AvalonBay's New Roof Designs, Solar Power, and the Princeton Planning Board

The Princeton Planning Board should clearly focus some of its public discussions on the new "roof forms"—hips and gables—that AvalonBay presented to PB on 7/11 and their relation to solar power.

These new designs were offered in response to the request by PB chair Wanda Gunning on 6/27 that SPRAB draft re-designs for the roof-forms to reduce the massive appearance of AvalonBay’s buildings. SPRAB generated new designs and with absolute unanimity of conviction presented them to Jonathan Metz (architect for AvalonBay) before the 7/11 meeting. On 7/11 Mr. Metz responded.

AvalonBay’s changes to roof-forms, as they involve a redesign of the south-facing side of Building 1 (clearing it of dormer windows), have broad and significant implications for the use of solar power. As Mr. Metz said on 7/11, "We wanted to keep this roof clean" for solar panels "should that happen." However, AvalonBay has not yet changed other roof-design elements which would make the installation of solar arrays even more promising and productive----namely: a) a south-facing roof-slope facing the inner courtyard of Building 1 that could easily be cleared of one small dormer window, and 2) two sizable south facing-slopes on the western wings of Building 2 that could be easily be cleared for solar arrays.

Quite apart from AB’s persistent noncompliance with the desire of the Planning Office to reduce the 5-story elements in Building 2 (and thus a greater conformity with Design Standards in Princeton Code (a.3, 5, 6), AvalonBay’s initial gesture towards a passive solar installation is encouraging. But they need to go further for maximum solar capability on the apartment buildings as well as the garage, easily roofed by any third-party in a Power Purchase Agreement. AvalonBay’s profit would thereby increase.

Planning Board members should question why AB has turned its back on solar now. AB stands to reap a 20-50% savings in electrical costs according to current rates and contracts under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Professionals with whom I have been in close contact estimate that AvalonBay’s deployment of solar power would more than cover its electrical needs for its private and/or common areas (i.e., non-apartment areas), with an energy surplus on which to make a further corporate profit if AvalonBay chose not to pass the surplus on to its tenants.

AB’s own or common areas in the complex include the following:

exterior: all lighting, incl. garage lighting and signage lighting; garage elevator and exhaust fans; bridge between garage and Building 1, bridge between Buildings 1 and 2; pool; vital communications and alarm systems;

interior (excluding townhouses): all lobbies, vestibules, hallway corridors, and stairwells; elevators; mailroom, leasing office, marketing room, community room, lounge, fitness center, storage space, maintenance space, bike rooms, trash rooms and associated mechanical facilities; gas meter room.

Precise calculations concerning the amount of solar energy surplus have not yet been conducted, as some aspects are contract-dependent. It is nevertheless crucial for the Planning Board to ask whether the surplus solar power would be sufficient to sustain an emergency electrical power system, in the event of conventional outages, and if so for how long. (AvalonBay has thus far, shockingly, refused to consider installing an emergency generator system for its 560 tenants.) AvalonBay’s own and common areas are sufficient to make one wonder whether AB is exercising appropriate economic sense in baulking at solar power installations in Princeton. It is true that their corporate website ("Sustainability," p. 8) indicates that they have done solar for freestanding clubhouses (although their text is especially vague, i.e., empty, on locations), so doing solar for an entire complex would be a first for them. Are they ignorant of PPAs? Do they need help and explanations? AvalonBay could in fact take a lead role in the industry by including this component; they would also satisfy the requests of both the PEC and SPRAB to utilize solar power.

Princeton’s vibrant environmentalist community, among other groups, will be sorely disappointed by PB members if they did not consider the solar component seriously in public discussion.

Daniel A. Harris, trustee, Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods