GWU Capstone Report

GWU ENRP Capstone Project
Community Resilience Hubs (CRHs):
Improving resilience to extreme weather events in vulnerable D.C.
neighborhoods
Client: Department of Energy & Environment
Tyler Bailey, Kinshuk Chatterjee, Carlos Villacis, Minli Wang

1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………..….2
Chapter I: Project Overview
Introduction…………………………………………….......................4
The Community Resilience Hub Vision………………………..…….9
Project Framework…………………………………………….…….14
Chapter II: Methodology and Results
Step 1: Select a Target Community……………………..….....….…16
Step 2: List Potential Facilities…………………...……………..…..18
Step 3: Narrow List of Candidates………………………………..…20
Step 4: Select Potential Facility………………..……………………23
Step 5: Assess Necessary Upgrades…………...………………….…26
Sensitivity Analysis……………………………………………….…30
Chapter III: Discussion
Key Findings………………………………………………….……..33
Limitations…………………………………………………………..34
Chapter Ⅳ: Recommendation and Next Steps
Next Steps for Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood……………....36
Policy Recommendations………………………………….………...37
Conclusion………………………………………………...………...39
Appendix
Appendix 1: Sources of On-site Power Generation……………...….41
Appendix 2: Scoring …………………………………………..........43
Appendix 3: Energy Upgrade Finance Options……………………..48
Appendix 4: Map of Priority Planning Areas……………………….50
Appendix 5: Florida Avenue Baptist Church Estimates…………….51
Bibliography………………………………………………………........................54

2
Executive Summary
Washington D.C. is projected to experience an increase in the severity and frequency of
flooding, heavy precipitation, and heat waves in the coming decades. Such extreme weather
events are often associated with communities experiencing periods of prolonged power loss, as
was the case in during Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The D.C. Department of Energy and
Environment (DOEE) identified community resilience hubs (CRHs) as a means of potentially
increasing the resilience of communities against such events, with resilience being defined as the
ability to prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption. Therefore, we produced
this report to provide DOEE with the following: 1) a clarification of the characteristics of an
effective CRH, 2) a framework for establishing a CRH, and 3) the results of a pilot project for
establishing a CRH in a vulnerable D.C. neighborhood.
Through our research, we established a working understanding of the characteristics of a CRH,
and the services it would provide. A CRH is a facility within a community which, during and
immediately following an extreme weather event, acts as a temporary gathering point for
residents to access key services, including food, water, shelter, and access to power. To
accomplish this, this facility would be equipped with distributed power generation technologies,
as well as a means of battery storage, in order to provide these services during a weather induced
outage.
We established a general framework for identifying an existing facility that is best suited to act
as a CRH. Our hope is that this framework can be used not only in D.C., but also by other cities
who are exploring the option of developing CRHs. This framework begins with the selection of a
community to launch a CRH in, ideally being one that is particularly vulnerable to extreme
weather events. A list is compiled of various facilities within this community that can be
potential CRHs, which is then narrowed down based on how well suited they are. Facilities are
evaluated through a set of criteria we established, which consider characteristics such as size,
location, available technologies, and community familiarity of the building. Upon selection of a
facility based on this evaluation, the necessary upgrades for the selected facility are identified,
and the means of financing such upgrades are explored, including grants, loans, and partnerships
with local businesses and NGOs.
In order to test our framework, we conducted a pilot study in the Bloomingdale/LeDroit
neighborhood, identified in DOEE’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment as being particularly
vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events. Through our analysis, we identified Florida
Avenue Baptist Church as the best candidate to serve as a CRH for this community. Our pilot

3
study revealed the effectiveness of our framework, but also showcased shortcomings in our
methodology. Shortcomings included our inability to develop a thorough list of the costs of
necessary upgrades and sources for funding them, as this process took more time and
cooperation with building owners than initially anticipated. Additionally, we found that the
choice of a facility could differ based on community preferences such as cost and location of the
site. In hindsight, our approach would have been more effective if the priorities of the
community were understood at an earlier stage, through discussions with community members
and civic associations.
We provided recommendations for the Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood, as well as for
policymakers in other cities. For Bloomingdale/LeDroit, we recommend exploring funding
options for a battery storage system, as well as additional solar panels, to be installed in Florida
Avenue Baptist Church. We feel the process would be most effective if done through a
leveraging of existing networks. For example, Howard University expressed interest in
contributing student labor among other resources towards the establishment of a CRH, and the
local civic associations could facilitate residential engagement. This process would enhance
community ownership of the process, which would increase the effectiveness of the hub.
We recommend cities exploring CRHs to develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to
streamline efforts and funds between agencies. Existing community resources should be invited
to form partnerships and networks committed to cooperating on CRH establishment, and should
use our framework as a tool to facilitate the process. Cities adopting our framework are
recommended to conduct program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of our suggestions, and
to utilize tools developed by other cities exploring similar projects.

4
CHAPTER I: PROJECT OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Objective
The objective of this project is to develop a set of recommendations for the development of
community resilience hubs in vulnerable neighborhoods within the District of Columbia.
Community resilience hubs (CRHs) are meant to serve as local gathering places for residents
following extreme weather events. In the CRH detailed in this project, residents will be able to
access key services, such as meeting basic power needs, in the event of an electrical grid failure.
Our project consists of three major undertakings: 1) identifying the key characteristics of a CRH,
2) developing a framework for establishing a CRH, and 3) conducting a pilot project in a D.C.
neighborhood, putting our framework to use and analyzing its effectiveness.
Our CRH framework entails the identification of vulnerable communities, the selection of a
facility to serve as a CRH, and a delineation of the practical steps needed to convert this facility
into a functional CRH. We then use this framework to conduct a pilot project for a vulnerable
neighborhood within D.C., summarize our results, and use these findings to present a series of
general recommendations. It is our hope that these findings and recommendations can be used by
the District government, and other cities, to plan and implement CRHs in vulnerable
communities.
Key Definitions
Before discussing our overall methodology, it is important to set and define key parameters. We
begin with a discussion of resilience. The U.S Climate Resilience Toolkit, a set of online Federal
resources designed to help local entities adapt to the impacts of climate change, defines
resilience as, “The capacity of a community, business, or natural environment to prevent,
withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption.”1
This definition is both robust and
malleable, and we choose to adopt it for the purposes of this report. However, we chose here to
specify “disruption” as any weather event involving extreme heat, precipitation, or flooding
conditions. These weather phenomena were designated by the D.C. Department of Energy and
1
U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. (2016).

5
Environment (DOEE) as the key weather challenges faced by the District, and so resilience to
these events will be our primary concern.2
Table 1: Key terms and definitions
Term Definition
Resilience The capacity of a community, business, or natural environment to
prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption.3
Vulnerability Vulnerability to climate change is expressed as a function of exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.4
Community
resilience hub
(CRH)
A communal facility with independent distributed energy generation
capacity, which is open and accessible to the public during and after
extreme weather events.
Extreme
weather
events
Weather conditions consisting of one or more of the following: heat
waves, extreme precipitation events, and floods.
Vulnerable
communities
Communities that are disproportionately exposed to, sensitive to, and
unable to adapt to the consequences of extreme weather events, either
due to geographical or demographic factors.
Key services Access to food, water, electricity, and communications.
Here we note a key distinction between weather and climate: whereas “climate” refers to long-
term changes in the general atmospheric conditions, “weather” simply refers to the atmospheric
events present on any given day (and is not necessarily linked to long-term trends associated
with human activities). Climate change threatens to increase the severity of extreme weather
events, and so for this report, we use projected changes in the localized climate surrounding the
D.C. area when discussing the likelihood of extreme weather events.
Next, we introduce a precise definition for community resilience hub (CRH). For this project, we
are describing a CRH as a communal facility with independent energy generation capacity,
2
Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). Vulnerability & Risk Assessment for the District of Columbia
Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Washington, DC: DOEE.
3
Op. cit., fn 1.
4
Op. Cit., fn 2.

6
which can provide basic power needs in the event of an electrical grid failure. This emphasis on
energy generation was selected because of the high occurrence of power outages following
natural disasters, which is described in greater detail in the Project Purpose section below.
It is also important to note the distinction between CRHs, emergency shelters, and disaster
shelters (such as those provided by the Red Cross). Emergency shelters are designed to protect
homeless populations from the physical effects of extreme weather events.5
Disaster shelters are
meant to provide physical shelter to all residents following natural disasters.6
A CRH, on the
other hand, is primarily meant to provide key services to residents during and after extreme
weather events. Unlike the other facilities, CRHs do not provide overnight shelter. The
distinction is important because of the legal barriers preventing emergency shelters from being
developed in high-risk regions, such as flood zones, which are the primary areas of interest for
this project.7
These restrictions do not apply to CRHs, making them a valuable resource for
residents in these regions who do not have the resources to relocate from their residences, but
still require general assistance during an extreme weather event. These population groups are the
primary subjects of this research project.
Finally, we discuss our definition for vulnerable communities. For the purposes of this project,
we chose to focus on communities that are disproportionately exposed to, sensitive to, and
unable to adapt to the consequences of extreme weather events. We borrow our definition of
vulnerability from the DOEE Climate Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, which described
vulnerability to climate change as being expressed as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptive capacity.8
The vulnerability can be caused by geographical or demographic factors.
Geographical factors include low elevation relative to sea level, and proximity to floodplains.
Demographic factors refer to socio-economic conditions such as age, gender, income, residence
type, and health status9
. Elderly individuals, women, the disabled, the sick, residents of public
housing, and low-income groups in general have been suggested to be particularly vulnerable to
an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.10
Project purpose
5
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (n.d.). Glossary of HUD terms.
6
American Red Cross. Find Open Shelters.
7
Pyne, M. (2016, February 20). Discussion on Global Green USA Resilience Efforts [Telephone interview].
8
Op. Cit., fn 2.
9
Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability
and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and behavior, 40(1), 72-95.
10
Martine, G., & Schensul, D. (2013). The demography of adaptation to climate change. UNFPA, IIED, and El
Colegio de México.

7
Climate change and extreme weather events affect individuals across all levels of society, but
tends to affect those in certain geographic locations, as well as different socio-economic groups,
more than others. The purpose of this project is to develop a centralized source of communal
resources that will help protect these vulnerable populations, and facilitate their transition back to
normal life.
The need for additional resources has been highlighted in a number of recent severe weather
phenomena. During Hurricane Sandy, nearly 350,000 residences in New Jersey were damaged,
with nearly one-third of these belonging to low-income residents.11
Similarly, communities that
were low-income, geographically vulnerable, or both, were among the most afflicted populations
during Hurricane Katrina.12
Residents of these vulnerable communities were especially
vulnerable to extreme weather events due to substandard housing conditions, their inability to
relocate, and a general lack of access to key services such as food, water, and electricity.13
Lack of electricity access was a major concern during both Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. As a
result of Hurricane Sandy, 8.5 million people lost power for a period of time, and 82 percent of
customers on the Gulf Coast lost power during Hurricane Katrina.14
An electrical failure can
often have cascading effects. When residents of high-rise apartment complexes lose power, they
also lose access to elevators, which can be essential for elderly or disabled individuals.15
Power
outages also impair refrigeration, which can lead to spoliation of food and medicine.16
Following
Hurricane Sandy, there was a surge in cases of carbon monoxide poisoning and hypothermia, as
power losses can impair key services including heating, air conditioning, and access to cooking
appliances and communications (whether by phone or email).17
Government entities have developed a number of national and local-level policies to improve
resilience to climate change. At the Federal level, the Obama Administration issued Executive
Order 13653: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,18
and Public Policy
11
Fogel, A., Hayes, J., Horowitz, B., Kent, A., Parson, C., Isaac, A., & Thomas, T. (2014). Addressing Multifamily
Affordable Rental Housing Needs after Superstorm Sandy.
12
Zoraster, R.M. "Vulnerable populations: Hurricane Katrina as a case study." Prehospital and disaster
medicine 25.01 (2010): 74-78.
13
Ibid.
14
Deodatis, G., Bruce R. Ellingwood, and Dan M. Frangopol, eds. Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance
of structures and infrastructures. CRC Press, 2014.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Fink, S. (2012). Hypothermia and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Cases Soar in City After Hurricane.
18
The White House. (2013). Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.
(2013).

8
Directive 8, which established national preparedness goals.19
At the local level, the D.C.
government has enacted the Sustainable D.C. Act, which set goals to identify infrastructure
vulnerabilities and enhance the District’s resilience to climate change impacts.20
In addition,
local agencies like the DOEE and the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Agency (HSEMA) are assessing vulnerabilities and possible responses.21
These policies have
established a solid foundation on which to build resilience efforts.
In addition to the aforementioned policy mandates, financial resources have been made available
to improve resilience. This includes the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, which
included Federal funding for post-Sandy resilience efforts,22
as well as the Housing and Urban
Development Administration’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which
disbursed $157 million to South Carolina communities to respond to significant rainfall and
flooding.23
These Federal resources have been supplemented by a number of private
organizations with similar goals of improving resilience, including the Rockefeller Foundation’s
100 Resilient Cities initiative.24
Despite these political and financial incentives, work on pre-
disaster planning efforts, particularly at the community level, have been limited, as most of the
funds have been dedicated to rebuilding and recovery efforts.
For this project, we choose to focus on community resilience hubs (CRHs), which are facilities
designed to provide key services to community residents following natural disasters. In addition
to being relatively cost-effective, CRHs can be developed fairly quickly and with minimum
regulatory challenges. Finally, using already well-known facilities within the community can
increase awareness and use of communal resources.25
For this project, we sought to develop a framework for establishing climate resilience hubs that
can meet electricity needs and provide other key services to residents of vulnerable communities.
Our main consideration was power availability, since electrical outages are one of the most
prevalent and disruptive consequences of extreme weather events. We focused on vulnerable
communities, since these are the most likely to have difficulty recovering from a severe weather
event. For hubs, we looked at facilities including churches, schools, and local government
offices, since these buildings were most likely to qualify for grant funding or other financial
19
Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Learn About Presidential Policy Directive-8.
20
D.C. Government. (2012). Sustainable DC Act.
21
D.C. Government. (2012). Emergency Management.
22
Painter, W. L., & Brown, J. T. (2013, February 19). FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief.
23
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Community Development Block Grant Program –
CDBG.
24
100 Resilient Cities. (2016). Cities.
25
Op. cit., fn 7.

9
incentives that would facilitate the installation of resilient energy technologies. These facilities
also tend to hold a central role within communities as gathering points. Throughout this project,
we identify key difficulties, and attempt to develop solutions that are efficient, cost-effective, and
feasible.
THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE HUB VISION
A CRH is a communal facility with independent distributed energy generation capacity, which is
open and accessible to the public during and after extreme weather events. When not functioning
as a CRH, this facility will run normal operations in accordance with the building’s original
purpose. Only during and immediately after emergencies will the facility take up its CRH role. In
this section, we aim to describe our vision for what an effective CRH looks like.
In order to develop a preliminary framework for establishing community resilience hubs, our
initial research stage required the exploration of existing academic and gray literature, as well as
discussions with experts from existing community resilience projects. Through this research
phase, we sought to answer the following questions: 1) What are the needs of communities
during extreme weather events, 2) what features of facilities enable them to act as effective
CRHs, and 3) how can costs be minimized in a CRH project?
What are the needs of communities during extreme weather events?
An effective CRH should be able to meet the key needs of the community during emergencies,
which for the purposes of our report, we have narrowed to the weather events of heat waves,
extreme precipitation, and floods. Thus, it was crucial to identify needs specific to such events,
in order to identify the means for meeting them. While these needs could be specific to either
floods or heatwaves, most were relevant for both categories of events, thus reiterating their
importance. The needs we identified were access to communication, first aid, food, water, air
conditioning during heat waves, and shelter during floods.
Communication
During extreme weather events, it is necessary to maintain an avenue of communication between
community members and those outside the community.26
Means of communication include
access to telephones (either mobile or landline), the Internet, televisions, and radio. Such
communication bolsters the ability of residents to be updated on weather and efforts to restore
power, and enables the sharing of information between public officials, medical providers, and
26
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2007). Community Resilience as a
Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6.

10
citizens.27
New media (including social media such as Facebook and Twitter) have been an
increasingly effective means for local governments and NGOs to communicate with Federal and
state governments.28
In addition to providing the infrastructure necessary for maintaining these
avenues of communication, training community partners to utilize these resources for
information dissemination is key to ensuring timeliness, quality, and consistency of the flow of
information.29
As such, a CRH would be most effective if it maintained the ability to provide the
Internet, charge cellular devices, and use TVs and radios during power outages.
First Aid
Disasters can oftentimes hinder the ability of individual communities to receive external aid,
potentially creating a gap in available resources for emergency medical assistance.30
For
example, flooding may limit the ability of ambulances to deliver people and medical supplies
between hospitals and the affected communities. There is a need for trained and well-equipped
personnel within the community to administer primary medical aid in such cases. Thus, it is
pertinent to build a network of community members who are capable of taking on such
responsibilities.31
Additionally, when looking beyond typical first aid kits, many medical
supplies require refrigeration.32
Our vision of a CRH includes a network of local citizens trained
to administer medical aid, who will gather at the facility during such extreme weather events. A
CRH would provide a supply of medical tools, medicine, and a refrigeration system that can
maintain power during regional outages.
Food/Water
Vulnerable populations, during and following disasters, often require support in accessing food
and clean water, due to limitations in mobility.33
Stockpiling non-perishable food and water for
27
Ibid.
28
Chandra, A., Acosta, J., Stern, S., Uscher-Pines, L., Williams, M. V., Yeung, D., Meredith, L. S. (n.d.). Building
Community Resilience to Disasters: A Way Forward to Enhance National Health Security. PsycEXTRA Dataset.
doi:10.1037/e530792011-001.
29
Ibid.
30
Guha-Sapir, D., & Lechat, M. F. (1986). Information systems and needs assessment in natural disasters: An
approach for better disaster relief management. Disasters, 10(3), 232-237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7717.1986.tb00594.x
31
Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen Response to Disasters: A Survey of Literature and Some Practical
Implications. J Contingencies & Crisis Man Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12(3), 98-111.
doi:10.1111/j.0966-0879.2004.00440.x
32
Arrieta, M. I., Foreman, R. D., Crook, E. D., & Icenogle, M. L. (2008). Insuring Continuity of Care for Chronic
Disease Patients After a Disaster: Key Preparedness Elements. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences,
336(2), 128-133. doi:10.1097/maj.0b013e318180f209
33
Brodie, M., Weltzien, E., Altman, D., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2006). Experiences of Hurricane Katrina
Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning. Am J Public Health American Journal of Public
Health, 96(8), 1402-1408. doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.084475.

11
distribution during and after disasters addresses this need. A CRH would benefit from having a
dedicated amount of storage of food and water.
Air Conditioning
During heat waves, low-income households may lack the air conditioning resources necessary to
keep temperatures at a safe level.34
Additionally, the increased use of air conditioning equipment
in an area can overwhelm the energy grid, causing power outages which leave those with the
proper equipment without the ability to utilize them.35
Many communities have existing
designated cooling centers, but these are often limited in their ability to function during power
outages. In considering such dangers of heat waves, an effective CRH would provide cooling
capabilities that are independent of the status of the overall energy grid.
Shelter
In the case of floods and heavy precipitation, households may find essential resources
compromised due to their placement in vulnerable areas of the house (e.g. provisions stored in
basements), and may also face sewage backup, leading to exposure to hazardous materials,
making a residence un-inhabitable.36
During the flooding of streets, access to areas outside of the
immediate neighborhoods may be compromised, thus raising the need for resources within close
proximity to vulnerable population areas. A CRH located in a flood-vulnerable area must keep
these factors in mind, ensuring that those who take refuge in such facilities will find relief from
sewage and floodwater, and the problems associated with them.
What features of facilities enable them to act as effective community resilience
hubs?
Different facility types provide varying strengths and weaknesses in terms of functionality, and
considering them collectively is a key aspect of our methodology. Our research of the
characteristics that describe effective CRHs is utilized in crafting a framework for selecting a
CRH site. In order to meet the community needs described above, effective CRHs should 1)
maintain power during outages, 2) be a facility that is familiar to residents, and 3) be within
walking distance of vulnerable residents.
34
Reid, C., O'neill, M., Gronlund, C., Brines, S., Brown, D., Diez-Roux, A., & Schwartz, J. (2009). Mapping Community
Determinants of Heat Vulnerability. Environ. Health Perspect. Environmental Health Perspectives.
doi:10.1289/ehp.0900683
35
Perez, R., Letendre, S., & Herig, C.(2001). PV and grid reliability: availability of PV power during capacity
shortfalls. FORUM-PROCEEDINGS-. AMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOC & THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.
36
Gatterdam, M., & Moisio, S. (2014). Using a Framework to Determine Relative Overflow Consequences for the
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Proc Water
Environ Fed, 2014(15), 1795-1818. doi:10.2175/193864714815938724.

12
Ability to provide power during outage
Frequently, floods and heat waves result in power outages, due to causes such as high demand
and physical damages to local power stations along transmission lines. Such outages disrupt the
capacity of individuals to meet their needs in terms of communication, first aid, food preparation,
and heat relief. As these affected persons turn to a CRH to meet these needs, it is essential that
said facility maintain electrical functions during such events.
To do so, facilities will require on-site energy generation, from distributed energy sources such
as solar panels, miniature wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps (see Appendix 1 for further
information concerning these energy sources). Propane and diesel generators are also capable of
producing electricity during outages, but for the purposed of a CRH, we consider them a
secondary asset to the aforementioned distributed energy sources. Our reasoning behind this
includes the fossil fuel characteristic of these sources, which produces emissions which
contribute to climate change, and in turn, contribute to extreme weather events. However, we
acknowledge the temporary benefits of CRHs having such backup power generation capacities.
On-site power generation during outages using distributed energy sources will require a battery
storage system. Without a power storage system, electricity generated by distributed energy
sources will be inaccessible during grid failures.37
Batteries will store excess energy produced
during normal operation, and during outages, can allow for continued use of distributed energy
despite grid failure. Ensuring that such upgrades are in line with building codes, as well as
financial restrictions, are significant challenges.
Familiarity in the community
For community members to gather at a facility during times of crisis, it is helpful to have an
atmosphere that is inviting, familiar, and comfortable, as opposed to a facility which an
individual may be visiting for the first time.38
This could be represented by a community house
of worship, recreation center, or school, where social gatherings are already held on a consistent
basis. This will create ease in organizing educational events in order to train community
members to be better prepared during a crisis, and will lessen the hesitation that already exists
when individuals consider leaving the comfort of their homes during such stressful times.
Minimal distance from vulnerable residents
Vulnerable populations can include senior citizens, impoverished individuals, and those with
disabilities, who may have exceptional difficulty in getting around during an extreme weather
37
Environmental and Energy Study Institute. (2016). Solar Power and Resilient Design for Schools and Shelters.
38
The role of pastoral crisis intervention in disasters, terrorism, violence, and other community crises. (2003).
Disaster Management & Response, 1(3), 93. doi:10.1016/s1540-2487(03)00055-5.

13
event. Unfortunately, these individuals oftentimes are the ones who could benefit the most from
the services provided at a CRH, and thus, the closer the hub is to where these people reside, the
more effective it can be. A facility that is beyond walking distance from its target population
may be inaccessible, and therefore, a CRH is most effective when in a central location in the
neighborhood to maximize its proximity to those vulnerable to disasters.
How can costs be minimized in resilience hubs?
In developing a CRH, funds are typically limited, and it is therefore necessary to minimize costs.
This not only makes projects more attractive, but improves replicability, as resource-rich
communities typically have less of a need for such facilities, but communities with a high
percentage of vulnerable population often lack financial backing. Such efficiency also improves
the likelihood of facility owner cooperation, and increases the sustainability of the CRH
program.
In terms of reducing costs, it is helpful to focus on essential services. The energy load needed to
meet these needs is considered the critical load. For example, large schools and recreation
centers may install solar panels to ensure energy production during power outages, but need not
install a large enough capacity to power the whole school. By installing a capacity equal to the
levels needed to meet communication, lighting, and other key needs, the school can ignore
powering unnecessary services during such events, and save on installation costs. Similarly,
batteries can be expensive, and studying load demand can help identify the smallest possible
battery size necessary. Propane tanks/diesel generation can also be used as a complimentary
resource in terms of emergency power. It may be helpful to consider upgrading buildings that
already employ a variety of these features, in order to avoid duplicative costs.
Additionally, community ownership of a project can provide cost reduction opportunities, as
volunteers can be trained among local residents to take on roles during emergencies, reducing the
need to hire outside help. Communities can also organize fundraisers, solicit donations from
stakeholders, and utilize networks to identify potential grants that can be taken advantage of to
fund any upgrades. This also increases the likelihood that community members who are involved
in the project will spread information about this resource, ensuring that the facility is fully
utilized during times of need.
For funding necessary upgrades for a CRH, there are a variety of grants and tax credits available,
some specific to certain upgrades, and others for more general use. For example, investment tax
credits allow owners of facilities a one-time tax credit of 30 percent of installation costs, 39
and
certain facilities can qualify for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, allowing for loans with 0
39
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC).

14
percent interest rates for renewable energy generation projects (see Appendix 3 for more
information on energy upgrade finance options).40
When identifying existing buildings with the potential to be upgraded into CRHs, it is useful to
keep in mind that more often than not, the facility will not be used for such purposes. Thus, the
house of worship or school may seek out ancillary benefits available to them by taking on this
role. These can take the form of power purchase agreements, which allow the facility owners to
take advantage of lower energy costs during normal operations.41
Also, the site can be used to
educate those in the neighborhood who would like to learn more about resilience, clean energy,
and community organizations. Such co-benefits, combined with the afore-mentioned cost
reduction methods, can be combined to increase the attractiveness of a CRH.
Conclusion
We identified various needs that a resilience hub must meet, the means of meeting such needs,
and the methods of minimizing the costs of such efforts. Key findings include:
A. Facilities should provide relief in the form of access to communication, first aid, food, water,
air conditioning, and shelter. Access to electricity is a critical aspect of providing these services.
B. Potential facilities should be judged based on building features, location, and cultural
significance.
C. The costs of establishing a CRH can be minimized through monitoring energy use, engaging
the community, and taking advantage of financial incentives.
Using these findings, we can develop a series of criteria, which can be used to identify facilities
that have the potential to become CRH locations.
PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Based off of our initial findings, we crafted a framework for establishing a community resilience
hub. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the framework. The following chapter
expands upon our methodology in further detail, and is accompanied by specific results
pertaining to our pilot project in D.C. through which we tested the framework’s effectiveness.
40
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS).
41
Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Power Purchase Agreement.

15
Figure 1: CRH Funnel Framework
A funnel approach was adopted for identifying a facility suited to act as a CRH, as is illustrated
in Figure 1. This approach, referred to hereafter as the funnel framework, employs a series of
steps through which a large number of potential facilities is narrowed down to one or two
candidates. As the list of candidates shrinks in each step of the process, increased scrutiny is
placed on the remainders, requiring more intensive data collection and analysis. We initially
begin by selecting a community in which a CRH would contribute most to bolstering community
resilience. Upon selection of a community, a list of potential facilities is compiled, identifying all
houses of worship, schools, public buildings, and other large facilities in the area. This is
followed by a narrowing of the list, using a set of criteria to eliminate facilities which are not a
good fit. Among the remaining facilities, another set of criteria are employed to identify the most
qualified facility to undergo a transition to a CRH. Finally, the costs for such a transition are
calculated, identifying the necessary upgrades and the means to fund them.
The funnel framework was tested via our pilot project. We then analyze the results in order to
identify key findings, difficulties, and a series of next steps for DOEE concerning a D.C. CRH.
We also try to generalize recommendations so as to be applicable to other cities and
communities.

16
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
In this chapter, we lay out our detailed methodology for establishing a community resilience hub,
which can be applied generally by any city/community. We follow each step by presenting the
results of a pilot project in which we put the funnel framework to use in Washington D.C. The
chapter concludes with a sensitivity analysis of the spreadsheet tool we developed for evaluating
facilities.
Step 1: Select a Target Community
Methodology
The first step involves selecting the community in which a CRH will be developed. This
approach is driven by efficiency, as screening facilities across an entire city, or even multiple
communities, would be far too time-consuming. Communities, which we define as a
neighborhood or set of adjacent neighborhoods, can be selected based on their vulnerability to
the disasters or risks of particular concern. This requires the development or analysis of a
vulnerability assessment to determine the risks that are salient to a city, and identify the specific
communities that are most exposed to those risks. When planning for the first of a series of
CRHs in a city, it would be best to locate it in a community where it can have the most impact.
When planning resilience strategies, it is helpful to identify communities with a history of
difficulty in handling extreme weather events. These communities are most in need of the
services a CRH provides. Also helpful are projections for areas where future events are likely, as
well as the identification of resources that are useful during such occurrences, and the location of
areas which lack access to said resources. Socio-economic and geographic characteristics of
communities which increase vulnerability to such events, including areas of poverty and flood
plains, should also be considered. Ultimately, the criteria for selecting a community will depend
on the goals of the specific hub.
Results
The goal for the project was to identify a potential resilience hub for a D.C. neighborhood
vulnerable to power outages caused by heat waves, extreme precipitation, and floods. A
vulnerability assessment of D.C. was developed in the past year and released in 2016 by

17
DOEE.42
Within the report, DOEE identified five priority planning areas with the most at-risk
infrastructure, community resources, and population. The analysis included considerations of
flood prone rivers, flood basins, projections of precipitation patterns, floods, and heat waves, as
well as an assessment of the locations where such disruptions would have the highest impact.
The study identified vulnerable populations as having a high density of unemployment, low
education attainment, and poverty, as these groups were less able to cope with flooding and heat.
The five priority planning areas identified are the following, and were not ranked in terms of risk
(see map in Appendix 4):
 Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park
 Watts Branch
 Federal Triangle
 South of the Capitol to Buzzards Point
 Area along Potomac River by Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility
The neighborhood of Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park was selected as the location of our pilot study
(see Figure 2). The rate of poverty in the area was relatively high, suggesting that residents may
not have the means to re-locate during weather events which leave them without electricity. In
terms of the history of the neighborhood, we were drawn by the area already battling flood,
power loss, and sewage problems. Community engagement is facilitated in that there is already a
neighborhood concern concerning extreme weather events, unlike other communities where we
would have to convince residents of projected future scenarios. Finally, this area has the most
well defined borders, and was of a manageable size, thus making it the most convenient for us to
evaluate.
42
Op.cit. fn 2

18
Figure 2: Bloomingdale/LeDroit Park Neighborhood Map
Step 2: List Potential Facilities
Methodology
Using maps, visits, and discussions with community members, a list of potential facilities can be
crafted in the selected community. These facilities can include schools, designated cooling
centers, houses of worship, recreation centers, and other existing buildings that stand out as
being spacious enough for people to gather at. In this stage, it is better to collect a vast array of
facilities which will be later narrowed, rather than missing out on potential locations. As long as
the facility is relatively large and in the neighborhoods, it is worth marking down.
In searching for potential CRH facilities, a simultaneous search can be conducted for community
resources. Community resources were loosely defined as potential assets that could serve
supporting roles in either establishing the CRH or offering services during extreme weather
events such as helping to distribute medicine to the facility or providing food and water.

19
Results
Through a scan of the Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood using Google Maps, both on the
standard and satellite view, we initially identified 19 potential facilities. These included
churches, schools, a recreation center, dormitory, non-profit organization, and a dance studio
(see Figure 3). The recreation center, Harry Thomas, was included despite being located in the
neighborhood of Eckington, bordering Bloomingdale to the East. Our reasoning behind this was
that it is a designated cooling center, which would require fewer upgrades than other facilities in
becoming a CRH, and we decided it was worth further consideration, especially since this was
still an exploratory stage.
Community resources identified in this search include Howard Hospital, the Common Good City
Farm, and local stores such as Volcano Grocery and Walgreens. These resources are not
displayed in Figure 3, but a complete list can be found in Table 8, Appendix 2.
Figure 3: Potential Facilities in the Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood

20
Step 3: Narrow List of Candidates
Methodology
A set of criteria is needed to narrow down the selection of facilities. In order to accomplish this
task, we identified four building characteristics that can be used to pre-screen facilities. These
characteristics, which we refer to as the Selection Criteria, are as follows:
Table 2: Selection Criteria
Criteria Reasoning
Size A CRH should be able to adequately house
residents in need of its services.
Location A CRH should be close to existing resources that
provide it support, but far enough from existing
shelters to avoid redundancy.
Cultural Significance A CRH should be well known and inviting for
residents, encouraging use during times of need.
Accessibility A CRH should be centrally located, and free of
barriers which may impede access.
These criteria do not require an extensive data collection process in order to be evaluated for
each facility, and can mostly be done through online research. Relying on conversations with
facility owners for data collection with a time sensitive project can bog down efforts, and is thus
better suited for later steps when fewer facilities are under consideration. This is not to say that
the Selection Criteria are any less significant than those used in the next step (the Evaluation
Criteria), as both are equally important indicators of an effective CRH. However, a facility does
not necessarily need to rank high in all categories to remain in consideration as a potential CRH.
The Selection Criteria help eliminate facilities that lack the qualities to warrant a further, time-
intensive investigation into their characteristics.
A CRH facility does not necessarily need to be large enough to house hundreds of people, but
should be sufficiently large to serve as a communal gathering place. There are no established
minimal requirements for the capacity of a CRH, but discussions with managers of other CRH
projects led us to set a minimum capacity of 50 people per facility.43
Although the community is
much larger than 50 people, it can be assumed that only a portion of the residents will require the
43
Op. Cit., fn 7.

21
services provided, and not all will utilize the facility simultaneously, as users of the CRH will
come and go.44
We developed a spreadsheet for scoring the various facilities in this stage. The four criteria were
scored, per facility, on a scale of one to three, with one being the lowest. Because many of these
criteria are judged as a matter of perspective, the resulting scores should be used only as a guide
for eliminating facilities who score low, and not as a definitive tool for selecting a facility (See
Appendix 2 for a description of our scoring methodology). The facilities with the highest scores
warrant further evaluation in the next stage. The number of facilities that are evaluated further
should be limited based on available resources, such as time and data collection capacity.
Results
Following our screening of facilities, we narrowed down our list of potential hub locations to
seven (see starred in Figure 4):
 St Martin’s Catholic Church
 St George’s Episcopal Church
 Washington Metropolitan High School
 United Planning Organization
 Florida Avenue Baptist Church
 Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church
 Faith Temple Church
44
Gruntfest, E. С., & Drainage, U. (1977). What People Did During The Big Thompson Flood (No. 32). Working
paper.

22
Figure 4: Seven Potential CRH locations
These facilities ranked among the highest when the criteria were analyzed in our spreadsheet (see
Table 3). Many of the churches were dropped from consideration due to facility size, as well as
some cultural considerations. For example, Medhane Alem Eritrean Orthodox Church did not
have an English language website, and we considered this a sign that such a facility may not be a
good fit as a community gathering point in times of need. On the other hand, St George’s and
Florida Baptist are the sites used for Civic Association meetings for Bloomingdale and LeDroit
respectively, and thus we can expect these locations to be relatively well-known within the
community.
Table 3: Facility Ranking using Selection Criteria
Facility Selection Criteria
Name
Cultural
Significance
(3)
Size of
building
(3)
Location
(3)
Accessibility
(3)
Total
(12)
St. George's Episcopal Church 3 3 3 3 12

23
Florida Ave. Baptist Church 3 3 2.5 1 9.5
Washington Metropolitan High School 1 3 2.5 1 7.5
Faith Temple Church 0 1 2.5 2 5.5
Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1 1 2 1 5
St. Martin's of Tours Catholic Church 1 1 1.5 1 4.5
Howard University Hospital 0 3 0.5 1 4.5
United Planning Organization 0 2 1.5 1 4.5
True Grace Church of Jesus 0 1 0 3 4
McKinley Tech. High School 0 3 1 0 4
Langley Elementary School 0 3 1 0 4
Columbia Elks Lodge 0 1 2 1 4
Bethany Baptist Church 0 1 1.5 1 3.5
Mt. Bethel Baptist Church 0 1 0 1 2
KanKouran West African Dance Company 0 1 0 1 2
Metropolitan Wesley AME Zion Church 0 1 0 1 2
World Missions for Christ 0 1 0 1 2
Young Ladies of Tomorrow 0 1 0 1 2
Harmony Public Charter Schools 0 1 0 0 1
Of note is Howard Hospital, which was dropped from consideration despite its relatively high
score, due to our discussion with Howard University, which revealed that the hospital would
have its own priorities during extreme weather events, and would be better suited as a
community resource in a CRH supporting role.45
Harry Thomas Rec Center was dropped from
consideration as well, despite being a designated cooling center, due to its location on the East
side of North Capitol Street, a very busy street, which may limit accessibility for those
attempting to reach the location from LeDroit or Bloomingdale.
Step 4: Select Potential Facility
Methodology
As the list of potential facilities shrinks, the remaining candidates require further scrutiny in
identifying their strengths and weaknesses. For this stage, additional criteria are used to evaluate
their potential to become a CRH, requiring interactions with building
owners/managers/engineers to gather specific data. We named these our Evaluation Criteria,
which can be changed to fit the needs of the community (see Table 4).
45
Bennett, M. (2016, March 31). Discussion concerning CRHs [Telephone interview].

24
Table 4: Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Reasoning
Distributed energy potential A facility should have the potential to install
distributed energy technologies, such as solar
and wind generation.
Existing distributed energy A facility with existing distributed energy
resources has a head start in the process of
transitioning to a CRH, reducing costs.
Cooperative building owner A facility with a cooperative owner indicates a
high likelihood of successful efforts, both in
preparation for and during an extreme weather
event.
Kitchen/refrigeration capabilities A facility should have a kitchen and refrigerator,
to provide food for those using the CRH, as well
as store medicine to avoid spoilage.
Large gymnasium or auditorium A facility with a large space for people to gather
in will allow for comfort.
Second floor access A facility should ensure that, in the case of floods,
people and equipment will avoid exposure to
water.
Energy audit in the past 5 years A facility that is already monitoring energy use
indicates an awareness of the cost reduction
potential for incorporating energy efficiency
measures, reducing use.
Backup Generation (Propane/Diesel) A facility with backup generation technologies
installed has the ability to supplement distributed
energy generation, despite environmental
impact.
In comparing buildings, the spreadsheet tool we developed can be utilized as a guideline. The
Evaluation Criteria aspect of this tool provides scores on a binary scale (either meeting the
criteria or not), and is thus not comparable to the scores given through the Selection Criteria. The
Evaluation Criteria scores give stronger weight to three key criteria, the potential for distributed
energy, existing distributed energy resources, and having a cooperative building owner, as these
are considered to be key indicators of whether a transition can be made between the building’s
current state to a CRH (further details on the scoring can be found in Appendix 2). Through this
analysis, the facility best suited to become a CRH can be identified.
Although the resulting scores provide a quantitative base for comparing buildings, these scores
should be used as a comparison tool, rather than a conclusive decision-making strategy. A failure

25
to achieve a perfect score not indicate that the facility is unsuitable to become a CRH, as many of
the CRH features can be later installed or upgraded as part of the transition.
Results
Table 5 shows the results generated by our spreadsheet concerning how the facilities scored
against the Evaluation Criteria. Among the seven facilities, we were unsuccessful in
communicating with many of the building owners. On the other hand, St. George’s Episcopal
Church (St George’s) and Florida Avenue Baptist Church (Florida Baptist) had responsive
building managers who were happy to share information. Florida Baptist stood out in that it
already had solar panels installed, which was done through a partnership with LeDroit Park LLC
and Volt Energy LLC, showing that the facility has experience in gathering funding, and future
upgrade costs are reduced by this existing resource.
Table 5: Facility Ranking by Evaluation Criteria
Our analysis concluded that Florida Baptist and St George’s are both viable candidates for
becoming CRHs. Florida Baptist has the benefit of having solar panels already installed, offering
a smaller cost for upgrades, while St George’s held a superior location. Depending on whether
those in charge of the CRH process held a preference for lower cost or better location, the
recommendation could vary. Assuming the limitations of funding as more of a factor than a
difference in location of half a mile, we would recommend Florida Baptist over St George’s, by a
small margin.
Name
Gymnasium/
Auditorium?
(1)
Energy
audit?(1)
Distributed
energy
potential (1.5)
Existing
Distributed
Energy(1.5)
Cooperative
building
owner (1.5)
Second
floor
access (1)
Backup
generation
(1)
Refridgeration/
kitchen (1)
Total
(9.5)
FloridaAve. Baptist Church 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 1 8.5
St. George'sEpiscopal Church 1 0 1.5 0 1.5 1 0 1 6
St. Martin'sofToursCatholic Church 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 1 4.5
Washington Metropolitan High School 0 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 1 3.5
Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 3.5
United PlanningOrganization 1 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5
Faith Temple Church 0 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 2.5
Facility Evaluation Criteria

26
Step 5: Assess Necessary Upgrades
Methodology
The conversion of the selected facility into a CRH involves identifying the necessary facility
upgrades, and the means of acquiring the funding to perform such upgrades. Gaps in the
Evaluation Criteria can help identify necessary upgrades.
One of the key components of an effective CRH is the ability to provide electricity during a
power outage. In order to achieve this, a building may require the installation of distributed
generation resources, accompanied by adequately sized battery storage systems. A determination
of the size of such installations can be determined through an in-depth analysis of the building’s
current and projected energy use during extreme weather events. With this data, the required
amount of distributed energy generation can be calculated. In most cases, a battery would be
required to access energy during a power outage, and based on the facility’s energy use patterns,
the size and costs of such upgrades will vary.
There are various avenues for financing necessary upgrades to a facility. This could involve
pursuing partnerships with NGOs, businesses, and government, either on the local, state, or
federal level. There are grants that can be used for the overall resilience hub effort, or are
specific to certain technologies, including battery installation, solar installation, and energy
efficiency upgrades.
Results
What are the necessary upgrades for Florida Avenue Baptist Church?
We encountered difficulty in gathering data concerning the Florida Baptist’s energy use, square
footage, and other characteristics necessary for a proper assessment of necessary upgrades and
their costs. This was a result of a lack of time available for this research, as well as the facility
owner’s inability to provide us such information. To ameliorate this, we pulled data from a few
sources to generate rough estimates on the size of Florida Baptist, its total energy consumption,
and the average percentage of total energy consumption per hour (see Appendix 5 for more detail
on sources). The estimates may not accurately reflect Florida Baptist, and they are not intended
to. But they do provide an appropriate example to help identify necessary upgrades and any
associated costs. Due to time and resource constraints, as well as the lack of viable alternatives,
we focused on solar generation in this analysis, and did not consider generation from other
sources such as wind, geothermal, and propane/diesel, nor did we calculate the critical load of
the facility.

27
We used these estimates to determine the average hourly energy consumption in kWh for the
facility, and compared it to the average production per hour from the 10 kW solar system. The
solar production data is not an estimate, and was pulled directly from a website produced by
Florida Baptist.46
Our results indicate that a 10 kW solar system shaves off a significant portion
of the facility’s electricity needs, but on an average day, it does not produce enough electricity to
meet the entire load. We did not take into consideration the critical load of the facility, which
could be significantly less than the average load we used. Figure 5 provides an illustration of
electricity consumption and solar production throughout an average day.
Figure 5: Average consumption/production for Florida Baptist
Even at peak solar production, demand is not completely offset. Average loads and production
can be misleading because there may be certain days where solar production is almost at full
potential (10 kW) and thus would exceed the energy load, but for our purposes it is appropriate.
We concluded that the energy load would either need to be reduced, or more solar panels would
need to be purchased to exceed demand. The power produced from the solar panels would have
to exceed the energy load in order for a battery to store energy. As Florida Baptist currently
stands, a backup battery would be impractical because it would rarely have time to charge.
One way to reduce the energy load of the building is to pursue energy efficiency strategies such
as an energy retrofit. A PikeResearch publication estimated that buildings can realize 10 to 20
46
Florida Avenue Baptist Church. (2016). Solar Project. Retrieved from http://flavbc.org/2014/solar-project/
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
12am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm
kWh
Electricity Consumption/Solar Production per day
Electricity Consumption Solar Production (kWh)

28
percent energy savings through an energy retrofit.47
But even if we were to assume that Florida
Baptist achieved 20 percent savings, the current 10 kW solar system would still not meet the
building’s energy requirements (as can be seen in Figure 6).
Figure 6: Electricity Consumption with 20 Percent Energy Savings
Energy efficiency is only one of the necessary upgrades. In order for Florida to meet its energy
demand, additional panels would need to be installed. We generated a model that shows Florida
Baptist’s solar generation using systems of 10kW, 15kW, 20kW and 30kW, as well as the
average charging capacity that each could yield.
47
Nock, L. & Wheelock, C. (2010). Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings. PikeResearch.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
12am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm
kWh
Average Electricity Consumption w/ EE & Solar
Production
Electricity Consumption Solar Production (kWh) Electricity Consumption with EE

29
Figure 7: Solar Production Scenarios
We see from Figure 7 that charging capacity is reached with a 15 kW solar system, but a system
of that size would yield less than 1 kWh of charging capacity (the difference between average
load and solar production). This information, albeit only an estimation, can be used to determine
the optimal battery size for the facility. Table 6 provides different configurations of solar and
battery sizes that can be installed at Florida Baptist. We also produced cost estimates for solar,
lithium-ion battery storage, and energy efficiency upgrades (see Appendix 5 for more detail on
cost estimates and key definitions).Despite Florida Baptist already having a 10kW solar panel
system installed, we deemed this amount insufficient in meeting the energy needs of the facility
during an outage, especially with the lack of a battery storage system.
Table 6: Potential Upgrade Configurations
Based on our results, 30 kW of additional solar coupled with a 132 kW battery would allow
Florida Baptist to maintain power for the longest duration, 10.77 hours. Adding 20 kW of solar
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
12am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
kWh
Solar Production (10kW, 15kW, 20kW, 30kW)
Electricity Consumption with EE Solar Production (kWh)
Solar Production with 15kw Solar Production with 20kw
Solar production with 30kw
Additional
Solar
Charging
Capacity (kWh)
Average electricity
consumption/hour
(w/EE)
Time off-
grid (hours)
Estimated
Solar Cost
Battery
Size (kW) Estimated Cost
EE
Upgrades Total Cost
10 kW 11.39 7.2 1.58 23,000$ 19 9,682$ 4500 37,182$
20 kW 42.38 7.2 5.89 46,000$ 72 36,023$ 4500 86,523$
30 kW 77.54 7.2 10.77 69,000$ 132 65,909$ 4500 139,409$

30
would allow islanding for almost 50 percent less time, but it would also cost an estimated
$50,000 less. These times do not take into account that the solar panels would continue to
generate electricity while the grid is out of service.
How can Florida Avenue Baptist Church fund these upgrades?
To fund upgrades, a potential source of financial support is community partners, including
businesses and universities. Florida Baptist, for their existing solar panels, received assistance
from LeDroit Park LLC and Volt Energy LLC in the acquisition and installation process, and is
now in a Power Purchase Agreement, resulting in lower electricity bills. Other potential sources
of funding for additional panels include a Solar Incentive Tax Credit, Modified Accelerated Cost
Recovery System, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program (details in Appendix 3).
In reviewing our methodology for identifying upgrades and their funding, we came to the
realization that this step would require much more work on the side of the facility owner than
initially expected. Facility owners understand the logistics of their buildings best, and are better
positioned to apply for grants and tax breaks, as they are the main beneficiaries of the upgrades.
Our assumption that such funding could be identified by our team alone was over-ambitious, and
we would recommend a more cooperative approach between government agencies, power
providers, and facility owners.
Sensitivity Analysis
We were confident with the results from our framework, but found it important to measure the
sensitivity of those results against the criteria chosen and their assigned levels of priority. For
example, within our Evaluation Criteria, we valued distributed energy generation and building
owner cooperation greater than others, and weighed them accordingly. But, if other criteria such
as building size or location are deemed more essential for the CRH, then the results may vary.
This creates an opportunity for us to identify some of the tradeoffs that are made from selecting
one facility over the other, as can be seen in Tables 7 and 8.

31
Table 7: Tradeoffs Between Florida Baptist & St. George, Selection Criteria
Table 8: Tradeoffs between Florida Baptist & St. George’s, Evaluation Criteria
Depending on the priorities of the community, St. George’s could have been selected over
Florida Baptist, as it scores better in Accessibility and Location. However, we were willing to
accept those tradeoffs because of Florida Baptist’s installed solar system and recent completion
of an energy audit.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the effect that different weighting of criteria can
have on the final evaluation (see Table 9).
Florida Avenue
Baptist Church
St. George's
Episcopal Church
Cultural Significance 3 3
Size of building 3 3
Community Resources 2.5 3
Accessibility 1 3
Total 9.5 12
Selection Criteria
Florida Avenue
Baptist Church
St. George's
Episcopal Church
Gymnasium 1 1
Energy Audit 1 0
Distributed Energy Potential 1.5 1.5
Existing Distributed Energy 1.5 0
Cooperative Building Owner 1.5 1.5
Second floor access 1 1
Backup generation 0 0
Refridgeration/kitchen 1 1
Total 8.5 6
Evaluation Criteria

32
Table 9: Sensitivity Analysis, Evaluation Criteria
The highlighted columns indicate an adjustment of the weighting of the criterion. The adjusted
criterion include:
 Gymnasium/Auditorium (+0.5 possible points)
 Distributed Energy Potential (-0.5 possible points)
 Cooperative Building Owner (-0.5 possible points)
 Second Floor Access (+0.5 possible points)
Table 9 displays the facility score sensitivity and change in ranking from the original Evaluation
Criteria. These adjustments to the original weighting could reflect the priorities of another
community. Original weighting and results can be seen in found in Table 5. Overall, our
sensitivity analysis revealed that a change in the weighing of our chosen criteria resulted in
changes in scores, but no major changes in the ranking of facilities.
Name
Gymnasium/
Auditorium?
(1.5)
Energy
audit?(1)
Distributed
energy
potential
(1)
Existing
Distributed
Energy(1.5)
Cooperative
building
owner (1)
Second floor
access (1.5)
Backup
generation
(1)
Refridgeration
/kitchen (1) Total (9.5)
Score
Sensitivity
Change in
ranking
FloridaAve. Baptist Church 1.5 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 1 8.5 0 --
St. George'sEpiscopal Church 1.5 0 1 0 1 1.5 0 1 6 0 --
St. Martin'sofToursCatholic Church 1.5 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 1 5 0.5 --
Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church 1.5 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 4 0.5 2+
Washington Metropolitan High School 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 1 3.5 0 1-
United PlanningOrganization 1.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1-
Faith Temple Church 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 2.5 0 --
Facility Evaluation Criteria

33
CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION
In this chapter, we highlight some of the key findings and limitations from our project. Our
discussion incorporates the results of our literature review, pilot project, and overall lessons
learned from our research.
Key Findings
The funnel framework works: The funnel framework we developed was designed to
identify a select few facilities best suited to become a CRH. Our pilot study revealed the
effectiveness of this framework in accomplishing its purpose. Among all of the facilities we
evaluated, Florida Baptist best represented our vision of a CRH. However, we acknowledge that
certain limitations exist. Therefore, the results from the funnel framework should serve less as a
prescription for a decision and more of a guideline to be treated as a resource.
Third-party tools can bolster community resilience: We identified tools being used
by other cities for their own resilience efforts. For example, San Francisco’s Neighborhood
Empowerment Network (NEN), using a grant from Microsoft, has established a program for
analyzing the potential of various groups of buildings to act as a neighborhood gathering
points.48
We held discussions with members of NEN who expressed interest in sharing such
tools, although the extent of such agreements are unclear. Additionally the D.C. Homeland
Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) has an app for improving preparation
for emergency situations, which provides alerts, maps of resources, and updates on the condition
of affected areas.49
A partnership can be made with HSEMA to incorporate CRHs into their app,
or a similar app can be made for the CRH program itself. Finally, RAND Corporation developed
a toolkit for educating and raising awareness of community resilience issues, which can be
incorporated into cities’ efforts to develop CRHs.50
A CRH is part of a network: A CRH is much more than a facility. It should be part of a
larger network of resources within a community. It is unlikely that one facility will meet all of
the criteria established for a CRH. The solution, which was part of our framework, included
identifying all of the community resources within a neighborhood, and highlighting those that
48
Homsey, D. (2016, March 17). Proposed Briefing on San Francisco's Empowered Community Program [Telephone
interview].
49
HSEMA. (n.d.). Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Mobile App.
50
RAND Corporation. (2016, April). Community Resilience Toolkits.

34
provide services which the facility cannot. For example, St. George’s does not have copious
storage space for food. However, we identified a local grocery store as well as a community
garden within the area that can help provide food in preparation for or in response to extreme
events. When looking to establish a hub, the resources surrounding a facility should be
considered in addition to the features of the facility itself.
Limitations
Given the broad and interdisciplinary nature of resilience planning, there were a number of
challenges we encountered throughout our project, often due to data restrictions and practical
limitations. A few of the major limitations are summarized below, along with tentative
suggestions for how to address them in future applications of our framework.
Defining parameters: One of first challenges we faced was defining our parameters in a
way that would allow us to complete our pilot project within the specified timeframe (2-3
months), while still generating valuable information about community-level resilience needs.
This was especially difficult given the lack of publicly available, detailed information on CRHs
and the variability of purposes that they serve.
Some of the issues we struggled with were defining the size and population capacity of the hub,
the threshold for when facilities are triggered to become CRHs, and the limitations for who the
CRH is open to. In addition, there are legal liabilities concerning CRH operation that we were
unable to address. There are no clearly defined or established methodologies for defining these
parameters, and the answers will likely depend on the particular needs of the community,
available funds, and preferences of policymakers. That being said, it is important to define early
on in the CRH development process what the community needs are, how many of these can be
fulfilled by a single CRH, and what the various costs and tradeoffs are between them.
Technical evaluation: Initially, our project had envisioned a much more comprehensive
assessment of the economic feasibility of various distributed energy generation systems. We
found that such an assessment was somewhat beyond the scope of our project, given the site-
specific and highly technical nature of these assessments, the need for independent evaluation
from energy providers, and the need for more extensive cooperation from the building owner
than our timeframe permitted. For this project, we instead focused on an analysis of generalized
cost options and estimates of different rates of energy consumption. Given more time and
technical expertise, we would have allocated more resources towards this aspect of the project, as
it is highly pertinent to the development of a CRH with independent energy-generation potential.

35
Cooperative building owners: We experienced difficulty in getting in touch with building
owners and managers for our final set of facilities. We relied primarily on publicly available
contact information, as gathered from the buildings’ websites. However, in many cases the
building owners were not responsive, which prevented us from conducting a complete analysis
on the viability of their facilities as CRHs. In addition, this lack of response signaled the building
owners’ lack of interest in pursuing this project.
It is possible that the responsiveness may have differed had the communicating agent been the
D.C. government, and not a group of graduate students, as was the case in this project. We did
find that physically visiting the locations tended to be a much more successful engagement
strategy. Even with the building owners who were generally cooperative, there were some delays
in obtaining data on electricity usage or other technical information. Therefore, it would have
been helpful to initiate the engagement process earlier in the study, and to make our data needs
clear well ahead of time.
Public outreach: When selecting a facility to serve as a CRH, one of the main factors we
considered was how well-known this facility was within the community. We made this
determination primarily through secondary research, including looking at which facilities had
previously served as meeting places. While this approach was adequate for the purposes of this
project, for future applications of the framework, it may prove more effective to conduct more
robust public outreach efforts, both to confirm that the facility in question is indeed recognized
within the community, and to increase public awareness of the facility’s status as a potential
CRH. Without the involvement of the community in the planning surrounding a CRH
establishment, there may be a void in terms of the human capital required to make the CRH
effective during an extreme weather event.

36
CHAPTER Ⅳ: NEXT STEPS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Next Steps for the Bloomingdale/LeDroit Neighborhood
According to the results of our pilot project in the LeDroit/Bloomingdale neighborhood, St.
George’s Episcopal Church (St George’s) and Florida Avenue Baptist Church (Florida Baptist)
were the two best facilities in which to establish climate resilience hubs (CRHs). Both locations
are well-known and recognized within the community, and are situated in reasonably accessible
locations. Either location could serve as a viable CRH, but our analysis indicates that Florida
Baptist is a slightly preferred location, primarily since the facility already has a distributed
energy generation systems in place.
Prior to formally designating Florida Baptist as a future CRH, a series of preliminary steps need
to be taken. We recommend an in-depth evaluation of the distributed energy generation potential
of the facility, taking into account the existing solar arrays, as well as additional upgrades. Our
preliminary analysis recommends that Florida Baptist first pursue an energy efficiency retrofit.
This could yield a 10-20 percent reduction in energy use.
Next, based on the results of our analysis presented in Step 5 of Chapter II, we propose the
installation of an additional 20kW of solar panels, with a 72 kW of battery storage. This would
cost approximately $86,000, but would provide nearly 6 hours of battery discharge. Because the
solar array is generating most of the power during the day, the battery would only need to be
discharged during the night or cloudy days. It should be noted that these estimates are based on
the assumption that the entire energy load of the building would need to be maintained, as
opposed to only meeting the critical load of key services.
Finally, efforts should be made to solidify and expand existing networks with external
organizations. Howard University, for example, has expressed interest in participating in the
CRH development process, including possibly offering student involvement in the process as
part of their curriculum. In addition, the LeDroit Civic Association, which currently holds
regular meetings at the Florida Baptist, can conduct public outreach to generate community
awareness and identify any concerns that residents may have. Partnerships can be fostered with
third party organizations to incorporate their existing tools into the CRH establishment process.

37
Policy Recommendations
In addition to the specific next steps for the LeDroit/Bloomingdale neighborhood, our analysis
yielded a number of general policy recommendations. These recommendations were designed for
the District of Columbia, but can also be applied to other cities. An overview of these
recommendations are presented in Table 10, and are expanded on in greater detail below.
Table 10: List of Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to coordinate local
resilience strategies, including the development of CRHs.
Resilience issues transcend multiple policy areas, including climate adaptation, infrastructure
development, public health, and emergency planning. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach is
necessary when planning and developing CRHs. We propose the formation of an Interagency
Resilience Task Force. This group should include representatives from various local government
agencies, including but not limited to: Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE),
Department of Health (DOH), Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency
(HSEMA), Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Office of Planning
(OP), and the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM). Ideally, this group would be chaired by the
Chief Resilience Officer, a position that is contingent on funding from the National Disaster
Recommendation Description
Recommendation #1 Develop an Interagency Resilience Task Force to coordinate local
resilience strategies, including the development of CRHs.
Recommendation #2 Identify roles to be taken by existing networks, including
partnerships with civic groups, energy providers, and schools.
Recommendation #3 Implement the funnel framework as a means of screening potential
CRH facilities and comparing relative advantages.
Recommendation #4 When selecting CRH facilities, give priority to schools, churches,
and publicly-owned community centers.
Recommendation #5 Conduct program evaluations to document and assess the
effectiveness of ongoing CRH projects.

38
Resilience Competition, and will likely be filled in the coming year.51
This recommendation is
consistent with resilience strategies being conducted in other cities across the nation.52
Recommendation #2: Identify and leverage existing resilience networks, including
partnerships with civic groups, energy providers, and schools.
Our results indicated that CRHs are most effective when they are part of a larger resilience
network. One of the reasons that Florida Baptist was selected as our CRH facility was due to its
close relationship with organizations like Volt Energy LLC and the LeDroit Civic Association.
Future CRHs should take advantage of these sorts of relationships. Whenever possible, these
relationships should be expanded, and new networks should be cultivated. This can be facilitated
by mutual benefits between parties. For example, a strategic partnership between Florida Baptist
and nearby Howard University can be developed, in which engineering students from Howard
help install solar panels for Florida Baptist. Through this arrangement, students get practical
hands-on training, and the church receives discounted labor. In addition, these joint activities
help generate community engagement, which in turns help to build awareness of communally
shared resources like the CRH.
Recommendation #3: Implement the funnel framework developed in this project, as a
means of screening potential CRH facilities and comparing relative advantages.
While far from perfect, the funnel framework developed in this report helped identify a facility to
serve as a CRH. We recommend that future CRH development efforts utilize this framework, at
least in the preliminary stages of identifying potential CRHs facilities, and evaluate the relative
costs and benefits of each. It is important to note that the evaluation tool is adaptable, and can be
modified based on differential preferences or needs (by modifying the scores and weights
associated with each criterion). This is appropriate given the unique needs of each community.
Furthermore, using these tools will help generate an understanding of the improvements that may
eventually need to be made for each facility, should it be developed as a CRH.
Recommendation #4: When determining facilities to serve as CRHs, give priority to
schools, churches, and publicly-owned community centers.
Our literature review and analysis indicated that CRHs need to be easily accessible, eligible for
renewable energy financing incentives, and have an established connection with the community.
51
Lucas, D. (2016, March 23). HSEMA's Resilience Work [Telephone interview].
52
Spielman, F. (2016, May 2). Chicago hires ‘chief resilience officer’ — whatever that is. Chicago Sun-Times.

39
Our results show that schools, churches, and publicly-owned buildings are the best suited to meet
these requirements. These locations are often well-known within the community, and are well-
equipped to provide services to large numbers of people. In addition, they are likely to receive
funding for renewable energy installation activities, which is one of the costliest upgrades that
CRHs require. While other facilities can serve as CRHs, these types of buildings are most likely
to satisfy all the relevant needs at the greatest cost-effectiveness.
Recommendation #5: Conduct program evaluations to document and assess the
effectiveness of ongoing CRH projects.
Each community has unique concerns and requirements, many of which are constantly changing.
By tracking the progress of CRHs, and systematically evaluating each program’s ability to meet
these needs, policymakers can identify best practices, key difficulties, and areas for
improvement. This is essentially what this report is: a compilation of the successes, failures, and
next steps identified during our pilot project. This process has highlighted several shortcomings
and means of addressing them, and any future efforts to build resiliency should follow this
pattern. Moreover, it is important to incorporate feedback from the community into these
evaluations, to ensure that residents’ needs are being adequately addressed.
Conclusion
Recent extreme weather events have highlighted the need to improve resilience at the community
level, particularly for disproportionately vulnerable populations. This can be a daunting task,
given the wide range of scenarios that resilience planning must consider. Moreover, each
community faces unique challenges, making a uniform approach to resilience un-realistic.
Community resilience hubs (CRHs) offer an efficient and viable solution. This project has sought
to clarify the benefits of CRHs, develop a framework for implementing CRHs in vulnerable
neighborhoods, and highlight some of the key findings and difficulties associated with this
process. Our recommendations are designed to provide general guidance on future resilience
actions within the District of Columbia, as well as for other cities who would like to employ our
framework.
In the short-term, we recommend moving forward with establishing a CRH in the
Bloomingdale/LeDroit neighborhood. This community has a history of weather-induced
challenges, as well as a population that is vulnerable to these impacts. Our analysis identified
Florida Avenue Baptist Church as the best location to serve as a CRH, given its relevance in the
community, its solar-generation capacity, and its key linkages to external organizations. This

40
facility exhibits many of the qualities that we sought when establishing a CRH, and will serve as
an informative pilot project.
In the long-term, we proposed the development of an Interagency Resilience Task Force, made
up of representatives from various D.C. government agencies, to coordinate the city’s resilience
strategies. We also recommend the identification and expansion of strategic partnerships with
civic groups, schools, churches, and power providers. Establishing these networks will lead to
the identification of shared resources, and improve community-wide preparation and response
efforts. These actions will be particularly effective when performed in conjunction with the
development of CRHs. By encouraging the establishment of CRHs, the District of Columbia can
help vulnerable communities prepare for extreme weather events, save long-term recovery costs,
and serve as a national example of robust climate adaptation planning.

41
APPENDIX:
Appendix 1: Sources of distributed energy generation
Solar power
Solar technologies are broadly characterized as either passive or active depending on the way
they capture, convert and distribute sunlight.53
The most widely used active solar technology is
photovoltaic (PV) modules.54
PV technology uses solar cells to convert sunlight directly into
electricity. This form of solar power generation does not involve moving parts, and is emission
free. Arrays are often retrofitted onto existing buildings, typically on top of the existing roof
structures or on the walls. Alternatively, an array can be located on a site not physically on a
building, but connected by cabling, supplying power from a distance.
Wind power
Wind power is a clean, renewable form of energy that use airflow through wind turbines to
mechanically power generators for electricity. Small-scale wind turbines can be installed at
facilities for energy generating purpose. There are two types of domestic-sized wind turbines:
pole mounted and building mounted.55
 Pole mounted
o These are free standing, and are erected in a suitably exposed position, often
having a capacity of 5 to 6kW
 Building mounted
o Smaller than pole mounted turbines, these can be installed on the roof of a home
where there is a suitable wind flow. Generation capacity of these range from 1kW
to 2kW.
Geothermal Heat Pumps
A Geothermal heat pump (GHPs) system can power building heating and/or cooling systems
through the use of heat energy contained within the earth.56
Residential level GHPs can vary in
53
Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016). Solar Energy.
54
Solar Energy Industries Association. (2016. Photovoltaic (Solar Electric).
55
American Wind Energy Association. (2016). Wind 101: the basics of wind energy.
56
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Geothermal Heat Pumps.

42
terms of necessary land and efficiency.57
Compared to a conventional heating or cooling system,
geothermal heat pumps systems can use 25-50 percent less electricity.58
57
Ibid.
58
International Energy Agency. (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling.

43
Appendix 2: Scoring
Selection Criteria
The list of facilities at the third stage of the funnel framework was narrowed down using a set of
criteria. Each of these criterions were assigned 3 points for a total of 12. Although we assign
equal points to each criterion, we do acknowledge that all communities are different, and may
believe that one or two of the criterions should be weighed higher according to their preference.
Facilities that did not score well within this stage were filtered out of the funnel. The list of
criterions used and their assigned score are as follows:
Cultural Significance
1 point -The facility had a documented history of convening one or two community events
2 points – The facility currently serves as a venue for community events
3 points – The facility serves as a venue for community events and neighborhood association
meetings
Facilities earned a 0 if they none of the above applied.
Location
The criteria of location was split into two categories, each worth 1.5 points and combining to
fulfill the 3 points available for the criteria. The categories were: proximity to community
resources and proximity to existing cooling centers/shelters
Proximity to community resources
We identified some of the potential community resources that exist in the LeDroit/Bloomingdale
neighborhood in the table below.
Table 11: List of Community Resources in Bloomingdale/LeDroit
Name Location Type Value
Crispus Attucks Park Bloomingdale Park Area for convening
Young Ladies of Tomorrow Bloomingdale NGO Organization
Yoga District-Bloomingdale Bloomingdale Gym Business

44
Little Wild Things City Farm Bloomingdale Community Garden Resources
Volcano Grocery Bloomingdale Groceries Resources
Howard University Hospital LeDroit Hospital/School Resources/Medicine
Walgreens LeDroit Pharmaceutical Medicine
LeDroit Park LeDroit Park Area for convening
Common Good City Farm LeDroit Garden Resources
0.5 points – Facility was within a half mile of 1-2 community resources
1 point – Facility was within a half mile of 3-4 community resources
1.5 points – Facility was within a half mile of 5-6 community resources
Facilities earned a 0 if they were not within ½ mile of any community resources.
Proximity to existing shelters
Facilities earned more points if they were located over one half mile away from existing
shelters/cooling centers. Based on an interview with GlobalGreen USA, we felt that this was
necessary to avoid redundancy, even though shelters and cooling centers are not necessarily
designed with resilience in mind.59
0.5 points – Within ½ mile and no barriers in between facility and shelters
1 point – Either within ½ mile or there are no barriers in between facility and shelters
1.5 points – Not within ½ mile radius of existing shelters and there are barriers in between
shelters and facility
Size of building
CRHs may need to house a large number of people during extreme events. Facilities earned more
points for being large.
1 point – Small (1-50 people)
2 points – Medium (50-100 people)
3 points – Large (>100 people)
All facilities earn at least one point.
59
Op. Cit. fn 7.

45
Accessibility
Based on interviews with community leaders, we determined that it was important to consider
the accessibility of facilities. By accessible, we refer to the positioning of the facility in reference
to the community, as well as in reference to major roads which would pose a problem for
community members facing mobility issues.
1 point – Located at the fringes of the neighborhood boundaries
2 points – Within a quarter mile of population center
3 points – Near the center of the population center
Evaluation Criteria
Each of the Evaluation criterion were either given a score of 1.5, 1, or a 0 to indicate if it met the
criterion or not. A few criterion were deemed more essential to a CRH than others and thus were
weighed accordingly. For example, facilities could earn 1.5 points in Existing Distributed Energy
or Cooperative Building Owner. Criterion that we felt should not be weighed any more or any
less were assigned only 1 point. Below is a list of the Evaluation Criteria and details on scoring.
Gymnasium/Auditorium
Facilities with a gymnasium or auditorium can house a large number of people in one room. This
allows facility owners to organize all entrants. It can also simplify the management of electricity
consumption because the load could be limited to one room.
1 point – The facility had a gymnasium or auditorium
0 points – The facility had no gymnasium or auditorium
Energy Audit
Based on our literature review we determined that facilities that have undergone an energy audit
are more than likely to have installed energy efficiency technologies. It also indicates that they
are making efforts to manage energy use in their buildings.
1 point – Energy audit within the last five years
0 points – No energy audit

46
Distributed energy potential
Distributed energy resources (DER) can encompass many energy technologies such as wind and
geothermal, but for purposes of this project we only considered solar potential for individual
buildings. Because DER is a critical component to maintaining electricity when the grid is down
it was weighed heavier.
1.5 point – Had solar potential
0 points – No solar potential
Existing Distributed energy
We thought it was important to consider if the building had any existing DER, which would
indicate a high-cost upgrade already being addressed. For this criterion, facilities earned credit
for any existing DER. Because existing DER is a critical component to maintaining electricity
when the grid is down, it was weighed heavier. It is also an indication that building owners have
already begun to devote attention to their energy use.
1.5 point – Existing DER and/or storage system
0 points – No DER or storage system
Cooperative building owner
Building owners must be willing participants in CHR conversations to facility the process. We
scored building owners who were responsive to requests for information and had expressed their
enthusiasm for the project as being cooperative. We weighed this criterion heavier because of the
amount of access to information the building owner has.
1.5 points - Cooperative building owner
0 points – Uncooperative building owner
Second floor access
Facilities with second floor access are more resilient to flooding related events. A second floor
provides community members with protection from water-related hazards in the case of severe
flooding, and it also allows owners to store electrical equipment away from flood-prone areas of
the facilities such as basements.

47
1 point – Facility has second floor access
0 points – Facility has no second floor access
Backup generation
Although we did not consider backup generation for upgrades, facilities with existing generation
have the capability to provide power during outages.
1 point- Existing backup generation
0 points – No existing backup generation
Refrigeration/kitchen
Facilities with a kitchen and refrigeration can provide/cook food, as well as refrigerate medicine.
This is important when considering that vulnerable communities can have a high population of
the sick and elderly who rely on daily medicine.
1 point – Facility has both a kitchen and refrigeration
0 points – Facility does not have one of the two

48
Appendix 3: Energy upgrade finance options
Power purchase agreement (PPA)
A PPA is an agreement between an energy producer and a power purchasing entity. A PPA
would involve agreements on matters such as the rate paid for electricity generation, and the time
periods during which it will be purchased.60
Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
The ITC is based on the amount of investment in solar property. Currently, both commercial and
residential ITCs are equal to 30 percent of the original investment made on eligible property that
is placed in service.
Sustainable Energy Trust Fund - D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU)
DCSEU is a public benefit fund to support energy-efficiency programs and renewable-energy
programs in Washington, D.C., DCSEU offers rebates and technical assistance to help D.C.
residents save money and improve energy efficiency.61
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS)
CREBs (a tax credit bond) are a mechanism to lower the cost of debt financing for non-tax-
paying entities such as NGOs and government agencies. CREBs provide qualified borrowers
with the ability to borrow at a 0 percent interest rate.62
Renewable energy generation projects that
qualify for CREB bonds include wind, solar, and geothermal.
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBS)
QECBs are tax credit bonds similar to CREBs, but in addition to using them to finance
renewable energy projects, they can also be issued for energy conservation projects. Qualified
energy conservation projects include rural development involving the production of electricity
from renewable energy sources, the implementation of green community programs (including
60
Op. Cit., fn 41.
61
Department of Energy & Environment. (2016). DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU).
62
Op. Cit., fn 40.

49
loans and grants to implement such programs), and public education campaigns to promote
energy efficiency.63
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG)
EECBG is a program providing federal grants to cities, local governments, communities, and
states to reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and for improvements in energy efficiency
and renewable energy technologies.64
63
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds.
64
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.

50
Appendix 4: Map of Priority Planning Areas
The following map was included in the DOEE Climate Vulnerability Assessment, and includes
the five areas we considered when deciding upon a neighborhood to house the CRH.65
Figure 8: Map of Priority Planning Areas
65
Op. Cit., fn 2.

51
Appendix 5: Florida Avenue Baptist Church Estimates
Table 13: Sources Used for Florida Baptist Estimates
Source How was it used? Data
MapDevelopers66
Lines were drawn around Florida
Avenue Baptist Church to
estimate square footage of
facility (see Figure 10)
6500 square x 2.5
floors = 15000 sq.
ft
Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey 201267
Downloaded to determine
average electricity per square
foot for places of worship.
Places of worship
consume 5.2 kWh
per square foot
PJM Interconnection Metered
Hourly Load Data68
Hourly load data for the Mid-
Atlantic was averaged to
determine average hour load
percentage of total electricity
Metered load data
for 2015 in PJM
market
Solar production-Florida
Baptist69
Hourly energy yield from the 10
kW system was layered with
average energy load to determine
if percentage of energy needs
met.
See Figures 5, 6
and 7
66
Mapdeveloper (2016).
67
EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2012. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. Washington, DC: US Energy
Information Administration.
68
PJM Metered Load Data (2015). 2016 Hourly-loads.
69
Op. Cit., fn 46.

52
Square Footage Estimates
Figure 9: Florida Ave. Baptist Church Square Footage, from MapDevelopers
Necessary Upgrade Estimates
Table 6, featured in the results of step 5 of the pilot study, included a series of estimates and
terms, which are explained in further detail below:
Energy efficiency. Energy efficiency costs were based on research by Pike Research and
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs.70
Retro-commissioning had estimates of 10-20 percent
energy savings and a cost of $0.30 per square foot, which we used to calculate the cost of energy
efficiency upgrades for Florida Avenue Baptist Church.
Battery size. Our research revealed that lithium ion batteries average a 70 percent depth of
discharge rate (DOD), which means the battery will only discharge or empty 70 percent of its’
total capacity.71
For each upgrade configuration we used the following formula.
Charging capacity + (Charging capacity * DOD rate)
This formula ensures that the battery is large enough to store all excess generation based on the
hourly average loads.
70
Op. Cit., fn 47
71
Martin, J., (2015, October). Why depth of discharge matters in solar battery storage system selection.

GWU Capstone Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to GWU Capstone Report

Similar to GWU Capstone Report (20)

GWU Capstone Report