When the unmeasured benefits are asserted to exceed the costs I would say no to the funding (emphasis added) …

It could cost as much as $3.5 million to redo the 76,000-square-foot roof, said Abby Shue, executive projects director for the arts center. The green design would cover about 51,000 square feet and could add as much as $1.5 million to the cost, while saving energy, [Abby Shue, executive projects director for the arts center] said.

“They will find a significant savings over the life of the roof,” said Cash Moter, architect with the Louisville firm Joseph & Joseph, which is working on the project. Just how much savings is still being calculated, he said….

Shue said the center, which is owned by the state, will request $3.5 million in funding from the Kentucky General Assembly, which reconvenes in January. …

[The Metropolitan Sewer District] has promised to share some of the costs because the green roof would capture at least 1.7 million gallons of storm water every year, preventing it from running into sewers and contributing to contaminated overflows into the Ohio River, said Wesley Sydnor, a senior technical services engineer at MSD.

On Nov. 14, MSD committed to spending $114,523 to help offset the costs of the project. …

via www.courier-journal.com

… until those unmeasured benefits are quantified and shown to exceed the costs.

Posted in
  1. Alan Avatar

    I would also be skeptical of financial claims from a guy named Cash Moter.

  2. Maarten Punt Avatar

    But just think of all the jobs this will create in Kentucky… Definitely worth it

  3. Colette Avatar

    Green roofs are so difficult to assign definite cost savings to, as there are numerous intangible benefits (increased property value, doubling the life of the waterproofing membrane, reduced stormwater impact, etc) that a CBA may not be the best way to assess whether or not it is a good investment. Yes, it is a capital improvement that may not have a defined ROI. No, it should not be value engineered out based on monetary figures. In terms of environmental benefit to reduce runoff, improve water quality of the water that passes through the green roof plans and media, and reducing the heat island effect (if implemented on a grander scale), green roofs do have a purpose.
    In order to make any environmental change, this type of stewardship needs to make an entrance into building standards. To a certain extent, LEED helps with this, but our impact on the planet from human made structures can be reduced. I’m not sure who the architect was, but he said that any permeable space that you deplete by building should be replenished on the roof. Green roofs can help us achieve numerous goals if we look further long term than initial capital cost.

  4. CS Norman Avatar

    As a matter of public policy, sure, there are oodles of benefits you could try to monetize (PM 2.5 for the win! Creek scouring reductions, saving the life of that little girl in Bridge to Terabithia!) – but the owners won’t capture them, so why would they include them in their investment decision unless they’re getting paid for those services, ala stormwater management here?

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading