HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2024 Special JDA Agenda PacketJoint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
SPECIAL JDA MEETING AGENDA
Monday, November 4, 2024, 5:30 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall
1.Roll Call
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Public Input
4.Consent Agenda
5.Old Business
6.Public Hearings
7.New Business
a.Recommendation for Clean Energy Policy
b. Update on Development Agreement Discussions
c.Review Road Map
d.Approve 2025 JDA Budget
8.Administrative Director’s Report
9.Development Director’s Report
10.Commissioner Updates
11.Adjournment
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe
SUBJECT: Approval of Agenda
The agenda for the November 4, 2024, JDA Meeting must be approved.
Action Requested:
Approve the agenda for November 4, 2024.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe
SUBJECT: Public Input
The public is invited to provide input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 7a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Clean Energy Policy
Recommendation: The EAC recommends the JDA adopt a policy to make Rice Creek Commons an all-
electric, carbon-free development.
This policy aligns with the Rice Creek Commons Vision and the Green Energy Vision. To meet this policy,
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including but not limited to providing clean energy
onsite and prohibiting natural gas infrastructure, will be required. It can be implemented in a way that is
replicable, equitable and cost-effective.
This recommendation is supported by analysis described in the attached Clean Energy Analysis report,
the Draft Sustainability Design Guidelines, and the initial review of project alignment with LEED for
Communities. Staff and consultants have discussed potential strategies to comply with this policy with
developers, and they understand their concerns and feel that they can be overcome.
By adopting this policy, the JDA sets a clear requirement for the development, while still allowing time
and flexibility to collaborate with developers and project partners on how best to meet this
requirement. The Sustainability Design Guidelines (draft included as appendix in Clean Energy Analysis
report) will specify the details and processes for implementing an all-electric, carbon-free development.
Background
Green energy and sustainability have long been key components of the vision for Rice Creek Commons:
• 2014: The JDA established the Environmental Resiliency Advisory Board (ERAB), which defined
the original Energy Vision and Guiding Principles for Rice Creek Commons.
• 2015: The ERAB presented and the JDA accepted the Energy Integration and Resiliency
Framework (EIRF), which set a vision to create the largest net-zero energy redevelopment in the
state and outlined plans for on-site renewable energy generation and all-electric residential
development.
• 2016: Alatus LLC selected as lead developer.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
• 2023:
o Energy Advisory Committee (EAC) convened and refreshed the Green Energy Vision.
o Alatus reaffirmed as lead developer for the California Parcel.
o Ryan Companies selected as developer for Outlot A.
New policies and technologies
Changes since the JDA adopted the Energy Integration and Resiliency Framework in 2015 make its
ambitious vision even more achievable than when it was originally set. Some key changes include:
State clean energy policy: In 2023, the Minnesota state legislature established that electricity in
Minnesota must be carbon-free by 2040, meaning that utilities such as Xcel must use only clean sources
that do not emit carbon dioxide, including renewable energy like wind and solar. This new reality has
shifted the focus of many in the industry from “net-zero energy” to “carbon-free”. Net-zero energy was
an important goal when the electric grid was largely powered by carbon-intensive sources. However,
now that the entire Minnesota electric grid will be carbon-free by 2040, simply building an all-electric
development will achieve most of the greenhouse gas emission goals.
Advances in green energy technologies: Energy-efficient building design, renewable energy technologies,
ground-source heat pumps, electric vehicle infrastructure and a high demand for a sustainable built
environment have made sustainability strategies the standard for many developers these days. Many of
these technologies have advanced so much that they are now the most cost-effective solutions
available.
New financing sources for green energy: The federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has completely
changed the financial feasibility of sustainable development by providing generous incentives for green
energy systems and other sustainability measures. Preliminary analysis of the current development plan
suggests that large portions of the green energy systems will be eligible for a 40% rebate from the
federal government, making a strong financial case for installing these systems, on top of the
environmental case.
Current research and analysis
In 2023, the JDA engaged Ever-Green Energy and LHB to analyze the feasibility of implementing the
Green Energy Vision, taking into account changes to the development plan and technology and financing
advances since the EIRF was completed. This analysis comprised three primary components: 1.
Comprehensive energy analysis to understand the energy demands of the development, 2. Strategies to
reduce that demand, primarily high-performance building design, and 3. Renewable energy technologies
to meet the remaining demand. Staff and consultants met with project developers several times to
discuss strategies and address questions and concerns.
As presented at the October 2024 JDA meeting and described in the attached Clean Energy Analysis
report, Ever-Green and LHB’s analysis demonstrates that switching from a business-as-usual
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
development (current building code, natural gas) to an all-electric development with high-performance
buildings would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the site by over 90%. The remainder of the site’s
energy needs could be met by a combination of on-site renewable energy generation (primarily solar
photovoltaic) and purchasing carbon-free electricity from Xcel Energy’s Renewable*Connect program,
making Rice Creek Commons completely carbon-free. The potential increased costs of high-performance
buildings and green energy infrastructure can be offset by a range of rebates and funding sources,
including Inflation Reduction Act incentives, Xcel Energy rebates, and the MN Climate Innovation
Finance Authority (MNCIFA or Green Bank).
Based on this evidence, an all-electric, carbon-free development is technically and financially feasible at
Rice Creek Commons.
Attachment:
Rice Creek Commons Clean Energy Analysis Report
Action Requested:
Adopt the Clean Energy Policy: Rice Creek Commons will be an all-electric, carbon-free development.
Rice Creek Commons
Clean Energy Analysis
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................... 2
About Report Author Ever-Green Energy and LHB ............................................................................... 2
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Rice Creek Commons Cleann Energy Analysis ........................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Development Definition ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Building Strategies and Energy Use ..................................................................................................................... 7
4. District Energy System ........................................................................................................................................... 11
5. Energy Modeling Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 19
6. Renewable Electrical Energy Strategies ........................................................................................................... 25
7. Opportunities and Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 28
8. Emission Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
9. Draft Sustainability Design Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 29
10. Selection of Certification Program ................................................................................................................... 30
11. Concerns and Mitigation ..................................................................................................................................... 31
12. Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix I – Draft Sustainable Design Guidelines .............................................................................. 33
Appendix II – LEED for Communities Recommendation Presentation Slide Deck .................... 37
Appendix III - LEED Cities and Communities: Plan and Design Cities Scorecard ..................... 46
Appendix IV – Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions ........................................................................... 47
2
Acknowledgements
Ever-Green Energy (Ever-Green) and LHB would like to express their gratitude to the City of Arden Hills,
Ramsey County, the Energy Advisory Committee (EAC), and the Joint Development Authority (JDA) for their
assistance in the development of this Rice Creek Commons Green Energy Plan.
About Report Author Ever-Green Energy and LHB
Ever-Green led the development of this Rice Creek Commons Green Energy Plan. The team at Ever-Green
takes pride in being one of the country’s premier district energy system experts, with decades of experience
in developing, operating, and managing community energy systems. Ever-Green’s unique combination of
technical expertise, business acumen, and operations experience has helped communities, colleges and
universities, health care campuses, and government organizations advance the study, development, and
operation of community energy systems. The Ever-Green team applies its depth of knowledge through every
step of a system’s development and implementation, finding sustainable solutions that are reliable and
financially viable to secure a community’s energy future.
Ever-Green partnered with LHB due to their ability to bring complementary expertise in energy, carbon, and
sustainability planning to Ever-Green’s expertise in energy system development. LHB’s Climate Solutions
team leverages the LHB-developed Regional Indicators Initiative for scenario planning and greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction tracking on projects such as climate action plans, carbon-free community planning, net-
zero building planning, GHG inventories, and development of sustainability guidelines for the built
environment. LHB always looks forward to thinking beyond established practices to create innovative
pathways to a more sustainable and regenerative future. Contributors to this project included: Becky
Alexander, Rick Carter, Maureen Colburn, Matt Gruber, and David Williams.
3
Executive Summary
About Rice Creek Commons
Rice Creek Commons is a 427-acre brownfield redevelopment in Arden Hills, Minnesota. The site was
formerly known as the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP). It will be a mixed-use development and
is divided into five neighborhoods. The development will include a variety of residential options, such as
multi-family residential, single-family residential, townhomes, and senior housing, as well as commercial,
retail, big-box retail, and light industrial spaces. At the time of this analysis, the planned buildout of the
development will occur over four years, with the conceptual phasing taking place between 2027 and 2030.
Project Partners
The Joint Development Authority (JDA) Board — which consists of two members from Arden Hills City
Council, two members from the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, and one appointed resident from
Arden Hills — and City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County staff are working together to determine next steps
for the development of Rice Creek Commons.
This group of partners established the need for a report to assess the feasibility of implementing goals
within the JDA’s Green Energy Vision for Rice Creek Commons (RCC): carbon neutrality, clean energy,
climate resiliency, equity, and innovation.
Study Scope and Process
Ever-Green Energy, with support from LHB, conducted a comprehensive energy analysis, evaluated
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies, developed sustainability design guidelines, and selected a
suitable certification program.
By quantifying the potential GHG reductions, analyzing various clean energy scenarios, and encompassing a
community-wide approach, the report aims to identify effective strategies to achieve Rice Creek Common’s
sustainability goals. Additionally, it explores potential funding sources and opportunities to support the
implementation of these initiatives.
High-Performance Buildings
An analysis comparing the community’s energy use under a code baseline scenario versus a high-
performance building scenario demonstrated that high-performance buildings would result in a 62%
reduction in the community’s total building energy use. Since the high-performance buildings are all-electric,
they also have the potential to use carbon-free energy sources to a greater extent than the baseline
buildings.
Energy Modeling
Heating and cooling needs were analyzed for each of the five neighborhoods in the planned development.
Three all-electric scenarios were compared to a baseline scenario, which assumed buildings were
constructed to current building codes and utilized natural gas for heating. Two scenarios looked at options
4
for a district energy system. The third scenario proposed a decentralized solution, where each building has
its own geothermal system.
The modeling indicates that an all-electric, carbon-free development is feasible at Rice Creek Commons by
developing high-performance buildings and using geothermal ground source systems for heating and
cooling with either district energy or a decentralized system. The remaining renewable energy needs could
be met by a combination of on-site solar and purchasing renewable energy from Xcel Energy. By taking
these steps and going all-electric, Rice Creek Commons could reduce GHG emissions from heating and
cooling by up to 98% over 30-years compared to the baseline.
Next Steps
Implementation of the strategies described in this document will involve deep collaboration between the
JDA, developers, and other project partners. As a first step, the JDA could adopt a policy that the Rice Creek
Commons development be all-electric and carbon-free. This policy would provide guidance for the project
team and developers while still allowing flexibility to determine specific technologies and strategies to meet
this requirement.
The project team will continue to work with developers to understand the costs and financial incentives
associated with green energy and sustainability measures. In particular, the project team will engage with
developers to compare district energy and decentralized geothermal systems to determine the best path
forward for the project. The project team will finalize Sustainability Design Guidelines for JDA approval and
implementation and also begin the LEED for Communities certification process.
Rice Creek Commons Clean Energy Analysis
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to assess the feasibility of achieving the Rice Creek Commons (RCC) Energy
Vision:
Rice Creek Commons will be a vibrant and unique, climate-forward development that aligns with the goals
outlined in the State of Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework: carbon neutrality, clean energy, climate
resiliency, equity and innovation. Rice Creek Commons will attract investment and partnership that will
create sustainable benefits for the community.
Guiding Principles
• Develop a resilient community for energy and other utilities using clean energy technologies, reducing
consumption, and reusing local resources onsite.
• Implement infrastructure solutions that are flexible and scalable over 50 years, including developing
the site to be adaptable to future technological needs.
5
• Deliver a model of efficient energy and water usage that minimizes Rice Creek Commons’ impact on
the environment.
• Create an economically competitive and attractive environment for developers and businesses to
create a vibrant community with multi-modal transportation options.
To achieve this, a comprehensive energy analysis was conducted, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
strategies were evaluated, sustainability design guidelines were developed, and a certification program was
selected. By quantifying the potential GHG reductions, analyzing various clean energy scenarios, and
fostering a community-wide approach, the report aims to identify effective strategies to achieve RCC's
sustainability goals. Additionally, it explores potential funding sources and opportunities to support the
implementation of these initiatives.
2. Development Definition
Located in Arden Hills, Minnesota, the 427-acre brownfield site, formerly known as the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP), is now being developed as RCC. This mixed-use development is divided into five
neighborhoods: Town Center, Creek Neighborhood, Hill Neighborhood, Southwest Neighborhood, and Outlot
A as shown in Figure 1. The analysis in this report is based on the development concepts provided by
developer in March 2024.
6
Figure 1. Rice Creek Commons Conceptual Site Plan
7
The development includes a variety of residential options, such as multi-family residential, single-family
residential, townhomes, and senior housing, as well as commercial, retail, big-box retail, and light industrial
spaces. The buildout of the development is planned to occur over four years, with the conceptual phasing
taking place between 2027 and 2030.
2027 2028 2029 2030 Total
Town Center GSF 495,750 531,000 635,000 914,450 2,576,200
Hill Neighborhood GSF 358,977 552,401 0 0 911,378
Creek Neighborhood GSF 0 0 0 384,508 384,508
SW Neighborhood GSF 693,450 5,000 0 0 698,450
Outlot A GSF 425,940 0 0 0 425,940
Total GSF 1,974,117 1,088,401 635,000 1,298,958 4,996,476
Table 1. Conceptual development building gross square feet (GSF) by year.
3. Building Strategies and Energy Use
While all new buildings at RCC are required by law to meet Minnesota’s Energy Code, there is potential for
beyond-code building design measures that can significantly reduce energy use, energy costs, and GHG
emissions. This analysis compares the community’s energy use under a code baseline scenario versus a
high-performance building scenario.
3.1 Baseline Buildings
Baseline building energy use was estimated for each building type and size using IES VE energy modeling
software. Buildings are assumed to:
• Meet ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which is the basis for Minnesota’s current commercial energy code 1
• Use a combination of electricity and utility gas
• Use typical HVAC systems, such as packaged terminal air conditioners for residential buildings and
variable air volume systems for commercial buildings
1 Although Minnesota’s residential and commercial energy codes will become incrementally more stringent over the next
decade (M.S. 326B.106), this is not expected to have a major impact on the near-term construction at Rice Creek
Commons and was not incorporated into the energy models.
8
3.2 High-Performance Buildings
High-performance building energy use was also estimated using IES VE energy modeling software for each
building type and size. While these models used the same geometry and occupancy schedules as the
baseline buildings, the high-performance buildings are assumed to:
• Be all-electric (use no natural gas)
• Have high-performance envelopes and lighting, exceeding code requirements
• Use highly efficient HVAC systems, including heat pumps that are connected to a district energy
system
3.3 Results of Building Strategies
Using these parameters, the high-performance buildings are predicted to use 36%-72% less energy than the
baseline buildings (Table 2). The building energy use intensity (EUI) and percentage reduction vary based on
building type, with offices on the lower end of the range and light industrial on the upper end. This equates
to a 62% reduction in the community’s total building energy use (all RCC buildings blended). Because the
high-performance buildings are all-electric – in comparison to the baseline buildings where nearly three-
quarters of energy use is utility gas (Figure 2) – they also have the potential to use carbon-free energy
sources.
Building EUI Community
EUI
Baseline Buildings 44-103 63
High-Performance Buildings 18-32 24
% Reduction 36%-72% 62%
Table 2. Building energy use intensity (EUI) comparison in kBtu/sf-year
9
Figure 2. Community-wide building energy use comparison
3.4 Development Energy Use
To model the development, RCC was split into five neighborhoods: Town Center, Creek Neighborhood, Hill
Neighborhood, Southwest Neighborhood, and Outlot A. The Town Center contains a mix of uses, including
light industrial, commercial (including a potential big box store), multi-family housing, single-family housing,
townhomes, and senior housing. The Creek, Hill, and Southwest Neighborhoods are primarily single-family
homes and townhomes. Outlot A is zoned for light industrial. The neighborhoods are displayed in Figure 1.
Table 3 lists the heating and cooling energy and load values for each neighborhood. These values represent
the cumulative heating and cooling demand from the high-performance building standard from Section 3:
Building Strategies on a tepid water district energy loop. Notably, the Town Center has the highest building
density among the five neighborhoods, accounting for over half of the total building square footage in RCC,
with nearly 2.6 million gross square feet (GSF) of building area.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Baseline High-Performance
MM
B
T
U
Utility Gas
Electricity
10
Building
GSF
Heating/DHW
MMBtu
Heating/DHW
MMBtu/hr
Cooling
Ton-hrs
Cooling
Tons
Town Center 2,576,200 35,000 28.1 2,424,000 2,880
Hill 911,378 12,000 7.6 863,000 820
Creek 384,508 5,000 3.1 343,000 340
SW Neighborhood 698,450 11,000 7.0 617,000 610
Outlot A 425,940 7,000 8.3 313,000 900
Total 4,996,476 70,000 54.0 4,560,000 5,550
Table 3. RCC building square footage, heating energy and load, and cooling energy and load by
neighborhood.
The heating and cooling energy consumption and peak load will be phased according to the current
development schedule. The full buildout of the development is planned for 2030, at which time a majority of
buildings will be constructed and occupied. In the initial year of development, 2027, approximately 40% of
the total development is expected to be completed, contributing a significant portion of the total heating and
cooling energy and load in the early years. Should the development timeline be accelerated or extended the
conclusions in this analysis would remain the same. A district energy system, which requires significant
infrastructure and upfront costs, can benefit from this early concentration of development. The development
building area, heating demand and energy, and cooling demand and energy are summarized by year in
Table 4.
2027 2028 2029 2030 Total
Building Area GSF 1,974,117 1,088,401 635,000 1,298,958 4,996,476
Heating & DHW Demand MMBtu/hr 23.3 10.8 6.2 13.7 54.0
Heating & DHW Energy MMBtu 29,000 17,000 9,000 15,000 70,000
Cooling Demand Tons 2,320 990 560 1,680 5,550
Cooling Energy Ton-hrs 1,770,000 1,080,000 480,000 1,230,000 4,560,000
Table 4. Development building area, energy, and loads by year.
11
4. District Energy System
A district energy system includes three primary components: building connections, thermal energy sources,
and a tepid water distribution system. An underground, closed-loop distribution network circulates clean
water throughout the community at a constant temperature. Water-source heat pumps, installed in each
building, extract heat from the water loop for heating and reject heat into the loop for cooling. The system’s
flexibility, reliability, and efficiency are enhanced by the ability to utilize multiple energy source solutions to
maintain the water loop’s temperature, enabling the selection of the most cost-effective and efficient
options.
Figure 3. RCC district energy concept
4.1 Building Connections
In a district energy system, each building connects individually to the tepid water loop that runs through the
community. Each connection typically includes service piping, service isolation valves, fittings, control valves,
strainers, energy meters, and potentially heat exchangers. While heat exchangers are not necessarily
required for single-family and townhome connections, they are recommended for multifamily and
commercial buildings. These buildings may have internal water loops, and heat exchangers would isolate
the district loop from the building’s internal loop.
The Rice Creek Commons development includes over 640 buildings (including single-family houses).
Connecting all these buildings to the district energy system would cost approximately $4.1 million. If the
system were scaled down to serve only the Town Center, which includes 99 buildings, the estimated
connection costs would be approximately $1 million.
12
The primary focus is on electrifying building heating and cooling demands through the use of water source
heat pumps in the buildings. Water source heat pumps offer a sustainable, reliable, and often cost-effective
energy solution for communities, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating GHG emissions. The
estimated cost for the in-building heat pump equipment is $113.5 million.
4.2 Thermal Energy Solutions
The district energy system allows for a combination of serval energy sources, and this analysis seeks to
determine the most cost-effective and energy efficient options to serve the Rice Creek Commons community.
Several energy sources were analyzed, including connection to the TCAAP groundwater remediation system
(TGRS), closed-loop geothermal wellfields, in-ground heat exchangers, and aquifer thermal energy storage
(ATES). All of these technologies could potentially interact with the groundwater on-site in various ways.
Despite restrictions on groundwater extraction due to contamination, the Amended Environmental Covenant
and Easement for the property specifically permits technologies that do not withdraw water, such as
geothermal heat exchangers.
4.2.1. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION SYSTEM
The RCC development site houses the TCAAP Groundwater Remediation System (TGRS) that continuously
extracts 1,750 gallons per minute (GPM) of water for treatment (as of 2024). This water is treated before
being discharged into a nearby quarry, as shown in Figure 4. The system's consistent water flow makes it a
potential source to facilitate heat exchange for a tepid water loop. The treated water would not directly flow
within the tepid water loop, the loop itself would be a closed system containing only clean water from the
development’s water supply. At its current rate of extraction, the TGRS could potentially provide
approximately 9 MMBtu/hr or 730 tons of heating and cooling capacity. This represents 13% of the total site
cooling load and 30% of the site heating load on the district energy system.
Figure 4. District energy connection to the ground water remediation system.
With much of the necessary infrastructure already in place, this presents a low-cost opportunity for energy
capture and extraction. The TGRS connection would require adding heat exchangers, pumps, and controls to
the treatment building. The estimated cost to connect to a district system is $1.75 million (projected 2027
dollars), which equates to approximately $200,000 per MMBtu/hr or $2,400 per ton of cooling capacity. This
analysis did not cover the regulatory approvals necessary for use of the TGRS, which is owned by the US
Army.
13
4.2.2. CLOSED-LOOP GEOTHERMAL WELLFIELDS
Closed-loop geothermal wellfields coupled with a tepid water district energy system utilize the stable
ground temperature (approximately 55°F) for heating and cooling. A network of closed-loop wells is drilled
into the ground to circulate water, which acts as a heat transfer fluid. This water would circulate through a
closed-loop system, transferring heat to or from the ground as needed. In winter, the ground's warmth is
extracted and distributed to buildings via the tepid water district energy system network. Conversely, in
summer, heat is transferred from buildings to the ground for cooling.
Figure 5. Closed-loop geothermal well
Geothermal wellfields can be installed beneath parking lots, athletic fields, and most green spaces. The wells
are fully concealed, allowing uninterrupted use of the surface area above. Each well typically costs around
$30,000, but costs can vary significantly depending on soil conditions and well depth. Each well can produce
1 to 3 tons of cooling or heating capacity. At an average capacity of 2 tons per well, the cost for geothermal
is $15,000 per ton, or approximately $1.25 million per MMBtu/hr. To serve the entire RCC development,
approximately 2,850 wells would be required, occupying 27.5 acres of land for geothermal wellfields, at a
total estimated cost of $86 million. Figure 6 illustrates potential locations for well fields (shown in orange),
which when combined, would exceed the high-performance building heating and cooling demand for RCC.
The district energy system allows the wellfields to be split up and installed in various locations along the
distribution loop. This provides system redundancy and can allow for reduced distribution pipe sizes. A
district energy network may require 20% to 30% less wells when compared to each building installing their
own wells, due to system load diversity.
14
Figure 6. RCC conceptual locations for geothermal wellfields
15
4.2.3. GEOTHERMAL EXCHANGE WITH IN-GROUND HEAT EXCHANGERS
In-ground heat exchangers are a groundwater-based solution for
heating and cooling buildings. The in-ground heat exchanger taps
into the thermal capacity of groundwater and takes advantage of
consistent groundwater temperatures. These systems provide
significantly more energy per unit of space compared to traditional
closed-loop geothermal wellfields. The system utilizes a heat
exchanger and pump installed in a standard, purpose-built well. The
groundwater remains underground, while the district energy system
circulates potable water, in a closed loop, through the underground
heat exchanger. This design ensures that groundwater remains
undisturbed, mitigating any potential impacts on TGRS and the
groundwater remediation efforts.
The number of in-ground heat exchangers can be scaled to meet
specific heating and cooling demands; each well has a potential
capacity of 600+ MBH (50 tons) of heating and 100 tons of cooling.
This approach reduces the geothermal system's footprint by 95%,
making it ideal for space-constrained sites, minimizing disruption,
installation time, and construction costs. Each in-ground heat
exchanger is estimated to cost $500,000, which equates to $5,000
per ton of cooling and $830,000 per MMBtu/hr of heating. The in-
ground heat exchangers do not need to be installed in a central
location or close to one another. They can be spread out along the
district energy system distribution network, increasing system
resiliency, redundancy, and potentially reducing the distribution system pipe diameter size.
4.2.4. AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE
Aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) is another ground source-based technology that uses the thermal
properties of underground water-bearing rock formations to store and retrieve thermal energy for heating
and cooling applications. ATES relies on a series of wells and piping systems that can move heat between
buildings and the local aquifer. The process works by pumping water from the aquifer to a heat exchanger,
where heat is either extracted or rejected to the aquifer water. The aquifer water is then returned to the
aquifer through another well. In the summer, cool water is pumped from the aquifer to cool buildings, while
in the winter, warmer water is pumped to provide heating. This system allows for efficient use of energy as
the temperature of the aquifer remains relatively constant over the course of a year. The ATES process for a
typical year is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 7. In-ground heat
exchanger style heat transfer
16
Figure 8. Aquifer thermal energy storage process during the cooling season.
ATES is generally more cost-effective than traditional closed-loop geothermal wells or in-ground heat
exchangers, with estimated costs of $6,000 per ton of cooling and $500,000 per MMBtu/hr for heating.
While ATES presents a potential energy resource for RCC, the potential negative impacts on the operation of
the groundwater remediation system were deemed too risky and this technology was not modeled as a
viable option.
4.2.5. PRODUCTION SUMMARY
RCC is well suited for a district energy system that incorporates multiple geothermal and ground source
energy solutions. This system could combine the groundwater remediation system (TGRS) with another
ground-source technology, both connected to a district energy network. This approach offers source and
loop redundancy, as well as opportunities for future expansion and increased capacity.
17
TGRS In-Ground HE
Geothermal
Wellfields
Cost per Ton of Cooling $/Ton $2,420 $5,000 $15,000
Cost per MMBtu/hr of Heating $/MMBtu/hr $200,000 $830,000 $1,250,000
Table 5. Estimated probable cost per unit of production capacity
Integrating heat transfer with the groundwater remediation process offers the lowest installation cost per
unit of energy, it could reduce the RCC district energy production source cost by over $7 million. The
groundwater remediation system would eliminate the requirement for 10 in-ground heat exchangers or 365
geothermal wells (approximately 3.5 acres of wellfield). However, there is sufficient capacity for district
energy from other solutions if it is not possible to use the TGRS. Assuming the next available lowest-cost
energy solution is the in-ground heat exchangers, the impact on the total cost for production capacity is
shown in Table 6.
Without
TGRS
Connection
With TGRS
Connection
RCC Full District Energy MM$ $48.9 $41.7
Town Center District Energy MM$ $26.0 $19.4
Table 6. Cost comparison of the district energy system using the groundwater remediation system to the
energy system or not
4.3. District Energy System Distribution
The community-wide district energy distribution system would operate as a tepid water loop, enabling
buildings to both reject and extract heat. This system would be closed-loop and comprise supply and return
piping in the Town Center and Outlot A and single-pipe loops in the residential neighborhoods. The water in
this closed-loop tepid water system will originally come from the city water system, not the aquifer.
Constructed of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), the distribution piping is estimated to range in diameter
from 2 to 16 inches, except for service laterals. To serve every building on the RCC site a conceptual pipe
route is shown in Figure 9, the route includes over 45,000 trench feet (8.5 miles) of piping.
The estimated cost to install the piping network is $34.3 million. One strategy to reduce distribution costs
involves implementing a single-loop main pipe instead of the traditional supply and return mains. Each
building connection would require a supply and return service pipe equipped with a pump to circulate water.
The water would be drawn from the main loop, passed through a heat pump, and then returned to the loop.
This single-pipe loop approach was assumed for the residential neighborhoods, which reduces installation
costs. However, during periods of high demand, the loop may trend warmer or colder for buildings located
on the far end of the loop, slightly impacting their equipment efficiency.
18
Figure 9. Proposed distribution mains.
19
Another scenario considered limiting the district energy system to the Town Center, shown in purple in
Figure 9. This is the area of RCC with the highest building density. This reduces the required trench length
from approximately 45,000 feet to just over 10,000 feet. As a result, the estimated total distribution cost
decreases to approximately $9.5 million.
5. Energy Modeling Scenarios
Ever-Green and LHB developed energy models for different scenarios and analyzed them for GHG emissions
and life cycle cost over 30 years. These models provide insight into the advantages and disadvantages of
different energy supply options for Rice Creek Commons.
5.1 Scenario Comparison
5.1.1. BUSINESS-AS-USUAL
In a business-as-usual scenario, all buildings within RCC adhere to the current Minnesota Energy Code
(ASHRAE 90.1-2019) and are based on the baseline set in Section 3: Building Strategies. Both natural gas
and electricity serve these buildings, with Xcel Energy as the sole electricity provider. Gas-fired heating
systems, including forced air furnaces, rooftop units, and air handling units, are assumed to be in place.
5.1.2. SCENARIO 1: DISTRICT ENERGY – ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
This scenario involves high-performance buildings, as set in Section 3: Building Strategies, that are entirely
electric. These buildings are integrated into a district energy network, including all single-family homes and
townhomes. Water-to-water heat pumps or water source variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems would
provide heating and cooling to buildings.
5.1.3. SCENARIO 2: DISTRICT ENERGY – TOWN CENTER
Similar to Scenario 1: District Energy – Entire Development, this scenario includes high-performance
buildings, as set in Section 3: Building Strategies, that are entirely electric. However, this scenario
concentrates on a district energy network in the Town Center, which is the densest area of the site and
would serve multi-family housing, senior living, light industrial, and commercial spaces in the Town Center.
Water-source heat pumps or water-source VRF systems would provide heating and cooling for the Town
Center buildings. The single-family homes and townhomes on the rest of the site would not be served by
district energy, and are assumed to use geothermal wellfields at each individual building site with water-
source heat pumps or variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems.
5.1.4. SCENARIO 3: DECENTRALIZED GEOTHERMAL
Scenario 3 does not have a district energy system. Instead, each building has its own electric heating and
cooling equipment. The scenario assumes the same high-performance electric buildings as Scenario 1 and 2.
Heating and cooling would be provided at each individual building site by geothermal ground source with
water-source heat pumps or variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems.
While there is sufficient land area to accommodate geothermal wellfields connected to a district energy
system, the district energy system can leverage large green spaces, playing fields, and parking lots to meet
energy demand. In practice, a playing field with an underlying wellfield on the north end of RCC could serve
buildings on the south end. However, without a district energy system, individual buildings, especially in
20
high-density areas, might not have enough land to meet their heating and cooling energy demands. This
could be mitigated using technologies like in-ground heat exchangers.
5.1.5. OTHER SCENARIOS CONSIDERED
The following scenarios were also modeled but are not included in this analysis.
• Decentralized air source heat pumps or VRF systems. This scenario may require additional
equipment, increased capacities due to potential derating in colder temperatures, and cold climate-
specific components. Electric strip heating might also be necessary for peak loads. This scenario may
not be technically feasible for all building operations. Condenser units could occupy roof space that
could otherwise be used for solar PV. This scenario is not included in the analysis due to feedback
from the developer that if a decentralized system were selected, a decentralized geothermal
(Scenario 3) would be preferred.
• Decentralized electric resistance heat. This scenario is unlikely due to the high electrical demand and
associated energy costs, therefore it is not included in this analysis
5.2. Heating and Cooling GHG Emissions
By state statute, Minnesota’s electric grid is planned to be carbon-free by 2040.2 Until then, the GHG
calculations are based on Xcel Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan. By implementing all-electric heating and
constructing high-performance buildings at RCC, emissions from heating and cooling systems would be
reduced by over 90%. With a district energy system or decentralized geothermal water source systems, the
reduction could be up to 98%. The 30-year cumulative GHG emissions are summarized in Figure 10. Heating
and cooling energy could become carbon-free prior to 2040 by utilizing on-site solar PV or purchasing
renewable energy through Xcel Energy or other providers.
Figure 10. 30-Year cumulative heating and cooling GHG emissions
2 Minn.Stat. 216b.1691 (2023)
364,400
7,100 6,800 6,600
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Business as Usual Scenario 1: District
Energy - Entire
Development
Scenario 2: District
Energy - Town Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
30-Year Cumulative GHG Emissions (Metric Tons)
21
5.3 Energy Model & Life Cycle Cost analysis
The life cycle analysis considered equipment efficiencies, energy rates, and the capital and operating costs
associated with the proposed energy systems.
5.3.1 CAPITAL COST
The estimated capital costs for each scenario are summarized in Table 7.
Scenario 1:
District
Energy -
Entire
Development
Scenario
2: District
Energy -
Town
Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
Distribution Network MM$ $34.3 $9.5 $0.0
Building Connections MM$ $117.6 $117.6 $117.6
Energy Source/Sink MM$ $41.7 $66.3 $99.6
Total MM$ $193.6 $193.5 $217.2
Total with IRA Reductions MM$ $161.6 $139.8 $130.3
Table 7. Probable estimated capital cost for heating and cooling RCC buildings
By leveraging the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a 40% reduction in the capital costs for the district energy
distribution system, thermal sources, and building connections was assumed. The in-building equipment
costs, such as water-source heat pumps and VRF systems, were assumed to be the same for each scenario.
However, the IRA deduction does not apply to in-building equipment for buildings connected to the district
energy system. The IRA impacted the total capital cost for each scenario as follows:
• Scenario 1 – With IRA funding, the total capital cost decreased by $32 million.
• Scenario 2 - This scenario includes decentralized systems outside the Town Center. The decentralized
geothermal well costs were estimated at $46.9 million, and the district energy thermal source was
estimated at $19.4 million, totaling $66.3 million. The IRA was also applied to the decentralized
systems, including the in-building equipment, decreasing the total capital cost by $53.6 million.
• Scenario 3 - This is the most capital-intensive scenario, but more of the IRA funding can be applied to
in-building systems. This reduced the total estimated capital cost from $217.2 million down to $130.3
million, a reduction of $86.9 million.
If the IRA were applied to in-building equipment for district energy connections, the total cost for Scenarios 1
and 2 would be $116 million for each scenario. This would reduce the total capital cost to be lower than
Scenario 3 by approximately $14 million. Further research is necessary to determine the IRA’s applicability in
this context.
22
5.3.2. OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs consist of electricity consumption for water-source heat pump and VRF system, pumps, and
well pumps. Additionally, the district energy system requires a management and maintenance allowance.
Capital costs are not included in the operational costs.
In 2030, the first year of full buildout, the estimated operational cost under a business-as-usual scenario is
$2.6 million. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 have estimated cost savings of $0.7 million, $0.8 million, and $1 million,
respectively, compared to business as usual, as summarized in Table 8. This results in an estimated
operational cost savings ranging from 27% to 38% depending on the scenario.
Scenario 1:
District
Energy -
Entire
Development
Scenario 2:
District
Energy -
Town
Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
Green Energy Operational Cost (MM$) $1.9 $1.8 $1.6
Operational Cost Savings (MM$) $0.7 $0.8 $1.0
Operational Cost Savings % 27% 31% 38%
Table 8. Estimated operational costs in the year 2030.
The 2030 operational cost trend continues throughout the 30-year life-cycle cost analysis. A comparison of
the cumulative operational costs from 2027 to 2050 is illustrated in Figure 11.
23
Figure 11. 30-year life cycle operational cost comparison
5.3.3. NET PRESENT VALUE
A net present value (NPV) analysis was conducted based on a 30-year life cycle cost analysis from 2027
through 2057. The analysis, summarized in Figure 12, included capital costs and operational costs. Scenario
3, decentralized geothermal, has the lowest net present value, making it the most financially advantageous
investment over the 30-year period. This is primarily attributed to the IRA funding being applied to the in-
building equipment. Scenario 1, district energy for the entire RCC development, has the highest net present
value as it incurs the full cost of in-building equipment.
$97
$72 $69
$60
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Business as Usual -
Natural Gas & Electric
Scenario 1: District
Energy - Entire
Development
Scenario 2: District
Energy - Town Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
Life Cycle Operational Cost (MM$)
24
To assess the impact of in-building equipment costs when the IRA reduction is not applied to district energy
connections, an additional model was completed with the IRA also applied to the district energy in-building
equipment costs. This reversed the outcome presented in Figure 12. Scenario 1, which initially had the
highest net present value, now has the lowest at $134 million, a reduction of $41 million. Conversely,
Scenario 3, previously the least costly, now has the highest NPV at $148 million. As illustrated in Figure 12,
the blue bars represent the scenarios where the IRA is not applied to the in-building equipment for district
energy system connections, while the green line represents the results with the IRA applied to the in-building
equipment for all scenarios.
Figure 12. Impact of IRA funding on in-building equipment: NPV comparison for green energy scenarios
with and without IRA support for district energy connection in-building equipment.
5.3.4. ENERGY AND LCCA MODELING SUMMARY
The energy model and life-cycle analysis evaluated three scenarios: District Energy – Entire Development,
District Energy – Town Center, and Decentralized Geothermal. These scenarios were compared against each
other and the baseline (business as usual) to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of different
energy strategies.
Prior to applying the IRA funding reduction, the decentralized geothermal scenario had the highest capital
cost. However, with IRA funding applied to all heating and cooling equipment in the decentralized buildings,
it becomes the most cost-effective option, with the lowest capital cost to implement and the lowest cost per
metric ton of carbon avoided. This scenario also provides the lowest projected operating costs, resulting in
the lowest NPV among all scenarios. The results of the energy model and life-cycle cost analysis for each
scenario are summarized in Table 9.
$175
$157
$148
$134 $136
$148
$100
$110
$120
$130
$140
$150
$160
$170
$180
Scenario 1: District Energy - Entire
Development
Scenario 2: District Energy - Town
Center
Scenario 3: Decentralized
Geothermal
Green Energy NPV (MM$)
Green Energy Scenarios IRA Applied to All Capital Costs
25
Scenario 1:
District
Energy –
Entire
Development
Scenario 2:
District
Energy –
Town
Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
Capital Cost (With Reductions) (MM$) $162 $140 $130
Green Energy NPV (MM$) $175 $157 $148
2030 Operational Cost Savings (MM$) $0.7 $0.8 $1.0
Life Cycle Operational Cost Savings (MM$) $25.0 $27.6 $36.3
Life Cycle GHG Savings (tons) 357,000 358,000 358,000
Capital $ per Ton CO2 Avoided ($) $453 $391 $364
Table 9. Life cycle cost analysis results.
The analysis assumes that IRA funding does not apply to the in-building equipment costs for buildings
connected to a district energy system. However, if IRA funding were applied to in-building costs in all three
scenarios, the results would be reversed. Scenario 1 would become the lowest-cost option, with the lowest
net present value (NPV) and lowest cost per metric ton of carbon avoided.
6. Renewable Electrical Energy Strategies
Multiple renewable energy strategies are available to serve the needs of Rice Creek Commons, including
both on- and off-site options, as described below.
6.1. Xcel Energy’s Planned Energy Mix
In 2023, 42% of the energy used to generate the electricity sold by Xcel came from renewable energy
sources.3 Including nuclear power, 64% of the energy was from carbon-free sources.4 Xcel plans for these
percentages to continue increasing (Table 10), and by 2040, Minnesota law requires all electricity sold in the
state to be from carbon-free sources.5,6 Because of this rapid decarbonization, any grid electricity used at
RCC will have a relatively low carbon footprint over the life of the buildings.
3 Xcel Energy, Certified Renewable Percentage for Minnesota, 2023. To avoid allocating renewable energy attributes to
multiple entities, this percentage only includes sources where the renewable energy certificates (RECs) were retired on
behalf of all customers. Additional renewable energy was generated through programs like Windsource, where the
customers receive the RECs.
4 Xcel Energy, Generating Power: Energy Mix Breakdown (Upper Midwest), accessed September 20, 2024.
5 Xcel Energy, 2024-2040 Upper Midwest Integrated Resource Plan, filed February 1st, 2024.
6 M.S. 216b.1691
26
2023 2030 2040
Renewable 42% 64% 75%
Carbon-Free 64% 80%+ 100%
Table 10. Xcel Energy’s planned grid mix 7,8
6.2 On-Site Solar
Decarbonizing the electric grid can be supported by distributed on-site generation in developments like RCC,
with rooftops and parking lots hosting solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Based on the building assumptions
used for this analysis, the rooftops at Rice Creek Commons are estimated to be able to host 27 MW of solar
PV, which would meet 84% of the community’s estimated annual electricity use under the Scenario 2:
District Energy – Town Center (Table 11). About half of this generation is from commercial, industrial,
institutional, and multifamily buildings, while the other half is from townhomes and single-family homes.
Because of their geometry and energy loads, multifamily buildings are typically only able to produce a
portion (around 40%) of their annual electricity use, while other building types are typically able to generate
more electricity than they use each year.
The amount of on-site solar could be further increased with the use of solar over parking lots and/or other
ground-mounted systems. To qualify as a net-zero energy community, RCC would need to generate as
much energy as it uses on an annual basis. Installing solar panels over parking lots would help realize this
goal.
Generation
Capacity
(MW)
Annual
Generation
(MWh)
% of
Electricity
Use
Rooftop Solar Potential: All Buildings 27.1 31,900 84%
Commercial, industrial, institutional, multifamily 13.8 15,900 42%
Townhomes, single-family homes 13.3 16,000 42%
Table 11. Rooftop solar potential
Opportunities for on-site solar should be evaluated with consideration to:
• Grid connection and capacity: Solar PV systems can be set up to primarily serve the building’s own
consumption but can also sell excess energy to the grid. Sites anticipating large amounts of excess
generation should coordinate early with the electric utility to ensure the local grid has the capacity to
accept this electricity.
7 Xcel Energy, NSP Renewable Generation Forecasted 2024-2040, provided to LHB upon request, based on the
Preferred Plan in the 2024-2040 Integrated Resource Plan filed February 1, 2024.
8 Xcel Energy, 2024-2040 Upper Midwest Integrated Resource Plan, filed February 1st, 2024.
27
• Costs/Incentives: There are many programs that can reduce the life-cycle costs of on-site solar,
including grant funding, low-interest green loans, property-assessed financing, tax credits, and
generation incentives. Eligibility for these programs and the level of benefits may depend on variables
like location, building type, income level, system size, domestic content, and prevailing wage.
• Resilience: Buildings with critical loads will want to consider how on-site solar can support
maintained functionality when grid power is unavailable. This typically requires battery storage and
specialized equipment to cut the system off from the grid during these periods.
Additionally, the following information should be used to determine how to account for on-site solar when
calculating greenhouse gas emissions or making statements about renewable energy. While there is overlap
between these two types of accounting, there are important nuances that differentiate them.
• Renewable energy statements: Making claims about renewable energy use requires owning the
renewable energy attributes of the energy used, tracked via renewable energy certificates (RECs). If a
building owner sells the RECs associated with their on-site solar system – for example, by
participating in an incentive program like Xcel’s Solar*Rewards – that renewable energy use cannot
be credited to the building or community. In this case, the community could state they generate
renewable electricity but could not claim that a certain percentage of their electricity use is from
renewable sources.
• Carbon accounting: Any renewable electricity that is generated and used directly on-site (“behind the
meter”) can be counted as carbon-free building energy use. However, carbon-free electricity sold to
the grid is accounted for within the grid’s carbon emission rate, meaning that it cannot also be
claimed by the building.
6.3. Utility Green Tariff
Another option for the community to support renewable energy development is for building owners to
subscribe to a utility green tariff through Xcel Energy. These are currently available through the
Renewable*Connect program, which supports new wind and solar projects in Minnesota. Customers pay a
small premium on their electric bills, purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs) in 100 kWh blocks at
$1.50 per block. They also receive fuel cost credits for the subscribed energy. This typically balances out to
$6 to $8 per month of added electricity costs for a residential customer.9
To be fully carbon-free, all electricity purchases for the community must include bundled RECs, such as those
purchased through a utility green tariff.
6.4. Other Renewable Energy Options
While the topics described above are some of the most common ways to incorporate renewable energy
sources into new developments, additional opportunities may include:
• Other on-site renewables – such as wind or solar thermal
• Other off-site renewables – such as community solar, power purchase agreements, renewable energy
investment funds, direct access to wholesale renewables market, and unbundled RECs
9 Xcel Energy, Renewable*Connect Flex Information Sheet: Minnesota, 2023.
28
• Using biogas or green hydrogen to address hard-to-electrify loads
Each of these options has varied implications for carbon accounting and REC ownership and different levels
of value regarding resilience, environmental justice, and additionality (making an impact that would not
have happened otherwise).
7. Opportunities and Considerations
7.1. Xcel Geothermal Pilot
Xcel Energy is seeking innovative pilot projects to reduce their natural gas system emissions. A key focus is a
ground source geothermal heat pump pilot project, up to 500 tons, to serve a multi-use development.
Pending approval of the Natural Gas Innovation Act (NGIA), Xcel will initiate a siting analysis to identify
potential pilot locations. Comprehensive feasibility studies will then evaluate environmental and construction
challenges, load diversity, geothermal wellfield size, and drilling accessibility to select the optimal site. NGIA
approval is expected by late 2024, with a potential pilot location identified by mid-2025. Rice Creek
Commons appears to align well with the focus of this pilot, and the project team is tracking this potential
opportunity.
A challenge is the NGIA flat energy rate for buildings that are part of the pilot, which means those customers
would pay much lower energy bills than other buildings. To mitigate energy costs disparities and maximize
the pilot project’s compatibility with the goals of Rice Creek Commons, connecting the affordable housing
buildings to the pilot is a potential solution. Another option would be for the Xcel pilot to feed into a broader
district energy network serving RCC. This would eliminate the rate disparity concern and would make Xcel’s
energy available to all district energy system customers at RCC.
7.2. Potential Funding Sources
The analysis included Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds, which reduce applicable capital costs by 40%.
These funds are available in the form of rebates for eligible capital costs. The Minnesota Climate Innovation
Finance Authority (MNCIFA) could potentially provide bridge funding for upfront costs before the rebates
come in. While the IRA is currently the major funding reduction available, additional funding sources could
become accessible before construction is scheduled for 2027.
8. Emission Analysis
Once the community is fully developed in 2030, Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to generate less annual
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than the Business-as-Usual Scenario. Specifically, Scenario 1: District Energy
– Entire Development is estimated to generate 83% less annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than the
Business-as-Usual Scenario, Scenario 2: District Energy – Town Center is estimated to generate 82% less
annual carbon dioxide emissions than the Business-as-Usual scenario, and Scenario 3: Decentralized
Geothermal is estimated to generate 79% less carbon dioxide emissions than the Business-as-Usual
scenario. These savings come from eliminating fossil fuel use, constructing high-performance buildings, and
using an alternate energy system (the technologies modeled in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3).
29
Figure 13. Community-wide emissions from buildings in 2030
In the near term, the community’s carbon footprint could be further reduced or eliminated by using carbon-
free electricity sources – such as on-site solar and/or utility green tariffs, as described in Section 6:
Renewable Electrical Energy Strategies. Since all of Minnesota’s electricity must be carbon-free by 2040, an
all-electric community should have no carbon emissions from building energy use after that year.
9. Draft Sustainability Design Guidelines
The development of sustainability design guidelines (Appendix I) for RCC supports the JDA's vision to create
a climate-forward development by providing a set of rigorous requirements for the developers of
buildings/parcels within the community to follow. These guidelines will support the RCC energy vision
through requirements for third party rating certifications, building energy efficiency and electrification, on-
site renewable energy generation, connection to district energy, embodied carbon reduction, support for
electric vehicle infrastructure, and tracking of performance metrics. Although a final version of the guidelines
was outside the scope of this project, a comprehensive draft of this team's recommendations was developed
and is ready for further discussion with stakeholders.
The following key requirements are included in the draft:
• Each building and tenant improvement to achieve LEED BD+C New Construction certification at the
silver level or above.
• All buildings and tenant improvements shall achieve 50% better energy efficiency than the MN Energy
Code, certification from the DOE's Zero Energy Ready Home program, or Phius CORE certification as
a Passive House.
• All buildings shall be all-electric and shall not use any fossil fuels.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
Business as Usual Scenario 1: District
Energy - Entire
Development
Scenario 2: District
Energy - Town
Center
Scenario 3:
Decentralized
Geothermal
me
t
r
i
c
t
o
n
s
C
O
2
Utility Gas
Electricity
30
• All buildings shall install photovoltaic systems that maximize on-site energy production.
• All buildings shall connect to the district energy system if this system is available to them.
• All buildings shall conduct a whole building life-cycle assessment and achieve at least a 10%
reduction in global warming potential.
• Rigorous requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure.
• All owners shall report building energy consumption and other key energy and water metrics.
• Outline of administration and waiver processes.
10. Selection of Certification Program
In order to support the energy vision and guiding principles of the RCC community, as well as inform the
methodology used to establish RCC’s greenhouse gas baseline, LHB recommended LEED for Communities
as a community-wide certification program. LEED for Communities is a data-driven, comprehensive third-
party system that addresses transportation, water, energy, natural systems, greenhouse gas reduction,
materials/resources, and quality of life.
To inform this selection, LHB's Project Team analyzed two third-party rating system options. These options
were to a) require a rating system for the whole community or b) require sustainability design guidelines for
individual buildings. LHB identified LEED Cities and Communities: Plan and Design, as well as LEED for
Neighborhood Development, as specific rating systems that could be required for the entire RCC community.
LEED for Building Design and Construction (BD+C), the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program, and LEED
Campus were identified by LHB as potential sustainable design guideline frameworks for individual
buildings (where LEED Campus is an approach to certification, rather than a rating system). For each of
these options, the pros/cons, central areas of impact, and anticipated fee were considered.
LEED for Communities was chosen for further evaluation because of its focus on public access to green
space, green travel priorities, and ambitious strategies for pushing health/wellbeing, which align with some
of RCC’s key goals. LHB analyzed the feasibility of achieving LEED for Communities Gold or Platinum
certification, which are ambitious targets meant to "push" the project beyond where it would be without a
rating system. The LEED for Communities Scorecard was used to identify areas of required and optional
credit. Strategies required by LEED for Communities include ecosystem assessment, public access to green
spaces, integrated water management, social infrastructure, and an organics collections service. The initial
feasibility analysis indicates that pursuing Platinum certification is a reasonable goal. The timeline from
LEED for Communities registration to precertification to certification was estimated to be around 2 years,
and ballpark fees for the JDA were estimated to be around $250,000.
After determining the feasibility of LEED for Communities, LHB reviewed the system's pros/cons with the
Energy Advisory Committee (EAC). Some of the largest pros of LEED for Communities are its reliability and
ability to "push" the project if Gold or Platinum is pursued. Some of the cons of LEED for Communities are its
high input needs: the program takes a lot of time, effort, and monetary expenses. Based on these
discussions, LHB proposed a recommendation for pursuing LEED for Communities to the EAC and the JDA,
31
who approved the decision to pursue LEED for Communities certification for the community as a whole.
Further discussion will be needed to confirm the pathway for certification of individual buildings.
11. Concerns and Mitigation
Though many of the green energy and sustainability strategies analyzed are becoming industry standard,
some of the recommendations may go above and beyond the typical business-as-usual for development. As
such, there may be some questions about the technical and financial feasibility of the measures described
above. Based on Ever-Green Energy and LHB’s analysis and professional experience, they believe these
concerns can be mitigated. The project team is committed to collaborating with project partners to
implement these ambitious strategies.
• The high-performance buildings would be constructed to a significantly higher energy standard than
the current building code. This might result in increased capital costs to construct these buildings. To
mitigate these cost increases, as well as reducing the operational cost of energy for occupants, the
following rebates and funding sources may be available:
o Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
Investment Tax Credits (ITC) for clean energy solutions including solar and
geothermal: this program enables tax-exempt organizations to receive a direct
play credit for 6-70% of the system cost depending on several factors. For this
project, a 40-50% credit is a feasible estimate.
Home Energy Rebates (HOMES & HEAR): incentives for energy efficient equipment
and appliances may be available up to $14,000 per unit, however, this program
has not yet launched and details are still in development.
45L Tax Credit: this program provides federal tax credits for builders of energy
efficient single or multifamily homes. Credits range from $2500-5000 per single
family home or $500-$5000 per dwelling unit. The maximum credit of $5000 for
single family homes and $5000 per dwelling unit (in a multifamily building) is
based on achieving DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program and prevailing wage
requirements.
179D Energy Efficient Buildings Tax Deduction: the IRA enhanced this tax
deduction to enable the designer of tax exempt-owned buildings to deduct up to
$5.00 per square foot for energy efficient building projects.
o Xcel Energy rebates
• Green Bank Loans (MNCIFA)
• Ground-Source Energy Systems Interaction with Contaminated Groundwater: The amended and
restated deed for the site that restricts certain uses of the groundwater on the site explicitly allows for
the use of geothermal energy for the development.
• Land Area Available for Decentralized Geothermal Wells: Decentralized geothermal (Scenario 3) is
shown as the most economical scenario, but its implementation may present challenges. Individual
buildings, especially in high-density areas, might lack sufficient land for geothermal wells to meet
32
their heating and cooling energy demands. While in-ground heat exchangers could be considered as
an alternative, developer feedback indicated a preference for geothermal wellfields. District energy
uses land more efficiently and would not have this issue.
• Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) rebates defray capital costs more for a decentralized system (Scenario
3) than with district energy (Scenarios 1 and 2). The project team is researching whether there are
other ways to structure a system to mitigate this issue.
12. Next Steps
The findings in this report demonstrate that an all-electric, carbon-free development is both technically and
financially feasible at Rice Creek Commons. This is possible by implementing a combination of strategies:
reducing energy use through high-performance building standards and providing clean energy from sources
such as geothermal ground source and onsite solar.
Implementation of the strategies described in this document will involve deep collaboration between the
JDA, developers, and other project partners. As a first step, the JDA could adopt a policy that the Rice Creek
Commons development be all-electric and carbon-free. This would mean that the development would be
served be renewable energy sources, and no natural gas infrastructure would be built onsite. This policy
would provide guidance for the project team and developers while still allowing flexibility to determine
specific technologies and strategies to meet this requirement.
The project team will:
• Work with project partners to finalize Sustainability Design Guidelines for JDA approval and
implementation.
• Begin LEED for Communities certification process.
• Engage developers to continue to understand cost implications of green energy and sustainability
measures and incentives to offset costs.
• Engage developers to compare district energy and decentralized geothermal energy systems.
o If a district energy system is determined to be the best path forward, the project team will work
with the JDA to determine the preferred organizational structure and financing strategy.
33
Appendix I – Draft Sustainable Design Guidelines
RICE CREEK COMMONS SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
Last Revised: September 19, 2024
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of these Sustainability Design Guidelines
(SDL) is to advance the TCAAP Joint Development Authority’s
(JDA’s) mission to advance sustainable development and to reduce
energy use and CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate
change at the Rice Creek Commons development. Each building and
parcel in the Development shall comply with the SDL. Alternative
strategies that show demonstrable and quantifiable progress towards
these goals may be considered alternative compliance to the
requirements below and potentially approved as a waiver as provided
in the recorded Covenants.
1.2 LEED Certification. The JDA is pursuing Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) v4.1 for Communities: Plan + Design
certification for the Development and plans to submit for pre-
certification at the platinum level. Each building and tenant
improvement shall achieve LEED BD+C New Construction
certification at the silver level or above using the newest version
available at the time of registration. The LEED boundary for each
improved parcel of land within the Development shall be the same as
the boundary of that parcel. Other systems will be considered for one-
to four-unit residential buildings, including the DOE’s Zero Energy
Ready Home (ZERH) program and Phius’ Passive House standards.
1.3 Building Decarbonization.
1.3.1 Energy Efficiency. All buildings and tenant
improvements shall achieve: 50% better energy
efficiency than the applicable Minnesota Energy Code,
certification from the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home
(ZERH) program, or Phius CORE certification as a
Passive House.
1.3.2 Electrification. Except as otherwise expressly
provided herein, all buildings shall be all-electric
and shall not use any fossil fuels. Use of fossil
fuels can only be incorporated with the prior
written consent of the JDA and must be restricted
to systems or devices for which an equivalent all-
electric system or design is unavailable,
34
impractical, or is determined to present an equity
gap, as reasonably determined by JDA. All
buildings using any fossil fuels must offset an
equivalent amount of carbon emissions each year.
1.3.3 Renewable Energy. All buildings in the Development
must install photovoltaic (PV) systems that either:
1.3.3.1 generate, on an annual basis, enough electricity
to meet one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the
site's anticipated energy use; or
1.3.3.2 include a rooftop array with a rated capacity of
not less than 10.75 watts per gross square foot of
roof area and a covered parking array for all parking
lots containing twenty or more parking spaces –
including the top level of multi-level parking
structures – with a rated capacity of not less than 7.5
watts per gross square foot of parking area.
All panels used in PV systems must be rated as Tier 1
panels and qualify under the Inflation Reduction Act for
the Investment Tax Credit. Any renewable energy credits
generated from PV systems in the Development shall be
credited to the Development as a whole. Projects that do
not generate enough energy, on an annual basis, to meet
one hundred percent of their energy use must purchase
green power for the remainder.
1.3.4 District Energy. For heating and cooling, all
buildings shall connect to the District Energy
System if a District Energy System is available to
them..
1.3.5 Embodied Carbon. Except as otherwise expressly
provided herein, all buildings shall conduct a whole
building life-cycle assessment and achieve at least a 10%
reduction in global warming potential, using the
calculation methods established in LEED BD+C: New
Construction. This Section does not apply to single
family homes or tenant improvements within
commercial buildings.
1.4 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. The Development shall include
infrastructure to support electric vehicles (EV) – as defined by the
International Building Code – as follows:
1.4.1 For non-residential parcels where four or more
vehicle parking spaces are provided, not less than
4% of the total number of parking spaces or not
less than 8% of designated employee-only parking
35
spaces shall be EV ready spaces or EVSE spaces.
Not less than 30% of the total number of parking
spaces shall be EV capable spaces, EV ready
spaces, or EVSE spaces.
1.4.2 For residential parcels, not less than 20% of the
total number of parking spaces shall be EV ready
spaces or EVSE spaces. Not less than 75% of the
total number of parking spaces shall be EV
capable spaces, EV ready spaces, or EVSE spaces.
1.5 Reporting. On an annual basis, all owners shall report monthly
whole-building energy consumption, on-site energy generation,
electrical demand, and water use to Energy Star Portfolio
Manager and ensure this information is accessible to the JDA.
Owners shall provide other building data upon the reasonable
request of JDA.
DOCUMENTATION OF SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES
The Joint Development Authority (JDA) design review should be
concurrent and streamlined with all City of Arden Hills review processes.
Documentation of the Sustainability Requirements
• Proof of registration with LEED.
• Checklist of the planned LEED credits to be achieved.
• Within one year of building occupancy, provide
documentation reporting the LEED certification level and
credits achieved.
Energy efficient design and operations
• All buildings and tenant improvements: energy model
report showing achievement of 50% better efficiency
than the applicable Minnesota Energy Code, certification
from the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH)
program, or Phius CORE certification as a Passive House.
Electrification
• Mechanical plans documenting that buildings are all-electric.
• If granted an exception to use gas service, documentation
showing offset of an equivalent amount of carbon
emissions from offsite sources.
Renewable energy
• PV system specifications showing that panels meet
36
requirements of Section 2.3.3.
•PV system sizing documentation indicating that system
will generate enough electricity to meet requirements of
Section 2.3.3.
District energy
•Mechanical plans documenting that buildings will be
connected to a District Energy System for heating and
cooling, if provided by Declarant, its affiliates, or other
unrelated third parties.
Embodied carbon
•All buildings (except tenant improvements and detached
single family residential) shall provide documentation for
LEED MR Credit: Reduce Embodied Carbon indicating
achievement of at least 2 points.
Electric vehicle infrastructure
•For each parking area, provide a site plan indicating the
total number of parking spaces and number achieving the
EV infrastructure requirements of Section 2.4.
Reporting
•Upon building occupancy, set up Energy Star Portfolio
Manager to enable sharing with the Declarant.
•Annually, report monthly whole-building energy
consumption, on-site energy generation, electrical
demand, and water use to Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
Documentation
•Use the provided Sustainability Guidelines Documentation
Package in support of these requirements.
Objective: EAC understands how their goals can be supported by adopting a green rating
system for the whole community, for individual buildings, or both, and establish a process
for finalizing the decision.
DISCUSS:
•Review goals discussed at 5/2 meeting
•Rating system evaluation process
•LEED for Communities overview
•Sustainability Design Guidelines overview
•Next steps
Agenda
Rice Creek Commons will be a vibrant and unique, climate-forward development that aligns with the goals outlined in
the State of Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework: carbon neutrality, clean energy, climate resiliency, equity and
innovation. Rice Creek Commons will attract investment and partnership that will create sustainable benefits for the
community.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
•Develop a resilient community for energy and other utilities using clean energy technologies, reducing
consumption, and reusing local resources onsite.
•Implement infrastructure solutions that are flexible and scalable over 50 years, including developing the site to be
adaptable to future technological needs.
•Deliver a model of efficient energy and water usage that minimizes Rice Creek Commons’ impact on the
environment.
•Create an economically competitive and attractive environment for developers and businesses to create a vibrant
community with multi-modal transportation options.
Energy Vision
Appendix II – LEED for Communities Recommendation
Presentation Slide Deck
37
Goal Review
RICE CREEK
COMMONS…
Is walkable and sustainable within itself.
Achieves ambitious goals without pricing itself out of the market.
Is the model for communities across the U.S.
Inspires others.
Demonstrates trying to go as far as possible.
Is financially viable for the City/County.
Require a rating system for the
whole community
• LEED for Communities: Plan
and Design
Require sustainability design
guidelines
• LEED for Building Design +
Construction v5 for commercial
buildings & apartments
• Zero Energy Ready Homes (ZERH)
for single family & townhomes
• Guidelines to address high
priority goals
Pathways in Support of Energy Vision
and/or
38
Task: selection of certification program
The Project Team is proposing analysis of two options to help inform selection of a
third-party rating system that will guide the community to achieving ambitious
sustainability goals.
LHB will review the feasibility of achieving points in “LEED for Communities: Plan and
Design” and “LEED for Neighborhood Development: Plan,” and will assist the JDA in
identifying next steps toward certification.
A decision on the certification system will help inform the methodology used to
establish the GHG baseline.
Documentation toward LEED certification is outside the timeline and budget of this
project.
Rating System Evaluation Process
LEED Cities and Communities: Plan
and Design
•For use in planning stage of a new
community
•Data-driven, comprehensive system
addressing natural systems, transportation,
water, energy, GHG reduction, materials,
resources, quality of life
LEED for Neighborhood
Development
•For use in planning stage of a new
neighborhood
•Focus on site selection, sustainable
neighborhood design, green
infrastructure/buildings
LEED for Building Design and
Construction (BD+C)
•For use during building design and
construction of a new building, certified
post-occupancy
•Versions for specific buildings types such as
residential, retail, warehouses are available
DOE Zero Energy Ready Home
Program
•For use during design and construction of
residential buildings, certified post-
occupancy
•Focus on energy and GHG emissions
reduction
LEED Campus
•Note that this is an approach to certification,
not a rating system
•Used to certify multiple buildings on a single
site that are pursuing LEED commercial rating
systems
Rating System Options
39
1.Owner hires consultant to guide project through certification process
2.Owner pays registration fee
3.Consultant works with team to select credits to pursue
4.Team produces documentation for prerequisites and selected credits with
guidance from consultant
5.Owner pays certification fee and consultant submits for third-party review
6.GBCI provides review comments and team responds with additional
documentation
7.GBCI grants certification
Typical LEED Process
•LEED for Communities precertification option
Enables marketing as “precertified” in advance of final certification
•Feasible timeline
1 year from registration to precertification
1 year from precertification to certification
•Ballpark fees (JDA)
Recommended consultant - SIG: approx. $113,000
USGBC/GBCI: approx. $50,000 (based on size)
LEED for Communities Specifics
40
LEED for Communities Scorecard
Pros:
•Provides a third-party certification to ensure
requirements are met
•Gives the project a recognizable label for
promotional use
•Helps guide sustainability decision-making
•Enables project to make a verified claim about GHG
emissions
•Can be used to push the project beyond where it
would be without a rating system
LEED for Communities Pros/Cons
Cons:
•Large expense for JDA
•Takes a lot of time and effort
•May not push the project
Where it doesn’t align with plans already in
place
Unless Gold or Platinum is pursued
41
How LEED for Communities Helps Push Sustainability
Requirements for:
• Providing public access to green space/wetlands
• Including an organics collections service
Optional points for:
• Certifying buildings to LEED
• Reducing light pollution
• Including pedestrian and bike infrastructure
• Employing strategies to reduce travel by individual car
• Designing to reduce GHG emissions
• Including on-site renewable energy generation
• Participating in utility demand-response programs
• Designing paving with recycled content
• Employing outdoor air quality monitoring and other health/wellbeing strategies
Sustainable Design Guidelines
may be used in addition to or
in lieu of LEED for
Communities to address:
•Building certification requirements
•Energy efficient design and
operations
•Electrification
•Renewable energy
•District energy
•Embodied carbon
•EV infrastructure
•Waste management
•Other
Sustainable Design Guidelines
42
Pros:
•Helps guide sustainability decision-making
•Tailored to specific project goals
•Less time/effort than LEED for Communities
•LEED/ZERH certification fees paid by
developer, not JDA
•Can be used to push the project beyond where
it would be without guidelines
Sustainable Design Guidelines Pros/Cons
Cons:
•No overall certification label
•Requires administration
LEED BD+C v5
LEED v5 has three central areas of
impact:
•Decarbonization
•Quality of life
•Ecological conservation and
restoration
Opening for registration in early
2025.
43
A ZERH is a high-performance home that is so energy efficient, a
renewable energy system could offset most or all the home's annual
energy use.
DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program (ZERH)
Requirements:
1. A home must meet all requirements of the applicable program version,
based on building type.
Townhomes can participate in either single family or multifamily
programs
Single family with permit after 1/1/24 - Single Family Version 2, Rev. 1
Multifamily with permit after 1/1/25 - Multifamily Version 2
2. The builder/developer must be registered as a ZERH program partner
Requires free registration and watching a 40-minute online training
3. The project must be certified by an approved third-party verifier
DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program (ZERH)
Funding:
45L tax credit is $5,000 for single family homes, and
$5,000 per dwelling unit
Need to meet prevailing wage requirements
Offered from 12/31/22-1/1/33
44
Decide on an approach to certification and sustainable design guidelines.
Who is deciding?
What is the timeline?
How will the decision be documented?
Next Steps
45
LEED v4.1 Cities and Communities: Plan and Design Cities
Project Checklist
Y ?N Y ?N
5 0 0 5 29 2 0 31
Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required
5 0 0 Credit 5 18 1 0 Prereq 19
4 0 0 Credit 4
5 8 0 13 6 0 0 Credit 6
Y Prereq Ecosystem Assessment Required 1 1 0 Credit Grid Harmonization 2
Y Prereq Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required
Y Prereq Green Spaces Required 5 4 2 Materials and Resources 11
0 5 0 Credit Natural Resources Conservation and Restoration - Rice Creek?5 Y Prereq Construction and Demolition Waste Management Required
2 0 0 Credit Light Pollution Reduction 2 Y Prereq Solid Waste Management Required
3 3 0 Credit 6 0 2 0 Credit Organic Waste Treatment 2
5 0 0 Credit Recycling Infrastructure 5
4 8 6 Transportation and Land Use 18 0 2 0 Credit Responsible Sourcing 2
0 2 4 Credit Compact, Mixed Use and Transit Oriented Development 6 0 0 2 Credit Smart Waste Management Systems 2
1 3 0 Credit Walkability and Bikeability 4
0 0 2 Credit Access to Quality Transit 2 4 4 2 Quality of Life 10
2 0 0 Credit Clean Transportation 2 Y Prereq Demographic Assessment Required
0 2 0 Credit Mobility Management 2 Y Prereq Social Infrastructure Required
1 1 0 Credit 2 0 0 2 Credit Affordable Housing 2
2 4 0 Credit Public Health and Wellbeing 6
7 2 3 Water Efficiency 12 2 0 0 Credit Emergency Management and Response 2
Y Prereq Integrated Water Management Required
Y Prereq Water Access and Quality Required 3 3 0 Innovation 6
5 0 0 Credit Stormwater Management 5 3 3 0 Credit Innovation 6
0 2 3 Credit Wastewater Management 5
2 0 0 Credit Smart Water Systems 2 2 2 0 Regional Priority 4
2 2 0 Credit 4
64 33 13 TOTAL Possible Points: 110
Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110
Regional Priority
Attempted Points 110
Priority Sites - ask about definition of infill
Resilience Planning
Energy Efficiency
Natural Systems and Ecology Renewable Energy
Integrative Process Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Integrative Planning and Design Process Power Access, Reliability and Resiliency
Green Building Policy and Incentives Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
Project Name:
Project ID
Date:
Appendix III - LEED Cities and Communities: Plan and Design Cities Scorecard
46
47
Appendix IV – Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions
Life Cycle Cost
Analysis
Assumptions
Unit Value Notes
Energy and
Demand Rates
Summer Electricity
Rate
$/kWh $0.171
https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_r
egulations/rates/rate_books
Winter Electricity
Rate
$/kWh $0.151
https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_r
egulations/rates/rate_books
Natural Gas $/MMBtu $7.00 Xcel's Residential 12 Month average Rate
Water $/kgals $4.97
Sewer $/kgals $6.91
Funding
Opportunities
Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA)
% of
Capital
40% Toggle.
Grants $ $0 Toggle.
Rates
Discount Rate % 6.5%
Cost of Capital -
Developer
% 7.0%
Cost of Capital -
District Energy
% 6.5%
Capitalized Interest
Period (Years)
% 1
Payment Periods % 30
Inflation Rate % 2.9% https://pages.nist.gov/eerc/
Natural Gas % 2.0% https://pages.nist.gov/eerc/ (Commercial, 25 years)
Electricity % 1.9% https://pages.nist.gov/eerc/ (Commercial, 25 years)
Water/Sewer % 2.9%
Equipment
Efficiency
Forced Air Furnace
Eff
% 86% ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 80%
Forced Air A/C Eff (kWe/Ton) 1.2 ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 13 EER, however
assumed seasonal COP of 3
Magic-Pak Furnace
Eff
% 86% ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 80%
48
Magic-Pak A/C Eff (kWe/Ton)
1.2
ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 13 EER, however
assumed seasonal COP of 3
RTU Burner Eff % 86% ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 80%
RTU A/C Eff (kWe/Ton)
1.4
ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 12.3 EER, however
assumed seasonal COP of 2.5
DHW Electric Eff. % 99% Electric water heater
All Electric Heating
Eff.
COP
2.00
Air-source heat pumps, ASHRAE Minimum 6.7
HSPF2
All Electric Cooling
Eff.
(kWe/Ton)
1.2
ASHRAE 90.1 Minimum is 13 EER, however
assumed seasonal COP of 3
Energy Modeling
Software - Gas
Burner Eff.
% 86% From LHB Modeling Software
Energy Modeling
Software - Gas
DHW Eff.
% 95% From LHB Modeling Software
Energy Modeling
Software - Heating
COP
COP 4.2 From LHB Modeling Software
Energy Modeling
Software - Cooling
COP
COP 3.5 From LHB Modeling Software
WS Heat Pump
Cooling - Ground
Source
EER
27
https://www.waterfurnace.com/literature/5series/O
MW5-0016W.pdf
WS Heat Pump
Cooling - Ground
Source
COP
3.50
Annual Assumption, overridden to match LHB
modeled values
WS Heat Pump
Cooling - Ground
Source
kW/ton
0.44
Annual Assumption
WS Heat Pump
Heating - Ground
Source
COP
4.20
https://www.waterfurnace.com/literature/5series/O
MW5-0016W.pdf
Operation and
Maintenance
District Energy
System
Base Annual
Management Fee
$ $150,00
0
District Energy
System
% of
Capital
0.10% Also applies to site based geothermal.
GHG Emission
Rates
Natural Gas CO2
lb/MMBtu
117
Electric Utility
(2023)
CO2
lb/MWh
575 https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-
responsive/Company/Sustainability%20Report/202
3_Xcel_Energy_Carbon_Intensities_Info_Sheet.pdf
49
Water and Sewer CO2
lb/kgal
0.85 Not Used
LCCA Toggles
Include Ground
Water
Remediation
Connection
(Y/N) Y
Include In-Building
Costs
(Y/N) Y Cost of heat pumps, VRF, and HVAC systems
Include Inflation
Reduction Act
(Y/N) Y District energy system and decentralized geo
(included in-building for decentralized geo)
Include Inflation
Reduction Act for
DES Buildings
(Y/N) N Apply IRA funding to district system in-building
equipment (Heat Pumps, VRF, etc.)
Include Grant
Funding
(Y/N) N
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 7b
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County
SUBJECT: Update on Development Agreement Discussions
Staff will provide a verbal update on the Development Agreement discussions.
Attachment:
Term Sheet
Action Requested:
None
Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 11/4/2024 Working Draft
1
Term Sheet
Parties: Alatus LLC and the Joint Development Authority (JDA)
Current Status To Be Determined
A. Assumptions
This Term Sheet is intended to set forth the general terms that
the developer and the JDA may be willing to enter into in a
definitive final Development Agreement to be
negotiated. Neither this Term Sheet nor approval thereof shall
constitute an offer or agreement and no agreement with
respect to the matters set forth herein shall be effective until
the date of execution of a definitive final Development
Agreement in writing by all parties thereto.
The terms below are predicated on the County receiving
funding from the State for site infrastructure ($25M request). If
this funding is not allocated, there will be implications both for
timing and financing of the project.
The Final Development Agreement shall be consistent with the
Joint Powers Agreement.
Bonding bill not
passed; no state
funding received in
2024 for site
infrastructure.
Legislative request
in process for 2025.
Alternate funding
options being
explored.
B. Infrastructure Financing
The parties understand that the infrastructure funding for the
project is critical to its advancement and will work
collaboratively to ensure the infrastructure financing is
achieved in a manner mutually agreeable to the parties. The
City’s goal is to have their respective infrastructure financed
and paid for by the development and not burden existing
residents.
Contract with
Kimley-Horn for
final design of spine
road and related
infrastructure fully
approved on
7/11/24.
Infrastructure
financing analysis
underway.
• Financial commitments of all parties to infrastructure
• Who will be responsible for managing infrastructure
project(s)
Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 11/4/2024 Working Draft
2
C. Public/Private Financing
The parties understand from financial analysis that there are
funding gaps in the project. The parties will actively pursue
both public and private sources of funding with the goal of
identifying a path to filling these gaps by the end of 1Q 2024.
The parties understand that beyond infrastructure financing,
there may be opportunities to leverage financing tools available
to the site, which may include City, County, State, Federal,
and/or private funds. The parties will work collaboratively to
explore funding opportunities and find mutually agreeable
solutions. The County expects to invest money in affordable
housing on the site through its funding sources, such as the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority levy, CDBG, and HOME.
Financial analysis
underway.
Proposal for public-
private financing
solution sent by
Alatus to Ehlers on
7/31/24. Feasibility
and negotiations
underway in the
form of a draft
Purchase and Sale
Agreement.
• Financial commitments of all parties to other parts of the
development
D. Housing Density
The parties will work toward developing a maximum of 1,960
housing units on the site, pending final approval of the
necessary regulatory changes. Lesser densities may be
considered upon mutual agreement. Housing will include a
range of types, including but not limited to single-family
houses, townhouses, and apartments.
Affirmed.
• Number of units of each housing type planned (single-family,
townhomes, multifamily, co-ops, etc.)
E. Housing Affordability
The parties share a goal of providing affordable housing on the
site and will work toward a minimum of twenty percent of the
total housing unit count (392 units at a maximum of 1,960 total
units) to consist of affordable rentals at 60% AMI or below. The
developer will pursue opportunities for funding and submit
applications to make these rental units more deeply affordable,
from sources such as Minnesota Housing (low-income housing
tax credits (LIHTC)), CDBG-HOME, County HRA levy funds, Local
Affordable Housing Aid (metro area sales tax funding), etc. and
with partners such as Habitat for Humanity.
Goal affirmed.
Terms and funding
to be discussed.
• Financial commitments for housing affordability – will be part
of future discussions at the individual development level
• Number of units of affordable rental housing planned and
affordability/AMI level
• Number of units of affordable for-sale housing planned (i.e.
eligible for down payment assistance)
• Affordability terms
• Rental policies (e.g. projects must accept Section 8 vouchers)
Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 11/4/2024 Working Draft
3
The parties will additionally work toward constructing ten
percent of the owner-occupied units to accommodate Ramsey
County down payment assistance, which is accessible to
households who make less than 115% of area median income
(AMI) (in 2023, that equates to a for-sale price of less than
$372,000).
F. Housing Ownership versus Rental
The parties share a goal of providing opportunities for
homeownership opportunities in the development, and as part
of the final development agreement will come to a mutually
agreeable ratio of owner-occupied units to rental units.
To be discussed.
• Number of homeownership and rental units planned
• Mechanism for ensuring this balance comes to fruition
G. Commercial/Industrial Development and Job Creation
The parties understand that new employment at well-paying
jobs is an important objective for Rice Creek Commons, for
which reason certain areas have been zoned for commercial or
industrial usage. Accordingly, the parties agree to pursue
appropriate buyers or tenants for such areas as will maximize
the opportunities for such employment.
Affirmed.
• Details about job creation goals
H. Green Energy Goals and Infrastructure
The parties share the goal of building an ambitious, sustainable
development. The parties endorse the Rice Creek Common
Energy Vision, as adopted by the JDA on 10/2/23, and will
collaborate in alignment with the guiding principles therein. As
part of working toward this vision, the parties will explore the
feasibility of an all-electric development and work with the
selected energy consultant to create metrics to be included in
the final development agreement to achieve these goals.
JDA approved
pursuing LEED for
Communities
certification.
Clean energy policy
recommended at
November 2024
JDA. Sustainability
Design Guidelines
drafted.
• Specifics to be determined through energy consultant
contract:
o Goal for the development (i.e. net zero or all-electric
or carbon neutral or other)
o Energy technologies to be used to achieve that goal
o Metrics
• Financing for green energy work
• Other sustainability requirements beyond energy
Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 11/4/2024 Working Draft
4
I. Building 116
The JDA will support the developer’s exploration of the
feasibility of moving Building 116 off the site, including
identifying a way to pay for the relocation.
Strategy underway.
• Financial resources to pay for potential relocation
• Regulatory process and permissions necessary
J. Maintenance and Operating Costs/Responsibilities
The parties understand that ongoing maintenance and
associated costs will need to be addressed in the final
development agreement. Furthermore, each party may have its
own goals in the short and long term. The parties will work
collaboratively to address these in the final development
agreement. For example, it is important to the City to ensure
the Rice Creek Commons does not put undue financial risk or
burden on the entire City and will seek to have short-term and
long-term funding gaps addressed.
Analysis underway.
• Financial responsibilities of all parties for long-term
maintenance and operating costs of the development
K. Ordinances and Policy Applicability
The developer will comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local ordinances.
To be discussed.
• Other construction standards including green building
standards, quality of construction, etc.
• Applicability of ordinances including Ramsey County
Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329
L. Conveyance of Property
The property will be conveyed to the developer in tranches.
The parties will establish performance metrics, and the JDA will
assess performance on these metrics prior to the conveyance
of the next tranche.
Alatus proposal
from 7/31/24 does
not include tranche
conveyance, but
instead
contemplates a
single transfer of
land. Performance
metrics and
enforcement
analysis underway.
• What exactly each tranche comprises
• Order in which tranches will be conveyed
Rice Creek Commons Terms for Final Development Agreement 11/4/2024 Working Draft
5
M. Timeline
The parties will work together in earnest to negotiate and sign
a Final Development Agreement by the August JDA meeting,
scheduled for 8/5/2024.
Timeline delayed
due to financial
constraints.
• PDA extends through June 2025 so this timeline is not set in
stone but is a goal.
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 7c
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County
SUBJECT: Review Road Map
Staff will review scheduled JDA meetings and work sessions, including 2025 dates.
Attachment:
2024-2025 JDA Road Map
Action Requested:
None
Month Date Meeting/Action or Deadline Topics or Notes
Jan 2 JDA Meeting JDA Schedule, Development Agreement Schedule,
Infrastructure and Traffic Updates
2 JDA Advisory Committee Prep for February JDA
5 JDA Meeting 2023 JDA Annual Report, Development Agreement Progress
Report
15
Mar 31 Term Sheet Goal: Financial Sources Identified
Apr 1 JDA Meeting Development Agreement Progress Report
1
2 Energy Advisory Committee Review initial green energy analysis
Jun 3 Energy Advisory Committee Discuss sustainability implementation pathways
23 JDA Work Session Development Agreement Progress Report
24 Energy Advisory Committee Make recommendation for sustainability certification
Aug 5 JDA Meeting Development Agreement Progress Report, EAC Sustainability
Certification Recommendation, JDA 6-month Expense Report
1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes
10 JDA Work Session Development Agreement Progression Report, Legislative
Update
19 Energy Advisory Committee Review draft Sustainability Design Guidelines
7 JDA Meeting Green Energy Presentation
24 Energy Advisory Committee Make recommendation for clean energy policy
4 JDA Meeting Clean Energy Policy, Adopt 2025 JDA budget
15 Deadline: Report back on City/County approval of JDA budget
Dec 2 JDA Meeting
Rice Creek Commons 2024 Roadmap
Oct
Feb
Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County
Deadline: Draft 2025 JDA Budget
May
Jul
Nov
Sept
Month Date Meeting/Action or Deadline Topics or Notes
Jan 6 JDA Meeting Organizational Items
3 JDA Work Session 2024 JDA Annual Report
15
Mar 3 JDA Meeting
7 JDA Work Session
Potential Community Engagement
1
5 JDA Meeting
Jun 2 JDA Work Session
Jul 7 JDA Meeting
Aug 4 JDA Work Session
1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes
9 JDA Meeting
Oct 6 JDA Work Session
3 JDA Meeting
15 Deadline: Report back on City/County approval of JDA budget
Dec 1 JDA Meeting Adopt 2026 JDA budget
Deadline: Draft 2026 JDA Budget
Sept
Apr
Rice Creek Commons 2025 Roadmap
Feb
Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County
Nov
May
Key
JDA Meeting
JDA Work Session
Advisory Committee Meeting
Deadline
Other Meeting
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 7d
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe
SUBJECT: Approve 2025 JDA Budget
A proposed budget for 2025 and summary of 2024 expenditures through 10/31/24 is provided. The Joint
Powers Agreement outlines a format for the budget, which the 2025 proposed budget follows.
Attachment:
Proposed 2025 JDA Budget
JDA Expenditures Year-to-Date 10/31/24
Action Requested:
Approve 2025 JDA Budget
JDA Budget 2025
Estimated Revenues
Grants
JDA Application fees
JDA Permit fees
Contributions from Ramsey County 273,850.00$
Reserves
Developer escrow/fees
Miscellaneous revenues
TOTAL 273,850.00$
Estimated Expenditures
Personnel services
Contract Services
Legal 60,000.00$
Engineering
Fiscal/Audit (including Fiscal Agent)60,000.00$
Planning
Administrative 3,600.00$
Communications & Community Engagement 50,000.00$
Green Energy & Sustainability 92,750.00$
Services other than personnel or consultants
Supplies and materials
Office administration
Capital outlay (office rent, computer equipment, etc.)
Payment of invoices for services to the JDA provided by a Party
Insurance 2,500.00$
Miscellaneous expenditures 5,000.00$
TOTAL 273,850.00$
JDA Expenditures 2024 Budget Actuals (Jan 1-Oct 31)
Public Finance Consultant 60,000.00$ 49,500.00$
Legal 60,000.00$ 18,430.00$
Communications and Community Engagement 50,000.00$ 15,760.00$
Green Energy Consultant 125,000.00$ 113,249.25$
Insurance 2,035.00$ 2,038.00$
Meeting Expense 3,600.00$ 2,700.45$
Contingency 5,000.00$ -$
Total 305,635.00$ 201,677.70$
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 8
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County
SUBJECT: Administrative Director’s Report
A verbal update will be provided by staff.
Attachments:
None
Action Requested:
None
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
AGENDA ITEM 9
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Director Jagoe
SUBJECT: Development Director’s Report
A verbal update will be provided by Director Jagoe.
Attachments:
None
Action Requested:
None