No Need to Say Goodbye: Retrofitting Historical Sites

Carlsbad is a beautiful coastal city nestled in between farmland and the Pacific Ocean which I am so privileged to call home. When driving along our shoreline, there is nothing but dazzling ocean views for miles and then, suddenly, a power plant comes into view.

This seemingly out of place 400 foot smoke stack and power plant rise far above any other buildings for miles and is an odd addition to our classic beach town. The Encina power plant sits directly across Carlsbad Boulevard from the sandy banks of Terramar Beach as it has since its construction in 1954 (nrg.com). While visitors may see the plant as an eyesore, residents of North County look to it as a welcome sign. Whether we are driving up the 5 freeway, flying into McClellan Palomar Airport, or sailing along the coast, a glance of the powerplant reassures us that home is near. Of course, Carlsbad’s citizens complain about the “blight on our city” that is the Encina plant, however we all know our city would not be the same without our landmark.

So it was with great shock to many residents over the past weeks when we noticed our beloved plant was slightly shorter, and then even shorter still. It turned out plans between the city council and the owners of the plant, Natural Resources Group (NRG), to demolish the structure finally began. Admittedly, we all knew an arrangement was in the works to remove the plant for many years, however I, and many others, never thought it would come to fruition. But what if demolition was not the only option? Green retrofitting, defined as repurposing or “upgrad[ing] … an existing building [or site]… to improve energy and environmental performance” by the United States Green Building Council is an excellent alternative to destruction which allows for the preservation of historical sites like the Encina power plant (Jagarajan et al., 2017). Rather than simply modernizing a structure is done in regular retrofitting, green retrofitting mitigates the negative effects of climate change brought on by the building process itself by skipping demolition and implementing green solutions in the structure. In this paper I will explain the benefits of green retrofitting and why this process should be implemented worldwide.

In 2018, NRG officially retired the Encina plant after the construction of their new, more environmentally conscious, energy plant was finished (Diehl). In the interim, the Carlsbad city council finalized their demolition negotiations which were almost eight years in the making. The Encina plant which powered the North County energy grid by burning oil and cooling with ocean water was to be deconstructed from the top down by the second quarter of 2021, just in time for summer (Diehl). As of April 2021, the city and NRG remain in a state of negotiation over the future purpose of the power plant’s plot of land.

NRG claims their part in the removal is a move towards more environmentally friendly energy production as their newer plant “offer[s] a myriad of environmental benefits — like improved air quality and reduced water consumption — in addition to ensuring grid reliability” (NRG.com). By cutting down on water intake, the newest plant protects small sea dwelling creatures from being sucked up into the plant’s inner workings and prevents harmful waste products, such as toxic metals, from being pushed back out into the ocean. Furthermore, this new system turns on much quicker than the Encina plant (just ten short minutes compared to eighteen hours) and runs only when the grid is in need of extreme amounts of power (NRG.com). Of course, I wholeheartedly support making our city and region more green and helping to ensure a beautiful Carlsbad for future generations but I am terribly sad to see a landmark I have known my entire life disappear forever.

As the powerplant is over half a century old, Carlsbad residents attempted to preserve the plant by making it an official state historical structure, however, these efforts were denied by the California Office of Preservation. Further negotiations between community members and NRG attempted to retain the entire structure or even just the smoke stack into the adjacent Cannon park, but these too were turned down due to a “2014 [contract] with San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and the city of Carlsbad [which] requires the utility company to remove the entire plant, including the smokestack” (Diehl). This left residents, myself included, feeling angered by the lack of compromise and with nothing to do except mourn the loss of our landmark.

Unfortunately, none of the plans created by the Carlsbad city council, NRG, or even community members considered green retrofitting as a way to retain this historic structure. Even if such a plant was proposed at this point, I fear it would be too late to implement it as significant parts of the demolition have already been completed. However, had the Encina plant been sustainably repurposed I believe the most successful identity change would have been to a hotel. According to Carlsbad’s 2015 Tourism Industry Study, “June, July, and August consistently produce hotel occupancies over 80%” so a historic hotel a mere 20 feet from the beach (our main summer attraction) would indeed be a successful venture (Carlsbadlifeinaction.com). Furthermore, revenue from this hotel could have helped Carlsbad’s economy recover from the effects of the pandemic by increasing the appeal to visit and stay in the city. Now I am not saying that this green retrofitting process would be without obstacles, changing a power plant into a hotel is no simple undertaking, however it is a much better alternative to losing our historical landmark forever.

Like Carlsbad, many cities worldwide struggle when attempting to preserve their historical structures. These landmarks face widespread criticism for their outdated emissions, waste processing, and power solutions which often negatively impact their surrounding environments. As new green legislation mandates structures and their internal systems to reduce their carbon footprint, many companies choose to demolish historical sites rather than face the constant updating which is required to keep their historical function in times of such environmental awareness. This is not to say that all historical sites are being removed or left to fall into disrepair, but that people fail to see the importance of maintaining them when they will likely need recurrent modernization to keep up with new policies. Nonetheless, these historical buildings hold significance for their communities who would do anything to see them remain for future generations.

But is green retrofitting really an option for all historical buildings? If we look globally we can see there are countries where this is not an option. One example of such a nation is Italy, known not only for its amazing cuisine, but also their thousands of years of history that can still be seen today. In fact, “about 30% of the Italian building stock (12.5 million buildings) [were] constructed before 1945” meaning that at least 30% of all buildings in Italy qualify as historical structures (Filippi 2015). Yet only 1.8% of these historic buildings receive protection by the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, leaving the rest vulnerable to destruction in the face of an ever increasing need for housing and industry spaces (Filipi 2015). For this reason many environmentalists, historians, and community members alike are increasing their public support for green retrofitting of historical structures, but their encouragement has yet to actually increase the frequency of this process. Why? A significant portion of historical buildings in Italy are more than a century old, meaning that they lack even the basic foundation of modern technology. Therefore the process of greenly retrofitting such historical buildings costs more than building an entire new one in its place because along with repurposing, architects must devise a way to include modern amenities without disrupting the original design too much. Using Italy as a case study, it can be concluded that green retrofitting is preferable for more industrialized historical sites and to an lesser extent industrialized nations. Now is not to say other types of historic buildings can not be greenly retrofitted, just that the process may require more work if the site lacks certain modern aspects. Fortunately for the United States, nearly all of our buildings are under 300 years old meaning that sites such as the Encina power plant can easily be green retrofitted.

An example of the green retrofitting process is currently in action in Tompkins and Niagara counties of New York where two coal run power plants (Cayuga and Somerset) are being greenly retrofitted into data processing centers (Coffman-Smith). After operating for nearly seven decades, these historical plants shut down in early 2020 to meet the new New York state environmental laws regulating carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to make the state independent of coal power by the end of the year. Once operational these new data centers will use the existing structures altered to fit their new purposes, and create “a viable new business and jobs in their place, using renewable energy” (Coffman-Smith). To ensure the survival of the plant in an ever changing world, architects of the new data processing centers invested in a 15 MegaWatt solar energy array which provides energy for the plants along with 2447 MegaWatts of power transferred from the hydroelectric Robert Moses Niagara plant on the Canadian border (Coffman-Smith). Once completed, the retrofitting of Somerset and Cayuga will allow for the data processing centers to be fully sustainable while maintaining their original look and feel for their surrounding communities. Furthermore this process will save nearly 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere and significant levels of toxic chemicals from being released into Cayuga Lake by skipping the demolition process (Coffman-Smith).

But what makes green retrofitting specifically so important? Doesn’t any retrofitting in general accomplish the same goals? To answer that simply, green retrofitting not only reduces the need for energy now, as simple retrofitting does through repurposing, but creates a system that enables historical sites like the New York power plants to be sustainable for the rest of their existence. This is important because as the world’s energy sources grow scarcer the need for sustainable solutions will rise, and what better way to ensure the survival of our beloved historical sites than to make them sustainable structures with a multitude of purposes. While some may claim retrofitting historical structures, such as the Cayuga and Somerset power plants, removes all historical significance to make them environmentally friendly, this could not be further from the truth. The point of these projects is not only to mitigate the effects of climate change by repurposing an older space, but to also save communities’ beloved historical sites. With such a goal in mind, architects nearly always include core features of the original in their finished designs.

Though there are many proponents for green retrofitting as a means of making environmentally conscious progress, some critics claim that this is a wide scale form of greenwashing. “Greenwashing”, as defined by Business News Daily, is when a company spends more time marketing their practices and products as environmentally friendly than actually minimizing their carbon footprint (Corcione). Some claim that green retrofitting is a way for owners of the original structure to rebrand as environmentally conscious and therefore gain a larger customer base without changing much about the structure’s carbon emissions (Bechtold et al,. 2020). These claims are unfounded as the green retrofitting process saves the company doing the work so much money from skipping demolition and rebuilding that they have plenty to invest in environmentally friendly solutions for the structure. Furthermore, the companies who take on repurposing projects are often environmentally motivated and therefore put effort into making their projects environmentally conscious.

Although the American government outwardly supports the idea of green retrofitting, there is little legislation to back up these attitudes. The Obama administration’s “Recovery Through Retrofit” plan focused on retrofitting as a means to to boost the economy, help solve the housing crisis, and make our country in general more environmentally friendly during the 2008 recession (obamawhitehouse.archives.gov). This system was pushed to the wayside by former President Trump’s climate change denying policies which still have a strong hold on our country. In an attempt to fix this, current President Biden introduced a two trillion dollar infrastructure proposal which includes plans to retrofit commercial and residential buildings nationwide on March 31st (Budryk and Beitsch). However, it remains to be seen whether these plans will be fulfilled as the constant battle between political parties over the climate crisis leaves retrofitting underfunded and under-promoted as a viable solution to reduce the harmful effects of human involvement. This is not to say there is no government recognition of green retrofitting, there are minimal resources on how to accomplish this on the website for the Department of Energy, yet these are not significant enough as they merely address the bare necessities for residential and commercial retrofitting. What our government should be focusing on is investing in green retrofitting efforts, and more specifically protecting our historical sites with this process.

If we look globally, we can see a model the US should emulate in the country of Australia. Similarly to the United States, Australia witnessed a steady increase in temperatures since 1910 which led to extreme consequences such as rising sea levels (csiro.com). Now Australia’s National Science Agency estimates the country experiences a 20% reduction in rainfall per year and is at risk for increased frequency of extreme weather events such as the 2019–2020 mega wildfires which burned 46,050,750 acres (csiro.com). So how did two seemingly very similar first world countries come to have such different success with green retrofitting? The quick answer is simply politics.

In both Australia and the United States the concept of climate change is widely debated by politicians and hence turned into a sensitive subject. In fact, a study done by Fielding et al. found that “political ideology (left–right) emerged as the most important predictor of politicians’ climate change beliefs” while studying perspectives on the climate crisis in Australia. Thus any policy created in an effort to address global warming is subject to great scrutiny and is likely to be removed by future politicians.

To avoid this cycle, Australian lawmakers in both federal and state governments provide grants, subsidies, rebates and advisory services instead of taking a heavily involved approach, which you might note many Americans are skeptical of, allowing residents to decide what to do when green retrofitting historical sites. Local governments around the country mostly follow the funding procedures set by the federal government, with the difference being that local governments participate in much more community outreach and education on the topic of green retrofitting (Dowling et al., 2014). The local government of Sydney specifically teaches its communities about green retrofitting by supporting the repurposing of historical sites that are significant local landmarks like the Sydney Crago Flour Mill that began operating in 1897 (Dowling et al., 2014). By seeing the process of green retrofitting happening in their local communities, citizens of Australia are more likely to support similar efforts in the future at which point the state and federal resources are available to help them along.

The United States would benefit greatly from implementing a model of Australia’s “hands off” attitude towards green retrofitting policy of historical buildings. This is because it protects against the current unstable political climate and against alienating companies and citizens who either do not agree with the practice of green retrofitting or are currently unable to practice it in their lives. Furthermore, by building a framework of substitutes, grants, and rebates rather than new strict policy, the United States can use existing government programs involved in historical preservation instead of needing to reallocate resources. I am not claiming that green retrofitting should solely be a secondary tool to tackle climate change, but that the process of moving green retrofitting to the forefront will take time and that trying to do so all at once will likely trigger adverse reactions in the government’s opposing parties, leading to removal of those policies in the future. To ensure the survival and popularization of green retrofitting historical sites in America the best solution is to take a passive approach by following the Australian model.

At this point we must consider the global implications of green retrofitting historical structures. Buildings are currently responsible for nearly 40% of the world’s energy consumption, and roughly half of all buildings currently standing will last until at least 2050 (e360.yale.edu). Such structures, historical sites included, could “improve energy efficiency by at least 20 percent through simple fixes like better insulation” so broad environmentally conscious changes to entire buildings as seen in green retrofitting will undoubtedly have an enormous impact on climate change worldwide (e360.yale.edu). Furthermore, greenly retrofitted historical sites have benefits that begin immediately whereas new structures, even if they are environmentally conscious, take 10–80 years to compensate for the harmful emissions given off during the demolition and construction processes (architectmagazine.com). Therefore, it is clear that one of the most viable solutions for combating negative effects of climate change is adopting green retrofitting. Specifically, green retrofitting of historical sites is a perfect example of a more sustainable practice that can help with curtailing the human impact on global warming while preserving some of our most beloved structures. Not only does green retrofitting reduce the destructive emissions released in the building and demolition processes, but it implements green power, waste processing, and temperature control solutions. By enhancing historical structures powered by renewable energy, the local community and the world as a whole benefit.

As you can see, there are many green benefits to this process. However, if we return to my home city of Carlsbad it is plain to see that the environmental benefits are not the only positive aspects but preservation of culture and memories as well. As mentioned above, policies of first world countries are typically the most effective at green retrofitting, but it is important to clarify that this process can be accomplished in all economic situations if there is motivation. Furthermore, I believe this is a necessary step to preserve diverse history and not just that of dominant cultures as has been often the case in the past. Our respective cultures are what establish a sense of identity, place, and belonging inside of each of us which is embodied in our community historical structures. I know this to be true of Carlsbad’s Encina power plant which residents look to as a symbol of home and belonging. While the historical differences between cultures, exemplified by our beloved landmarks, are often used as a weapon to divide citizens of the world, green retrofitting of all landmarks allows for an exploration of a “common human past — what makes us the same” according to UNESCO Chair in Cultural Property Protection and Peace Peter Stone.

So whether you are mourning the loss of a landmark or the devastation the globe faces due to rapid climate change I urge you to consider green retrofitting as a solution.

Works Cited

“Australia’s Changing Climate.” CSIRO, CSIRO Publisher , 2020, www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/State-of-the-Climate/Australias-Changing-Climate.

Bechtold, David, et al. “It Isn’t Easy Being Green: Operationalizing Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability , vol. 18, no. 8, 2020, pp. 9–18., doi:https://search-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2492324789?accountid=14749&pq-origsite=primo.

Biello , David. “Building Retrofits: Tapping The Energy-Saving Potential.” Yale Environment 360, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies , 7 Nov. 2011, e360.yale.edu/features/green_architecture_building_retrofits_tap_energy_saving_potential.

Budrynk, Zack, and Rebecca Beitsch . “Biden Infrastructure Plan Includes Billions for Electric Vehicles, Building Retrofitting.” TheHill, News Communications Inc , 31 Mar. 2021, thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/545732-biden-infrastructure-plan-includes-billions-for-electric-vehicles.

California State Parks, State of California. “California Historical Landmarks By County.” CA State Parks, 2021, ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387#:~:text=California%20Historical%20Landmarks%20(CHLs)%20are,of%20the%20criteria%20listed%20below%3A&text=Associated%20with%20an%20individual%20or,on%20the%20history%20of%20California.

Coffman-Smith, Andrew. “Plan Unveiled to Repurpose New York’s 2 Coal Plant Sites for Data Centers.” S&P Global Marketing Intelligence , S&P Global Inc , 21 May 2019, www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/6U9JJYtiN_G7Zo3-a3uYTQ2.

Corcione, Adryan. “What Is Greenwashing?” Business News Daily, Broadcast Media , 17 Jan. 2020, www.businessnewsdaily.com/10946-greenwashing.html.

Diehl, Phil. “Landmark Carlsbad Smokestack Coming Down .” Los Angeles Times , 30 Oct. 2020, www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-30/landmark-carlsbad-smokestack-coming-down.

Dowling, Robyn, et al. “Retrofitting Cities: Local Governance in Sydney, Australia.” Cities, vol. 38, 2014, pp. 18–24., doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.004.

Fielding, Kelly S., et al. “Australian Politicians’ Beliefs about Climate Change: Political Partisanship and Political Ideology.” Environmental Politics, vol. 21, no. 5, 14 Sept. 2012, pp. 712–733., doi:10.1080/09644016.2012.698887.

Filippi, Marco. “Remarks on the Green Retrofitting of Historic Buildings in Italy.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 95, 2015, pp. 15–22., doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.001.

Hoyt, Alex. “Report Shows Environmental Benefits of Retrofits.” Architect Magazine , The Journal of American Institute of Architects , 2 Feb. 2012, www.architectmagazine.com/technology/report-shows-environmental-benefits-of-retrofits_o.

Jagarajan, Rehmaashini, et al. “Green Retrofitting — A Review of Current Status, Implementations and Challenges.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 67, Jan. 2017, pp. 1360–1368., doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.091.

NRG Energy, Inc. “Carlsbad.” NRG Energy, NRG Inc , 2021, www.nrg.com/case-studies/carlsbad.html.

“Recovery Through Retrofit: Saving Homeowners Money and Creating Jobs.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 2016, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/retrofit#:~:text=It%20is%20currently%20being%20used,colleges%2C%20universities%20and%20international%20organizations.

Stone, Peter. “Destroying Cultural Heritage Is an Attack on Humanity’s Past and Present — It Must Be Prevented.” The Conversation, The Conversation , 23 Oct. 2020, theconversation.com/destroying-cultural-heritage-is-an-attack-on-humanitys-past-and-present-it-must-be-prevented-129412#:~:text=Those%20risks%20are%3A%20lack%20of,sites%2C%20enforced%20neglect%20and%20development.

Strategic Advisory Group. “Tourism Industry Study Prepared for the City of Carlsbad.” Carlsbad Tourism Business Improvement District , Jan. 2015.