern California: Are mands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency They Becoming More Frequent and Longer Lasting?” Association of of Energy and Water.usgs.nasa.” U.php. “2009 California Residential Appliance 54 California Climate Change Center (March 2009). pubs. www.” Proceedings of the National Southern California Edison..D.S. Gaffin. 40 California Department of Motor Vehicles (2011).A.4.epa. at 1.S. M.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology.1007/s00704-007-0368-3. (1998).gov/ChapterIntro1. Zhou.html. 55 Ibid. “Cool Communities: Strategies for Heat Island Mitigation and Smog Reduction. at 1694.PDF. Division. Tyree. 35 U.full. Environmental Protection 1.” Journal of Applied Vulcan county/annual/sector total and per capita CO2 emissions. “Bright Roofs.” CEC-100-2005-007-CMF. L. D.giss. A. www.. e.631 lb.J.” www. www.” Climatic Change 87 (Suppl 1):S57–S73. Environmental Affairs Department (2006).” (three consecutive days over 90°F) increased by 3 events per year. Dyson (2009).energy. “PM Standards 37 Elkind. “Variations in New York City’s Urban Heat Island Strength Energy Policy Report.R. R. 1-11. 2. EPA (December 2011). at 5. “Energy De. “Energy Use in the Supply. www. Cara (2011).” Process Energy Group. Also: Rosenfeld. www. R. Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Environment/Pritzker_02_Bright_ Roofs_Big_City.” at 5. at 51.” at ES-2. and M. www. December 13.CO%3B2. at posal of Water in California. Miller. 32 See. Over Time and content/106/51/ Between 1906 and 2006. Orange.sandia. These include measurements of PM 2. vulcan. Ethan (2011). San Diego.S.. “Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Circular 1186. Emissions factors for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and for San Diego Gas & Electric are 31 CO2 Emissions Fluxes for the United States. Mendoza. S. “Global 43 Based on an emissions factor of 0.climateregistry.5 and PM 10. Inc.” news release. “Impacts and Responses another estimated 6. berkeley. S. Flick (2008).gov/otaq/climate/ 52 Ibid.” University of Washington. Along the California Coast.epa.30 005.D. earth/features/heat-island-sprawl. in California to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (March 2006). Utility-Specific Emissions seawater-intrusion-los-angeles. Washington. docs/PUP_Metrics-June-2009.pdf. 94.” at 25. Willis. cses.doe. CO2 per kWh electricity for Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature. 36 Anderson. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008).g.html. ing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Green 13. www. Use and Dis. (1995).S. Pomerantz documents/420f11041.H. Northeast. R. Also: Horowitz. at 2. J. Moore. www. 51 Sailor. CEC-700-2005-011-SF.5 million automobiles. www.pdf.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77. 41 U. res/ia/waccia.pdf.” at II-1. the number of annual heat waves Commission (November 2005). Seattle. 3E2. Parshall. M. www. 42 KEMA. Patzert (2008). DOE (2011) “Buildings Energy Data Book.2. Technol 43. at 139. C.” Water Replenishment District of Southern 45 U. and D. Geological Survey (1999).washington. and W. “Battling Seawater Intrusion in the Central & West Basins. Project Modifications in Surface Albedo and Vegetative Cover. “Climate Change Projections of Sea Level Extremes 47 See.” Anthony Pritzker Environmental Law and Policy Briefs. Goldberg. at 6. D. CEC-400-2006-005. Blake. or businesses.5..S. H. Tamrazian. www. 39 U..lbl. et al.0..1021/es900806c. Change on the Coasts of Washington State.” CEC-500-2009- 200‐ 2010‐004‐ES.epa. www. and Final Staff Report.PDF. and the heating or pressurizing of water in homes “Green Roofs—Cooling Los RptToCongress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL. Akbari. K. see Gurney.” Environ. Carrie (1999).asu. “Estimating the Saturation Study. www. 2010-004/CEC-200-2010-004-ES. doi ca. “Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.xls. e.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C1497%3AIARTTH% prepared for the California Energy Commission. and S. de la Rue du Can Roof Program.” prepared for the California Energy Commission. D. H.J. Department of Energy (DOE) (December 2006). at 12.. Cool Through an Aggressive Cool Y. CEC-500-2009-036-D.” at 33 Cayan. build- org/doi/pdf/10. coolcolors. C. Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment.pnas. disposal of wastewater. LaDochy. Centers%20and%20Programs/Emmett%20Center%20on%20 doi:10. “Sustainability of Ground-Water Resources.1.” Energy and Buildings 28.shtml.S. S.ametsoc. “Simulated Urban Climate Response to 38 Arizona State University School of Life Sciences (2010). “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle.pdf.” at 1. CEC‐ Mortality Effect of the July 2006 California Heat Wave.. Mahani. “California’s Water‒Energy P. Romm. www.pdf.project. See California Climate Registry (2008).

A. Kong.S. “Reducing 33(1). “Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of the Arizona State University. “Reducing NRCC-46294).S. “Engineering Performance of Rooftop Gardens Systems Research. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008). 1059-1069.” National Research Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Cool Roofs. and L.” Lawrence Berkeley National “Photovoltaic Cell Conversion Efficiency. NRDC (2011) “Capturing Rainwater from Rooftops: An roof/airconditioning. “Bright Is the New at 9. Manickavasagam (2011). and Jordan Richie (2009). 2006.” www.nrdc. Assimakopoulos (2009). A. EPA. 63 Ibid. K.pdf. Soh.html. www. “On the Green Roof System: org/pdf/LA_GreenRoofsResourceGuide. Islands. State of the Art and Energy Potential Investigation of a System Installed in an Office Building in Athens. “Green Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region: Research Report. “Summer Heat 71 U. S. Eichenbaum- 65 Ibid. eds. Also: U. Pikser. and Y. City of Portland. C. and Jordan Richie (2009). Leonard and J. For one research site in Tempe. Also: the Urban Heat Island Effect. of outdoor air temperature reduction saves 5 percent of building energy 74 See. and E.. (2008).. www. C. Syafii. C.” Department. Lerum. 7. A.” National Research Council Canada (Report 62 U.giss. M. “Green Roofs in the Desert. .phila. 2005). www.ucf.  85 Penn State Center for Green Roof Research (2009).pdf. and G.pdf. Guide. M.fypower. “Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs 2008. Yan. Freed. Fact Sheets: Air Conditioning. 2006). “Green Roofs—Cooling Los Angeles: A Resource Guide. 78 Spala.pdf.nasa.R.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014029. A. A.” at 3. Steven W. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability.” lab report.nrc-cnrc. Efficient Water Resources Management Strategy that Increases Supply and Reduces Pollution. 86 Peck. Report NRCC-46737. ASHRAE Journal 48. Thermal Behaviour of a Green Roof System Installed in Two Residential pdf. City of Toronto (2005).. “Evaluation of the Impact of the Surrounding Urban Morphology on Build- ing Energy Consumption.cfm?a=261053&c=50818. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008).energy. Commercial Building in Singapore. doi:10.N. Institute for Space Studies. Leonard. Pavlou.. pubs. at 59. 353–364. “A Temperature and Seasonal 66 Ibid. Rosenfeld.K.H. Vidar (April 7. .” Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Confer- Center for Climate 77 Liu. Hajadi. www1. New York. and Black Roofs. generally. J. www. H. H.” www. and M.56 Akbari.” at 1.pdf. Susca.” Environ. Grillo. Susca (2010). Steven W. Jusuf. Hartung (2012). Imhoff. Black: Multi-Year Performance of High-Albedo Roofs in an Urban Climate. at 3. 7. 79 Ibid. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008). 84 City of Portland (2008). Hillel. Parshall.” Renewable Energy 64 U. eds. and T. Khanbilvardi.coned.W.” 70 Weeks.” Energy and Buildings.Y. C. and Black Roofs. Lett. Santamouris.pdf. and L. EPA..” Buildings 103. 014029. Khanbilvardi. R.I. www.” at 4.. Selection.. irc/doc/pubs/nrcc46737/nrcc46737. Parshall.pdf. C. Sia Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA (2003).S. City of Philadelphia. 35(4).S.. v.S. EPA.” Buildings 103. “Green Roofs–Cooling Los Angeles: A Resource Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research.. and A. H. Rosenzweig.. Assimakopoulos. D. at 84-85. 2011).gov/hiri/resources/pdf/CoolRoofsCompendium.N. C. (2010). Arizona State University. Gaffin. “Green Roofs and the asp. Also: Gaffin.fypower.” www.” web.. see also. nrcc46294. “The Effects of Rooftop Garden on Energy Consumption of a Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Rosenzweig_etal. 2006).” lab report.. e. public/output/LBL-28308. Roofs in the Desert.” at 4.” 57 Peck. “Green Roof Fact Sheets. “A Temperature and Seasonal Energy Analysis of roof/airconditioning. “Green Roofs.L. NY. and White Surfaces. “Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical 68 U. | PAGE 24 Looking Up . Air Conditioning. Rosenzweig. “Green Buildings.. and T. 80 Sfakianaki. “The Old and the Nueva: Green Roof Thermal “Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Green Performance. and Jordan Richie (2009). Also see. 67 See Rosenzweig. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008). Chen. ence the daytime 60 Peck. C. “Sustainable Portland: Incorporating Buildings in Athens. B. at 2. Taha (1990). Jeff (2006). Urban Heat Island Effect..html.gc.g.” at 1. Sathyanarayanan.vidarlerum.portlandmaine. Ong. (2006). e. Though Field Evaluation.buildings. J.” Federal Technology Alert.gc. 57-71 (1 degree celsius 73 Ibid. www. Mihalakakou (2008). 76 Penn State Center for Green Roof Research (2009). 75 Laboratory.. “Reducing Gardens as an Adaptation Strategy for Urban Areas. Council Canada. Kalavrouziotis.” web. Cheong.S.H. “Green Roofs ArticleDetails/tabid/3334/ArticleID/8620/Default. N. S.” D. and 81 Sonne. Baskaran (2003). www. 69 See. R. Wong.V. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Aug 12. “Green Roofs and at 7-11. renewable_energy/pv_cell_conversion_efficiency. (2003)..S. Vidar (April 7. Pasqualini. at post/winter2006/ASHRAEJeffSonne. LBL-28308.eere. D. Rosenzweig. DOE (August the ambient air temperature. EPA. EPA. White. See Lerum.” www. Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Green Roofs.pdf. .com/bes/index.html.pdf.” Solar Energy. Khanbilvardi.. 83 Bass. 33(12). S.pdf.” www. and H.Y.” 82 Wong.toronto. 59 Ibid. at 3 https://isswprod. Kirsten (2008). N. Steven W. White.” Columbia University. Climate Protection Partnership Division (2008). 173-177. “The Old and the Nueva: Green Roof Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference Proceedings Thermal Performance” Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities (Green Roofs for Healthy Cities: Washington.html. Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto. D. City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department (2006). 72 U. Green.” Buildings 103 (citing T.” International Journal of Energy Research sustainability into everyday decision-making. R. Matthopoulos. Rosenzweig. “Green Roofs and the temperature (mean radiant temperature) peaked at roughly 20°F below Urban Heat Island Effect.portlandonline. Greece. “Green Roof 61 Gaffin. Urban Trees. Eichenbaum-Pikser. Conference Proceedings. A.S. gov/planning/sustainableportlandbrochure. 85. “Reducing Y. DOE.K. J. Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Green epa. at 1. J.aspx#top. Pagalou.. www.” Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard 58 Ibid. Gaffin.g. Also: City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Energy Analysis of “The Green Roof Energy Performance—Rooftop Data in the New York Metropolitan Region: Research Report. M. at 6. (2006).fsec.eere. Gaffin. “Green 2004).” at 6-7. Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies—Green Roofs. DOE/EE-0298. www. E. “Report on the Environmental consumption).R.S. Res. N. Greece.” greenBuilding. Also: U. “Evaluating Green Roof Energy Performance.

A.S. at 10-111. Gnecco. M. A. of light-colored roofs for residential and commercial buildings in 11 U.” Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research. 014029.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL-39433. Cummings. drop in L.” Climatic Change.” Construction and Building 104 For a discussion of this effect. M. EPA (February 2009). at 10-11. 2(2).” Energy and Buildings 28 (predicting a 1. J. EPA (2012).S. Environmental Exposure on Roof Reflectance in California.. and Black Roofs.1016/j. Paper 3788.B. Rosenzweig. Gaffin. Levinson. Akbari. H.G. 97 Based on 2011 rate from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. at 7. J. Culligan. Grillo. T. at 152. Also: U.” EPA/600/R-09/026. at 11.. and to Offset CO2. D. 423-433. H. LBNL-34411. ).. Akbari.S. Cool roof requirements can be found in sections 118. Hillel. Understanding the Long-term Effects of Albedo Modification. bia University Center for Climate Systems Research. “2007 Utility-Specific Emissions www. New. at 5.Z. Hillel. EPA (October 2008).” Construction “Bright Roofs.” Energy Policy 33.” www. and B.C. H. J. of Applied Meteorology 34..” ASHRAE Transactions. Gartland (May 1997). 151-170. L. 1007-1016 DOI: nrc-cnrc. (2008). Roof Program. D. D. Analysis of Green. Code of Reg.” at 9 (citing.E. A. White.coned. W.osti. D. 108 Ibid. 151-170. J. 110 Palla.” Energy Policy 33.” “Monitoring the Energy-Use Effects of Cool Roofs on California National Research Council Canada. R. www.5. 112 Gaffin. 149.enbuild. Also: Gabersek. “Simulated Urban Climate Response to for a school building in the Los Angeles area). in press. D. Climate. (2005).1016/S0301- 90 Berdahl P.html. | PAGE 25 Looking Up . C.. (1995).com/ newsroom/pdf/Stormwater_Retention_Analysis. E.R. NRDC (2011) “Capturing Institute for Space Studies. Culligan. Climate.A. (2005). and T.pdf (citing potential for 2°C reduction on “Monitoring Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of Shade Trees a hot summer afternoon). 275-286. 106 We again note that while cool roofs do not provide this same benefit.S. Also: Gaffin.portlandonline. W. Bos (1993). at 7 www. C.epa. Miller. pdf.. McIlvaine (1994). 100(2). S.” Climatic Change 94(3-4). Lett. McGillis. S. (2010). 141.epa. Menon. and W. Hartung (2012).” at CEC-200-2010-004-ES. Commercial Buildings. and M. R. Kong. S. D.5 kWh/ft2 102 See June-2009.E.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014029. Rosenzweig. Rainwater from Rooftops: An Efficient Water Resources Management 93 Ibid. Bretz 100 See Gaffin.1016/S0301. P. Title 24. presented in the Appendix. S. Susca. J.. temperatures from cool roofs and pavements combined). 101 Liu. 7. Hillel.html?id=100123. See. B. Konopacki. Jacobson. Miller (2008)..1 kWh/ft2 for a retail building and 0. Policy Brief No. 89 Cal. Akbari. Strategy that Increases Supply and Reduces Pollution. Ten Hoeve (2011). 105 Ibid. Eichenbaum- Pikser.eere. I.2004. VanCuren. at 158. estimating potential energy savings as 1. e. “2010 Power Integrated Resource Plan. 99 U. eds. H. “Green Roofs.297 kWh/ft2 for buildings for Climate Systems Research. H.. and S. Res. “A Temperature and Seasonal Energy Requirements. D. . Report NRCC-47705. DOI: 10. Stedman. Taha. “Measured Rosenfeld. “Clean Energy: Calculations and References.. and A. www. 142. and L. 111 See U. “Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff Control. at 6-8. Center 4215(03)00206-4 (finding average savings of 0. 96 KEMA. “Stormwater Retention for a Modular Green Roof Using Energy Balance Data. Levinson. W. Konopacki.R. Parker.epa. Romm.gc. and S. C. Florida. 107 U. Berdahl ( 2011). pubs/600r09026/600r09026. (October 2010).” 94 State of California Flex Your Power program. of Roofing Materials—An Overview. “Energy Saving Potentials 88 See U. Khanbilvardi. H. “Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Com- pendium of Strategies—Green Roofs. Pomerantz. fypower. Millstein. Bretz (2005). R.A. S. Cara (2011). “Cool Roofs. and 152.Y. Also: Akbari.5°C drop in L. Factors. Akbari.pdf..” prepared for the California Energy Commission. Building Energy Efficiency Code 103 Levinson.. Horowitz. DOE (August 2004) “Inclusion of Cool Roofs in Nonresidential Title 24 Prescriptive Khanbilvardi..E. Levinson.” Colum- rain barrels or cisterns which both reduce the volume of stormwater bia University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard runoff and increase water supplies. Inc. P. “Cooling energy savings potential Gaffin. and L. Rainer (2005). S. (results for climate zone 9. Odlin (January 2011). at 18. J.. Part Bretz. Berkeley National “Weathering 4215(03)00206-4. Eichenbaum-Pikser. please see our full methodology. Eichenbaum-Pikser. Freed. 10. H. “Federal Technology Alert: Green Roofs. H.J.R. S. S. at 1700. Rosenzweig. Parshall. “2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study.” Environ. D.mdpi. Rosenfeld (2009).” Lawrence Compendium of Strategies—Cool Roofs. “Bright Is the New Black: Multi-Year Performance of High-Albedo Roofs in an Urban Climate.. Kurn. Lett.” “Effects of Urban Surfaces and White Roofs on Global and Regional DOE/EE-0298.S. and J. and J.g. and Results. and L. Simulations.87 See. Also: Cheng.E. and S.S. DOE (August 2004). K.” Energy and Buildings 37.A.R. “The Radiative Forcing Benefits of ‘Cool Roof’ doi:10. but see.. www. (2006). “Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos Khanbilvardi.” J. R. Requirements. and P. 36-49). and M.11.A.. temperatures from cool roofs and pavements combined).pdf. “Regional and White Surfaces in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Climate Consequences of Large-scale Cool Roof and Photovoltaic Service Area: Data Analysis. Fishman. Cool Through an Aggressive Cool and Building Materials 26:516-5. www1.” www. A.” Federal Technology Alert. Konopacki.” at 9.. 109 City of Portland (2008). Odlin (January 2011). 95 For a description of our study area. Pasqualini. McGillis.. and M. Meng-Dawn. Big City: Keeping L. “Stormwater metropolitan areas.xls. DOI: 10. Akbari. “Inclusion of Cool Roofs in Nonresidential Title 24 Prescriptive 143.” Lawrence Array Deployment.Y. C. C. in press.” J.H. DOE/EE-0298. R.” Water. R. Materials 22. Bass (2005) “Performance of Green Roof Systems. Akbari. www. Modifications in Surface Albedo and Vegetative Cover.. see Akbari. “Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs. 2.. Hanford.” www. 151.cfm?a=261053&c=50818.climateregistry. Retention for a Modular Green Roof Using Energy Balance Data. R. M. Lanza (2010). at 9. with cool roofs). 98 California Climate Registry (2008). Pomerantz (1998).com/2073-4441/2/2/140/. purl/860475-UlHWIq/860475. “Green they can be combined with rooftop rainwater capture systems such as Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region: Research Report.” Environ. Khanbilvardi.5°C Berkeley National Laboratory. “Hydrologic Restoration in the Urban Environment Using Green Roofs. J. 91 U..” at Figure 5. H.” Colum- at Table C-3. S.” Anthony Pritzker Environmental Law and Policy Briefs. Emissions factor for Southern California Edison. Construction in California: Quantifying the Climate Impacts of Building J. Menon (2011). 6 at Table 1 (predicting a 0. “Reducing Urban Heat Islands: and Air Quality Benefits of Urban Heat Island Mitigation. W. 140-154. 92 Rosenzweig.R. R.” Columbia University. “Cool Residential Cooling Energy Savings from Reflective Roof Coatings in Communities. 7-8. A. S. EPA (October 2008). Imhoff. www.

H. CAS004002. et al.. DOI: 10. and M. and L. Gaffin. EPA (February 2009). S. H. Ventura County Municipal Separate Stormwater National Data. metropolitan at 41. Robertson.” www.” Environ.” from the (1998). Eichenbaum. Gabersek. in an Urban Climate. Brazil.. to savings from direct energy use reductions. 2010-0108. C. R9-2009- Incentives.. “Working for a Cleaner Bay. M. Sia (2003).. 121 Getter. and S. e. “Ecoroofs (Greenroofs)—A More C. “The Waste Discharge Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Requirements for Discharges of Runoff from the Municipal Separate Goddard Institute for Space Studies.. at 17. “Cost Benefit Evaluation of Control. 151- 122 Ibid..A.niehs. A.. 115(6): A306–A311. “Life cycle costs temperatures. Imhoff.” Order No. H. Freed.smgov.PDF.” Columbia University Center for Gartland (May 1997). D.. Lett. www. www. J. Pomerantz. et al. R. “Energy Saving Potentials and Air Quality Benefits Vegetated Roofs During Simulated Rain S. and L. “Inclusion of Solar Reflectance 116 U. B. (January 2011).” EPA/600/R-09/026. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regardless of higher green roof construction costs. e. Hartung (2012). Order No. “Ecoroof Flood Control District Within the San Diego Region.. NPDES Permit No. and A. J. from cool roofs on air-conditioned buildings. S. EPA (October 2008). “Vegetated Roof Cover: Philadelphia. In addition Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto. “Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs. “Stormwater Retention for a Modular Green Roof Using Energy Balance 140 See.F. Pomerantz of green roofs: A comparison of Institute for Space Studies. (2005). S. Columbia & NASA. Odlin (January 2011). 2011). of Urban Heat Island Mitigation.H. Building and Environment 38(3).portlandonline.J. 170. 130 City of Portland (2008). Khanbilvardi. 0002.S. McGillis. 2006. Strecker (2003).com/bes/index. Data. H.. lacitysan.” Columbia LID_Ordinance_Passes. Pasqualini. Khanbilvardi.. Pikser. M.” Report EPA-841-B-00-005D. & Andre. mental Science and Technology 42(6). Parshall. e..1088/1748- ufore. (2008). building owners also save money because of lower ambient city temperatures. eds. T. Köhler (December 2003).” California Energy Commission. “Fee 127 Gaffin. jsf.” http://www. (2006). Akbari.pdf. “Stormwater Retention for a Modular Green Roof Using Energy Balance 114 Ibid. of conventional roofs. (2009).. eds. Talbot (2008). Rosenfeld.” Energy and Buildings 28.. P. 9326/7/1/014029. 2003. and L. City by City. 171-179. (2006). Ecoroofs. H. R.” at 10-11. Feb- life-cycle cost of extensive green roofs was less than the life-cycle cost ruary 17–20. EPA (2000).. 120 U. and M. G.g. A. e.. “Urban forest effects model “Bright Is the New Black: Multi-year Performance of High-Albedo Roofs (UFORE): About the application. “Green Roofs in the New York 51-62. “Los Angeles Puts the LID on Stormwater 131 Rosenzweig. (September 28. S. in Title 24. Rosenzweig. A.” Environ- 126 Clark. Hillel. H. Rosenzweig. Akbari. “Inclusion of Cool Roofs in Nonresidential Title 24 Prescriptive Requirements.115-a306. finding that the Urban Stormwater: Enhancing Programs at the Local Level.Also: City of Toronto 137 Ibid. S. “Green roof valuation: mental Health Perspectives. R. City of Portland (2008).html.” at 17. uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Urban_Runoff/UR_Brochure.1289%2Fehp.S. Res. and the Orange County 129 City of Portland. Gaffin. Konopacki.1016/S0301-4215(03)00206-4. NPDES Permit No.. Also: San Diego Regional “Green Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region: Research Report. 136 Taylor. L. at 43-44. Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watershed of the County of Orange. 014029. install smaller HVAC systems. ehp03.nih. article/info%3Adoi%2F10. Rowe. J.” Water Quality Control Board (December 16. USA.. “Cool Communities: Strategies for Compendium of Strategies—Green Roofs. | PAGE 26 Looking Up . H. Romm. (2006). 123 U. at 4-16. P. and workshop/2006-05-17_RESIDENTIAL_ROOFS. “First Flush Effect from 133 Akbari. EPA (February 2009). S. 138 Liptan. durable than traditional roofs since they have to withstand far lower 125 Porsche. whether or not energy costs were considered and pdf.” Nordic Hydrology 39(3). K. Tay. (May 2006 draft). Cregg.S.J. 2009). “Growing Green Roofs. D.g. and M. Ibid. “Report on the Environmental Benefits and areas. Chicago. City of Toronto (2005). Environmental Science and Technology 43(19). ca. “Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff 132 Ibid. Rosenzweig. “Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff and Thermal Emittance Prescriptive Requirements for Residential Roofs Control.” at 18. B. Department of Agriculture (2009). Rosenzweig.” Energy and Buildings 28. “Report on the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto”. How the model works. Pomerantz (1998). 7564–7570. City of Los Angeles.” Environ. D. 119 Ibid. and L. 117 Ibid.Y. Romm. and Brazil. C. D. a probabilistic economic analysis of environmental benefits. R4- 128 Roofs in the New York Metropolitan Region: Research Report. Bretz (2005). at Table 4. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.. 499-509. 7. C. “Cool Communities: Strategies for Heat Island Mitigation and Proceedings of the World Climate and Energy Event. 139 See.pdf. A. Parshall. Smog Reduction. eds.. Grillo.” ladbs.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.epa. S. M.R.. and E. 2155–2161.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL-39433. City of Santa Monica. J.” proceedings from the National Conference on in Singapore.. at 4-17. Department of Public Works at” press release.H. because they can 124 U.. and E.g. Metropolitan Region: Research Report. U. 134 See Gaffin. S. Wong.. Pennsylva. Carbon sequestration potential of extensive green roofs. Gaffin. C. Akbari.cfm?c=48724&. Wong. schedule for express permit fees. CAS0108740. at 5.” www. 118 Ibid. www.” Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research.S.. Bureau of Environmental Services. Heat Island Mitigation and Smog Reduction. A. Urban Watershed University Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard Management Program. Berndtsson.. including Levinson. R. 135 Many studies demonstrate net energy savings and cost savings sen. Akbari. A. Rio de Janeiro. at 3-14.R.. N. P. and F. at 43.epa.E. et al. and Konopacki. at 3. at 44. Akbari. Kong. W.113 U.” EPA/600/R-09/026. doi:10.” 141 See.Y.. Rosenfeld. “Cooling energy savings potential of light-colored Climate Systems Research and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies roofs for residential and commercial buildings in 11 U. pdf. Adriaens. D. Hillel. and because cool roofs are likely more nia. (2007).” Energy Policy 33. at 4-16. 51-62. at 3. the Incorporated Cities of Orange County.S.” at 31-32. (2005). Gaffin. “Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens Sustainable Infrastructure. 115 See. Parshall. C..g. “Green Pollution. “Reducing Urban Heat Islands: J.B.

Figure A1: Map of land use within the study area Palmdale VENTU RA LOS ANGELES Victorville COUNTY @ COUNTY Santa Clarita SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Ventura Oxnard } } I C San Bernardino Los Angeles B Riverside @ B N Long Anaheim Palm Beach Springs Santa Ana C Hemet ORANGE COUNTY Temecula RIVERSIDE COUNTY @ LAND USE . percent of the state’s residents live there.S. Map created by GreenInfo Miles Chula Network.4 For other counties within the study area. and so on. based on U.1 Despite recent we calculated the average percentage of impervious surface economic conditions. the calculated impervious surface cover in order to determine building coverage. This region represents one of the most heavily urbanized applied to a digital ground elevation model to calculate and developed regions of California. and portions of county. However. to determine the total area occupied by each land use Ventura. We then redevelopment2 that could incorporate green roofs and cool calculated the percentage of surface area covered by roads or roofs to maximize energy savings and stormwater pollution streets for each land use category and subtracted this from reduction benefits. commercial. or other non-building structures in addition to the area assigned to building spaces.SO UTHERN CALIFO RNIA REGION Land Use Type: Oceanside C SAN DIEGO Single-Family Residential Industrial COUNTY Escondido Multi-Family Residential Transportation Government/Healthcare/Public Use Other Urban Education/Institutional Open/Vacant Commercial Water @ A Study Area Boundary San Diego Land use data based on SCAG 2005 and SANDAG 2007 land use datasets. we found that our analysis significantly underrepresented the area covered by buildings for Los Angeles County in comparison with the county’s LiDAR derived digital ground elevation model and thus was conservative in that regard. The study area a GIS-based land use study of each area. Orange County. broken down by includes San Diego County. the county from a digital surface model derived from LiDAR. Geological Survey National Land Cover population growth accompanied by development and Database (NLCD) data. pathways. January 2009. this area is projected to see substantial cover. and government San Bernardino Mountains (which form a border between or public land use types.5 25 Vista M EXI CO Source: NRDC et al. we conducted focused on urbanized Southern California. single-family residential home. 0 12. for each land use category. PAGE 27 Looking Up | .APPENDIX A: Additional Assumptions and Variables in Study Methodology Selection of Study Areas Land Use Analysis and Impervious In assessing the potential for energy and stormwater Surface Cover reduction benefits from green roofs and cool roofs. San Bernardino. this study After establishing the study area boundaries. 2009. The study area is loosely defined by the Topatopa building. and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east. There is potential for the resulting impervious surface area to include coverage by parking lots.. and Riverside counties type—e.g. high-rise office (Figure A1). park-and-ride lot. the San Gabriel Mountains and analysis to selected residential.3 We then limited our Mountains to the northwest. For Los Angeles County. Los Angeles. and approximately 50 building footprints.. data for greater Los Angeles/San Bernardino and the Mojave Desert) area covered by buildings (roof surface area) was provided by to the north.

4 percent (non-residential). of 0. we assume over the course of roof will leave the surface and needs to be accounted for in the study that a 10 unit multi-family structure would occupy the design of the building’s storm-water system.15.23 kWh/ft2). zero or negative (large/ rural single family).8 percent (townhouse/plex). reflecting differences in how 2. meaning 90 percent detached category is similarly situated. college (1. Runoff used an average of development rates from the Urban Land coefficients for rooftop surfaces are generally estimated to Institute report (equivalent to 1.76 kWh/ft2).7 Projected annual rates for SANDAG were calculated as 2.12 (multifamily housing units).Development and Redevelopment: Energy Savings by Development New Construction and Changes to Category the Existing Built Environment Energy savings for each land use category were calculated Available roof surface area for new development was based on electricity use rates for space cooling reported by calculated based on projected residential unit demand the California Energy Commission: residential (average of and non-residential space projections for 2035 for each 0. and other variables of rooftop construction single family homes here.75 percent for SCAG and vary between 0. zero or negative (large/rural types was calculated on the basis of average rainfall compiled single family). Impervious surface runoff from development for all land use 4. slope.9 for rooftop-runoff collection potential. the single family coefficient for rooftop surfaces of C = 0.2 Rooftop Runoff Volume percent (multifamily housing).14 Stormwater management agencies projections represent a shift in development patterns toward in California commonly differ in their selection of runoff an increase in the number of units per acre or in density of coefficients. warehouse (0.9 percent (small single family). each category experts treat rooftop runoff as occurring at the higher end of land use will occupy 20 percent less land for new of the accepted range. we assume that. if the current average density for existing multi-family words. lodging (2. the land use category 1971–2000 data set and averaged across total roof space designated as “high-density single family residential” is for each of the designated land uses to determine the total characterized as containing development of single family volume of annual impervious surface runoff from roofs in residences with a density greater than 2 units per acre. | PAGE 28 Looking Up .6 percent non-residential buildings.22 percent for non-residential structures.9 percent (non-residential).5 as well as on national-scale land use data. many architectural and engineering on average over the 23 year study period. such that installing a green roof or cool roof Institute. stating.8 acres of land. and restaurants (5.g. whereas the Santa Clara Valley land or area used per unit within each land use designation Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program works at the to decrease over the period of the study as well.9 to represent a reasonable estimate and 2.16 However.”17 Moreover.) As a result. was estimated to Projected annual development rates for counties be 65 percent for residential buildings and 75 percent for represented by SCAG were calculated as: 3.21 kWh/ft2). as analyzed by the Urban Land saturation. 3.11 Air conditioning Governments (SANDAG).13 For calculating rooftop runoff retained by green rural single family projection categories identified in the roofs over conventional roof surfaces. To maintain low end of generally accepted values. we employed a runoff Urban Land Institute report.17 kWh/ft2). 2. were based on data provided by the Southern California school (1.10 retail commercial (2.9 to Projected redevelopment rates were calculated based on determine runoff volumes from rooftop surfaces. we have of rainfall on roof surfaces will occur as runoff.95. and 1.75. that “a built-up construction as compared with existing land use patterns— roof is considered to have a runoff coefficient of 0. an annual “loss rate” of 0. For example. Further.9. many states and municipalities use a coefficient of 0.75 and 0. about 95 percent of the water hitting a conventional housing is 10 units per acre. and 0.45 percent for SANDAG) to calculate new development for materials.59 percent for residential structures. office county included within the study area.0.5 percent (small single family). there is the potential for the amount of runoff on a coefficient of 1.49 kWh/ft2/year). only 0. the city of Salinas bases rooftop development overall. 3 percent (townhouse/plex). using a coefficient our conservative approach to this analysis. we find a coefficient of 0. (For SANDAG. in other e.95.18 As a result. This the current distribution of specified land use types within the density falls between the small single family and large/ study area.41 Area Governments (SCAG) and San Diego Association of kWh/ft2). for example.33 kWh/ft2). while we recognize these may affect runoff.6 would provide an energy savings benefit. These projections space (average of 3.91 kWh/ft2).8 from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) For counties represented by SCAG..

with 0. edu/research/reports/2004/12/metropolitanpolicy-nelson. “State Change—January archrecord.html). at 5. the accepted standard set by the World Meteorological Organization is a 30-year average. 1997. (2011).” Urban Land Institute. “The New California Dream: How Energy Commission [March 2009]. Stormwater Detention Facilities per MWRD Requirements.pdf. 10 KEMA.” www. “E-1 Population as the current base period. Arthur C.salinas. Oct08_SWDS_1-5. Inc.3 Stormwater Handbook.nrcs. “2009 California Residential Appliance 18 For example. Land Use Scenario for 2020 and 2035.9 for hard roofs 200‐ 2010‐004‐ES. Because climate predictions vary in their estimates of change in the total annual volume of future precipitation (e. ads/ at Opportunity to Rebuild America. “California Commercial End-Use Survey.” Brookings Land Use Scenario for 2020 and 2035. (October 2010). and the New Mexico prepared for the California Energy Commission.” docs/permit_application/runoff%20coefficients. Gartland (May 1997).ca. A in the San Diego Region by” www. pp. between 2012 ashx. A Land Use Scenario for 2020 and 2035.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-027-D) and do not org/ResearchAndPublications/~/media/ResearchAndPublications/Report/ generally offer estimates of changes in precipitation with sufficient ULI%20Voices%20Nelson%20The%20New%20California%20Dream.” demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view. org/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MWRD/internet/Departments/Engineering/ 11 Itron.” Stormwater Quality and L.e.95 for common rooftop” Urban Land Institute. Konopacki.. S. “The New California Dream: How 4 County of Los Angeles (2006). Inc. metropolitan areas. “Rooftops Slowly. M. S.php.mwrd. “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution lacounty.8 to 0. 7 Nelson.. (2011). vol.html.ose. 194. at 47-51. (2011). 2011 and 2012. Arthur C.” Urban Land Institute. “Draft Stormwater Development Standards for New Development and Significant Redevelopment 6 See Nelson. “Roof-Reliant Landscaping: 12 KEMA.” www.S. “Toward a New Metropolis: The Projects. “2009 California Residential Appliance Rainwater Harvesting with Cistern Systems in New 5 Nelson. CEC-400-2006-005. state. 8 with 1961–1990 serving 1 California Department of Finance (May 2012). Counties and the State with Annual Percent every 10 years. 15 City of Salinas (October 2008). Gabersek. Saturation 0. Start to Sprout. Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) cites a range of coefficients of www.PDF.epa. Akbari. (2004). 16 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (2004). www. we find the 1971 to 2000 data set to represent a reasonable 3 See Appendix B for a complete list of GIS data sets and parameters estimate for precipitation over the period Annual Data Summaries: Glossary. 200. construction. 58.pdf.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL-39433.” prepared for the California Energy Commission. at 12. Arthur C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009). used in conducting the study. | PAGE 29 Looking Up .energy. Arthur C.” Architectural Record. ““Cooling energy savings potential of light-colored roofs for residential and commercial buildings in 11 U. (March 2006).uli.. though a new 30 year average is calculated Estimates for Cities.nm.dof. (August 2006).” www. and 2035). CEC‐ Chicago (MWRDGC) uses a runoff coefficient of” www. 135-38.” prepared for the California Energy Commission. Joann. at www.” www.g.brookings. “Solar Map. at 58. “Values of Runoff Coefficients for Use in Designing 2010-004/CEC-200-2010-004-ES. “The New California Dream: How “C. near-term resolution for the purposes of this study (i.eoainc. www. but Steadily. H. www.wcc. at Table C-3. the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Saturation Study. Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market. Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual.PDF. California 2 See Nelson. A may2004/..Endnotes 13 According to the NRCS. (see MWRDGC. “Climate Change Related Impacts Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing (October 2010). 17 Gonchar.9 as the median for 005. Pomerantz.” Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing asphalt and concrete roofs (NMOSE [2009]. 14 See California Department of Transportation (March 2007).usda. 9 Ibid. at 47-48. www.pdf).

Detailed Streets. percents by land use type. county name and the land use type. San Southern California 2-acre mapping survey across SCAG region. Line 1:50. county name and the land use type.APPENDIX B: GIS DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY Table B1: GIS Data Sources Data Layer Source Type Scale Date Description Imperviousness National Land Cover Raster 30 m cell size 2001 Estimates impervious surface Database (NLCD) coverage as a percent Imperviousness Layer.. Existing Land Use. 1. Intersect the land use 2005/07 layer (from Step 4) with the to the more recent land use dataset to determine “current” roads buffer layer (from Step 1) and update area values. Precipitation PRISM Average Raster 30 arc-second 1971-2000 Average annual precipitation Annual Precipitation. Natural station data. with road type classification. Classes 7. then apply these mean percents 6. local surface) by zone. Calculate zonal statistics using the combined 2000/01 land use layer (from Step 2) as zones and the imperviousness Impervious Surface Analysis: grid as values. at a 10-m cell resolution. Geological Survey by 30-m cell. | PAGE 30 Looking Up . Land Use – Los Angeles. Create a summary table of the intersected land use and 2. based on Model (http://solarmap. highway). 2. aggregated to total amount of incoming solar lacounty. summarizing total area. and other ancillary information. Polygon Minimum 2001 and 2005 Aerial-based existing land use Orange. Combine the 2001 (SCAG) and 2000 (SANDAG) land use road buffer layer (from Step 6) by the unique county/land layers and create a unique zone field that combines the use type field. Land use—Solar potential County of Los Angeles Polygon 5ft x 5ft 2006 Total roof area and area suitable for Los Angeles County 2006 Solar Radiation grid cells for solar by parcel.000 2000 Enhanced TIGER 2000-based StreetMap USA. 8. San Polygon Unspecified 2000 and 2007 San Diego County land use San Diego County Diego Association of information based on aerial Governments (SANDAG) photography.g. ESRI streets dataset. Create a summary table based on the 2005/07 land use NOTE 2: Since the imperviousness dataset is from 2001. Ventura Association of unit Counties Governments (SCAG) Land Use – Existing Land Use.S. and 9 are dropped from the the LA County insolation (direct—diffuse) parcel GIS calculated for each 25-sq-ft cell database across LA County. County Assessor Master Property Records file. we use attribute table (from Step 4) that summarizes total area by land use data from circa 2001 to calculate mean impervious the combined county/land use type zones.S. Buffer streets layer based on road type. Riverside.S. for the climatological period U. 5. 5. Resources Conservation Service GIS Processing Steps 3. Roads U. where each zone is a unique county/land road vs. Combine the 2005 (SCAG) and 2007 (SANDAG) land use 0. use type combination. we apply a table of mean imperviousness (percent impervious approximated average road widths by road type (e. 6 assign a buffer of 24ft (48ft total width). and 3 assign a buffer of 48ft (96ft total width) and layers and create a unique zone field that combines the for classes 4. This process yields NOTE 1: To estimate road area from linear features. Department of 1971-2000. 1. 7. For road classes 4. Bernardino. imperviousness (0-100%) U. interpolated from Agriculture. impervious area.

This step is necessary to avoid incorrect area calculations for discontinuous properties (since solar data is aggregated to a parcel unit and not a physical polygon). This process yields a table of mean precipitation by zone. If a fraction is greater than 1 (due to rounding in earlier processing). 1. then convert to raster cells. 3. resulting in multipart polygons where an AIN may have multiple.8. Convert dissolved parcel layer to two 10m-cellsize grids. Subtract the total road buffer area (from Step 7) from the impervious surface area (from Step 8) for each county/land use type zone. This process yields the “current” estimated impervious area within each unique county/land use type zone 9. This calculation yields the total non-road impervious area in each county by land use type. Calculate zonal statistics using the 2005/07 land use data layer (from Impervious Surface Analysis Step 4) as the zone coverage and the two solar grids (x1000) as the value grids. separate polygons. This process yields two tables of (a) mean fraction building area and (b) mean fraction solar area by county/ land use type combinations. 4. In the dissolved parcel layer (from Step 1). Multiply both fractions by 1000 and convert to integer for conversion to grid. 2. | PAGE 31 Looking Up . 5. Update area values. one for Fraction Building Area x 1000 and one for Fraction Optimal Area x 1000. Divide results by 1000 for final summary statistics. Apply the mean imperviousness percent calculated for the 2000/01 county/land use type zones (from Step 3) to the total area within each matching county/land use type zone in the 2005/07 land use layer (from Step 5). Dissolve the parcel polygons by parcel ID number (AIN). we first normalize the absolute building and solar areas by parcel area. Precipitation Analysis: 1. at a cell size of 10m. Calculate zonal statistics using the land use layer from 2005/07 (from Impervious Surface Analysis Step 4) as zones and the precipitation grid as values. divide Building Area and Optimal Area data fields by polygon area to yield Fraction Building Area and Fraction Optimal Area. Solar Data Analysis: NOTE: To convert the parcel-based solar suitability values to a raster for generating statistics by land use zone. where each zone is a unique county/land use type combination. set to 1.