Rebuilding Greensburg, 

Kansas, as a Model 

Green Community:

A Case Study 

NREL’s Technical Assistance

to Greensburg 

June 2007 – May 2009

National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Sponsorship Format Reversed

Horizontal Format-B Reversed

Vertical Format Reversed-A

Vertical Format Reversed-B

National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Horizontal FormatA Reversed

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated

by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Lynn Billman

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-45135

November 2009

Link to Appendices
Rebuilding Greensburg,

Kansas, as a Model

Green Community:

A Case Study

NREL’s Technical Assistance 

to Greensburg

June 2007 – May 2009

Lynn Billman

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-45135

November 2009

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated

by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Prepared under Task No. IDKS.1070
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for 

the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, 

or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does 

not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

10% post consumer waste.
i

Acknowledgments

This work was funded through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Building Technologies Program, and the Integrated 

Deployment Program. The following individuals or organizations contributed to the work 

discussed in this report. Many of these individuals spent several days to several months in 

Greensburg, Kansas; others worked from their business locations around the country.

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Assistant Secretary Alexander 

Karsner, Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen Chalk, and Lisa Barnett.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) employees: Ren Anderson, Lynn Billman, 

Eric Bonnema, Alex Dane, Trudy Forsyth, Chris Gaul, Rachel Gelman, Jim Green, Scott Haase, 

Gerry Harrow, Al Hicks, Anelia Milbrandt, Ruby Nahan, Dave Peterson, Shanti Pless, Adrienne 

Powell, Philip Shepherd, Roger Taylor, Paul Torcellini, Andy Walker, and Mary Werner.

NREL subcontractors: 

Deb Bowditch, consultant, Denver, Colorado

René Howard, WordProse, Inc., Golden, Colorado

Alex Lukachko, Joe Lstiburek, and Betsy Pettit, Building Science Corporation, Boston, 

Massachusetts

Dale Osborn, Distributed Generation Systems (DISGEN), Lakewood, Colorado

Duncan Prahl, John Holton, Ari Rapport, and Steve Bolibruck, IBACOS, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania

Lauren Poole, consultant, Denver, Colorado

Christina Thomas, Sage TechEdit Inc., Boulder, Colorado

John Thornton, consultant

Daniel Wallach, Mason Earles, Emily Schlickman, John Wickland, and other staff of Greensburg 

GreenTown, Greensburg, Kansas

Michael Wentz, BuildingGreen, Brattleboro, Vermont

Thomas A. Wind, Wind Utility Consulting, Jefferson, Iowa

Other crucial contributors:

City of Greensburg staff and elected officials

Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell Architects, Kansas City, Missouri

BTI Equipment, Greensburg, Kansas

John Deere Place, Moline, Illinois

Dwayne Shank Motors, Greensburg, Kansas

Greensburg and Kiowa County Business Re-Development Group, Greensburg, Kansas

Greensburg Schools USD 422, Greensburg, Kansas

Bill Hanlon, instructor, Construction Technology program and director of the Sustainable Living 

Center at Flint Hills Technical College, Emporia, Kansas

Hastco Builders of Emporia 

Kiowa County Memorial Hospital Administration, Greensburg, Kansas

McCluggage Van Sickle & Perry (MVP) Architects, Wichita, Kansas

Mennonite Housing, Wichita, Kansas
ii

Professional Engineering Consultants, Wichita, Kansas

Russ Rudy, formerly with the Kansas State Energy Office, Topeka, Kansas

Show-Me-Energy Cooperative, Centerview, Missouri

State of Kansas: Governor’s Office, Kansas Corporation Commission, and Kansas Development 

Finance Authority, Topeka, Kansas

Southern Pioneer Electric Company, Ulysses, Kansas 

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Hays, Kansas

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C.

Wardcraft Home, Kansas

Brian Wendland, HERS rater, Greensburg, Kansas

WindLogics, St. Paul, Minnesota
iii

Executive Summary

On May 4, 2007, Greensburg was a declining farm community in south-central Kansas with a 

population of about 1,400. That evening, an EF-5 tornado touched down more than 75 times,

killed 11 people, and destroyed or severely damaged 90% of the city. The storm left a trail of 

debris longer than 22 miles and wider than 1.5 miles. As Figure ES-1 shows, the devastation was 

incredible.

Credit: Photographer Galen Buller, Ingalls, Kansas

Source: http://www.pbase.com/gbphotos/image/78573248

Figure ES-1. The EF-5 tornado destroyed most of Greensburg on May 4, 2007.

When it was time to rebuild, key leaders in Greensburg and Kansas expressed an interest in 

rebuilding as a model green community. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was interested 

in what could be accomplished with technical assistance from DOE and its National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL). DOE’s ultimate goal was not only to help Greensburg but also to 

demonstrate energy solutions that could be replicated elsewhere.

Many federal and state agencies, along with nonprofit, professional, and other organizations and 

individuals, also reached out to help Greensburg with professional expertise or material or cash 

donations. The work summarized in this report, for June 2007 through May 2009, involves the 

projects in which the DOE/NREL team made significant contributions. Every project, however, 

including those summarized in this report, was substantially helped by other people and 

organizations. Key partners on these projects are mentioned where appropriate in the text.

Summary of Successes

The work of the DOE/NREL team contributed to numerous successful outcomes, running the 

gamut from broad effects on Greensburg—and beyond—to specific effects within the 

Greensburg city limits.

Community support for the green rebuilding work continues to be strong. The leaders in the City 

of Greensburg include the mayor, city council members, city administrator, school 
iv

superintendent, county commissioner, hospital administrator, Ministerial Alliance members (a 

faith community), major business owners, Greensburg GreenTown executive directors, and 

others. During the time that the DOE/NREL team worked with these leaders, advocacy for green 

technologies within the community grew from a handful of people to include essentially all the 

city leaders, the business community, and a majority of the residents.

A local nonprofit organization, Greensburg GreenTown, became a strong leader and advocate for 

energy efficiency in the community, working with both the city leadership and the residents. 

GreenTown—created by Executive Director Daniel Wallach, a local green enthusiast, shortly 

after the tornado—worked under a memorandum of understanding with the city to coordinate the 

Green Initiative in support of the community’s sustainability goals. GreenTown also worked 

with NREL as a subcontractor. GreenTown’s board of directors, made up of local citizens, was 

very effective in involving and inspiring the residents to take actions and make decisions 

reflecting sustainability goals; increasing media exposure for the community, which contributes 

to donations for projects; and educating the residents about sustainability. GreenTown is likely to 

remain active in the community and continue to offer support and leadership to the city on the 

Green Initiative long after the many initial outside entities have left the community. GreenTown 

is also expanding its mission to work with other small communities interested in sustainability.

The Greensburg work expanded professional knowledge and is serving to promote energy 

efficiency locally, regionally, and nationally. For example, several regional builders and 

architectural and engineering firms working in Greensburg benefited from technical assistance 

and training to increase their knowledge and competency in green building projects. These firms 

are now designing or constructing green, high-efficiency buildings throughout their customer 

base in Kansas, Missouri, and beyond.

A valuable new partnership between DOE/NREL and the John Deere Corporation developed out 

of a Greensburg project. John Deere is now a member of the Commercial Building National 

Accounts alliance,

1

Another valuable partnership has developed between DOE/NREL and DOE’s EnergySmart

Hospitals project. Advising on the design of the Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, one of the 

first sustainably designed hospitals in the country, will benefit the guidelines DOE/NREL 

prepares on hospital design.

a partnership between DOE/NREL and key leaders in retail businesses and 

other areas aimed at identifying and promoting energy efficiency in large commercial buildings. 

A second John Deere dealership in Kansas is being built based on the lessons learned in 

Greensburg. Finally, John Deere Place, the corporate focal point for dealership design and 

marketing, has redirected its business plan to promote energy efficient, green dealerships 

throughout North America. 

The work of the DOE/NREL team stimulated economic development in the community. For 

example, a significant new green business started up in Greensburg. BTI Equipment in 

Greensburg, the local John Deere dealer, became the North American distributor for a Canadian 

wind turbine company, after having had a positive experience with this wind turbine in the 

building of their new dealership. In their first nine months of business, they built a North 

 1 See http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/national_accounts.html.
v

American dealer network across 32 states and 4 Canadian provinces, resulting in 120 new windrelated North American jobs (mostly U.S. jobs, including wind specialists, service technicians, 

and installers); nearly 300 existing sales representatives are learning the new business of wind 

energy. 

Working with local business and economic development committees, a feasibility study was 

completed analyzing the biomass resource quantity and quality, conversion technologies, 

potential market opportunities, and potential business viability for converting local crop residues 

to pellets for solid fuel heating. The study indicated that certain feedstocks and certain market 

conditions could lead to a successful business. This study might be pursued further by interested 

local individuals. 

The work has resulted in extensive education and outreach efforts at several levels. The K-12 

school in Greensburg has embraced sustainability (Figure ES-2). The school is expanding its 

curricula on energy and green technologies, with hands-on educational experiences for the 

students to understand the real world of energy and sustainability. The new school campus and 

building have been designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

Platinum standards.

Credit: City of Greensburg

Source: http://greensburgks.org/resident/photo-gallery/greensburg-schools-groundbreaking-ceremony

Figure ES-2. Students and community leaders break ground for the community’s new school

facilities on Wednesday, October 29, 2008.

The high school students in Greensburg have enthusiastically supported the community’s goals, 

and formed a Green Club under the leadership of Greensburg GreenTown. As an example of 

their enthusiasm, Green Club students used tornado debris and other found items to create a 

bench for the community (see Figure ES-3) and presented it to city leaders in April 2009 as

thanks for bringing Greensburg back as a model green town. And students have frequently 

publicly expressed their intention to stay in the community or return to it after college, because

the green commitment has made Greensburg more attractive to these young people. 
vi

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure ES-3. Members of the high school’s Green Club designed and built this bench while honing 

their welding and building skills. They were assisted by Master Sculptor Dustin Sypher, 

Greensburg High School Shop Teacher Peter Kern, and Green Club Advisor John Wickland, but 

the idea of using tornado debris was their own.

To share information on disaster recovery, Greensburg has entered into a formal agreement with 

a city in China (Mianchu, Sichuan Province) that was devastated by earthquakes in 2008. 

And a DOE/NREL team is developing a wide range of educational materials for homeowners; 

business owners; builders, architects, and engineers; and community leaders facing a disaster 

recovery situation:

• Rebuilding after Disaster—Going Green from the Ground Up: A 24-page brochure that 

covers the why and how of energy planning in disaster recovery.

• Greensburg, Kansas—A Better, Greener Place to Live: An 8-page brochure that presents 

the overall story of Greensburg’s recovery to illustrate successful disaster rebuilding and 

inspire others.

• From Tragedy to Triumph—Rebuilding Green Homes after Disaster: A 4-page fact sheet 

for homeowners.

• From Tragedy to Triumph—Rebuilding Green Buildings after Disaster: A 4-page fact 

sheet for commercial and public building owners.

• From Tragedy to Triumph—Information Resources for Rebuilding after Disaster: A 4-

page fact sheet for builders, architects, and engineers.

• From Tragedy to Triumph—Using Renewable Energy after Disaster: A 4-page fact sheet 

for community leaders and individuals.
vii

• Rebuilding It Better—BTI-Greensburg John Deere Dealership: A 4-page fact sheet 

highlighting energy saving and generating features and NREL contributions to this 

premier example of rebuilding green.

• How Would You Rebuild a Town Green?: A trifold brochure on the Greensburg 

Sustainable Building Database, showing examples of the variety of buildings and projects 

that can save a community energy and increase renewable energy use.

In terms of specific effects within Greensburg, the community has gained an understanding of 

integrated energy planning. The townspeople and leaders collaborated with a number of partners 

to successfully develop a new Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive Plan. With energy 

guidelines based largely on NREL’s studies and recommendations, the plan contains strong 

energy goals for the community and documents a possible reduction of 36% of pre-tornado 

carbon dioxide emissions if the plan’s energy goals are met.

The community has also learned a great deal about residential energy efficiency. In all, 180 new 

homes were permitted after the tornado and before March 6, 2009. A number of homeowners 

volunteered to have their homes rated for energy efficiency, representing approximately 52% of

the new homes permitted. Of these, nine townhome rental units in one facility (Prairie Point 

Townhomes; see Figure ES-4) were rated. These 106 single-family homes and townhome units 

are projected to use, on average, 41% less energy than a standard home built to the International 

Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2003 (with 2004 Supplement). 

Of 33 homes renovated and measured, ratings indicate these homes should use, on average, 25% 

less energy than a similar home built to the IECC code. As a reference, ENERGY STAR®

homes typically use about 15% less energy than a standard building. 

Credit: Photo by Anita Hohl

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1437

Figure ES-4. The Prairie Point Townhomes achieved 

LEED for Homes Platinum certification in 2009. 

For its public and commercial buildings, the City of Greensburg passed a resolution that all cityowned buildings would be LEED Platinum. This also inspired other public and commercial 

buildings, such as the Greensburg School and the Kiowa County Memorial Hospital (Figure ES5), to strive for building designs that will reach LEED Platinum or Gold. Greensburg should 
viii

soon have the greatest concentration (buildings per square mile) of LEED Platinum and Gold 

buildings in the country. 

Credit: Emily Schlickman, Greensburg GreenTown

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1310

Figure ES-5. Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, shown under construction here and scheduled for 

completion in 2010, is planned to become the first LEED Platinum

critical access hospital in the nation.

Greensburg’s business community is rebuilding with a major focus on energy efficiency and 

green building principles. The John Deere dealership is being constructed to achieve LEED 

Platinum status, and has become the model for all future John Deere dealerships across the 

nation. The General Motors dealership, local banks, and other businesses are also designing for 

energy efficiency. 

Other examples include the following:

• The new streetlight system with light-emitting diodes will be 40% more energy efficient 

and cost the city 70% less in operating costs per year. 

• The Greensburg Green Building Program, formally launched at the event marking the 

second anniversary of the tornado on May 1, 2009, reflects the city’s commitment to 

ultimately adopt the IECC 2006 for both residential and commercial construction and to 

launch two voluntary programs. 

• For the Greensburg GreenHome Program, the city entered into a formal partnership with 

the Kansas Building Industry Association (KBIA), a branch of the National Association 

of Home Builders (NAHB). Greensburg will pilot the International Code Council (ICC) 

National Green Building Standard (NAHB-sponsored), with the assistance of KBIA.

• For the Greensburg GreenBusiness Program, the city is encouraging commercial 

buildings to use American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
ix

Engineers (ASHRAE)/DOE building guides that give design recommendations for 30% 

energy savings.

Greensburg has committed to relying on locally generated wind power. The city decided to end 

its commitment to a long-term power purchase agreement with a coal-based rural electric 

cooperative, and entered into a contract with a power provider, Kansas Power Pool, that focuses 

on developing renewable energy generation sources. In addition, John Deere Renewable Energy, 

Kansas Power Pool, and the city have entered into an agreement to build a new 12.5-MW wind 

farm about 5 miles from Greensburg. Kansas Power Pool has made a commitment to offer 

“100% renewable electricity, 100% of the time.” 

The city has also adopted new regulations for distributed renewable generation. Under the new 

regulations, residents will be able to put solar panels and, where feasible, individual wind 

turbines on their businesses or homes. These rulings include a net billing policy, an 

interconnection agreement, and solar and wind ordinances.

Opportunities exist to use locally produced biomass pellets or briquettes as a source of heat in the 

commercial, industrial, and residential sectors. Regional entrepreneurs are using the results of a 

biomass pellet analysis to determine next steps in building a plant in the area.

Finally, the DOE/NREL team has recommended the best ways to use solar energy; alternative 

vehicles and fuels (compressed natural gas, 85% blends of ethanol in gasoline [E-85], and 

biodiesel); and district heating and cooling in this community.
x

Conclusion

Greensburg’s accomplishments in rebuilding green in the first two years after its destruction by a 

disastrous tornado are extraordinary. A small, rural community with strong leadership and 

committed citizens can indeed rebuild differently, with major improvements to energy 

efficiency, uses of renewable energy, and overall sustainability. 

Greensburg has been fortunate in the amount of media attention and government support it has 

received. The DOE/NREL team concluded that the many and rapid accomplishments of the 

community in rebuilding green were helped by Greensburg’s broad and sustained media 

exposure and by the extraordinary support of the Kansas state government, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and DOE. Other communities will be inspired by all that Greensburg has 

accomplished, but should not be discouraged if their path forward is more incremental. All steps 

taken toward more sustainable development will benefit a community, the nation, and the world.
xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AIA American Institute of Architects

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

BNIM Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell Architects

BSC Building Science Corporation

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (a DOE office)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GEM Global Electric Motorcar

Gsf gross square feet

HERS Home Energy Rating System

ICC International Code Council

ICF insulated concrete form (wall system)

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

KBIA Kansas Building Industry Association

KMEA Kansas Municipal Energy Agency 

LED light-emitting diode

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Mcf million cubic feet

MKEC Mid-Kansas Electric Company

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MRI Midwest Research Institute

MVP McCluggage Van Sickle & Perry Architects

NAHB National Association of Home Builders 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

PV photovoltaics

SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio

Sunflower RC&D Sunflower Resource Conservation and Development

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council

VOCs volatile organic compounds
xii

Contents

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... i

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................... xi

Contents....................................................................................................................................... xii

Figures.........................................................................................................................................xiii

Tables.......................................................................................................................................... xvi

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Goals............................................................................................................................... 2

Project Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2

Project Team............................................................................................................................... 3

The Evolution of Energy in Greensburg..................................................................................... 5

Before the Tornado ..................................................................................................................... 5

Immediately after the Tornado.................................................................................................... 6

Energy in Greensburg Today...................................................................................................... 7

Renewable Resource Availability and Integrated Energy Planning........................................ 9

Integrated Energy Planning....................................................................................................... 10

Energy Efficiency........................................................................................................................ 14

Residential Buildings................................................................................................................ 14

NREL Recommendations for the City...................................................................................... 16

NREL Recommendations for the Homeowner......................................................................... 16

NREL Recommendations for the Builder................................................................................. 16

NREL Recommendations for Community Leaders and Businesses......................................... 17

Residential Energy Efficiency Solutions.................................................................................. 18

Energy Efficiency Solutions for Commercial and Public Buildings........................................ 22

A Green Building Program for Greensburg.............................................................................. 28

Efficiency in City and County Infrastructure Equipment......................................................... 29

Community-Scale and Distributed Power ................................................................................ 31

Community-Scale Power .......................................................................................................... 31

Distributed Power ..................................................................................................................... 35

Distributed Power Policies and Ordinances.............................................................................. 35

Distributed Wind Systems ........................................................................................................ 36

Distributed Solar Systems......................................................................................................... 37

Distributed Geothermal Systems .............................................................................................. 39

District Heating and Cooling Systems...................................................................................... 40

Fuel Cells.................................................................................................................................. 41

Energy from Biomass ............................................................................................................... 41

Transportation Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 45

Green Economic Development................................................................................................... 47

Leadership, Education, and Outreach...................................................................................... 49

City Leadership......................................................................................................................... 49

Education .................................................................................................................................. 52

Outreach.................................................................................................................................... 53

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 55
xiii

Figures

Figure ES-1. The EF-5 tornado destroyed most of Greensburg on May 4, 2007..........................iii

Figure ES-2. Students and community leaders break ground for the community’s new school 

facilities on Wednesday, October 29, 2008. ................................................................................... v

Figure ES-3. Members of the high school’s Green Club designed and built this bench while 

honing their welding and building skills. They were assisted by Master Sculptor Dustin Sypher, 

Greensburg High School Shop Teacher Peter Kern, and Green Club Advisor John Wickland, but 

the idea of using tornado debris was their own.............................................................................. vi

Figure ES-4. The Prairie Point Townhomes achieved LEED for Homes Platinum certification in 

2009............................................................................................................................................... vii

Figure ES-5. Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, shown under construction here and scheduled 

for completion in 2010, is planned to become the first LEED Platinum critical access hospital in 

the nation......................................................................................................................................viii

Figure 1. Tornado devastation in Greensburg, Kansas................................................................... 1

Figure 2. A mobile medical unit set up to offer assistance shortly after the storm. ....................... 6

Figure 3. Wind resource map of the United States......................................................................... 9

Figure 4. Annual PV solar radiation in the United States............................................................. 10

Figure 5. In rebuilding Greensburg, the importance of integrated master planning became clear. 

This architectural vision for the town from Greensburg’s Greensburg Sustainable 

Comprehensive Plan emphasized walkability, which helps save energy, and the master plan 

included NREL’s recommendations on energy. ........................................................................... 11

Figure 6. Crop and forest residues near Greensburg..................................................................... 13

Figure 7. NREL analyses of cost versus energy savings.............................................................. 14

Figure 8. Left: High-efficiency homes under construction in Greensburg. The bright pink 

material is insulating vapor wrap.................................................................................................. 18

Right: The finished homes............................................................................................................ 18

Figure 9. This educational display consists of a full-size corner section of a home, showing how 

advanced framing, advanced windows, and caulking can be used to save energy....................... 19

Figure 10. Mennonite house under construction in Greensburg................................................... 20

Figure 11. The Prairie Pointe Townhomes have achieved LEED for Homes Platinum status..... 21
xiv

Figure 12. The Sun Chips Business Incubator in Greensburg is designed to offer affordable 

spaces for businesses getting back on their feet, as well as for new retail ventures. This building 

received a major funding boost from Frito-Lay Sun Chips division, a company known for its 

environmental advocacy, and additional help from actor Leonardo DiCaprio, a well-known 

sustainability advocate.................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 13. In rebuilding the Kiowa County Courthouse in Greensburg—originally constructed in 

1914—the community decided to salvage the original white trim (left) along with several ornate 

doors (right) from the stately and historic building. The rebuilt structure is a highly energy 

efficient green building and serves as an excellent example of building design that combines the 

best of the old and the new. .......................................................................................................... 23

Figure 14. This hybrid convenience store/gas station, completed in February 2009, features an

insulated concrete form (ICF) wall system, skylighting, light-emitting diodes (LED) for lighting, 

and high-efficiency refrigeration. ................................................................................................. 24

Figure 15. The John Deere dealership in Greensburg, Kansas, owned by BTI Equipment, uses 

two wind turbines to produce electricity for the building............................................................. 25

Figure 16. The John Deere dealership burns waste oil in this boiler to heat its service shop. ..... 26

Figure 17. This photo of the parts area in the John Deere dealership building clearly shows the 

power—and beauty—of daylighting............................................................................................. 27

Figure 18. Daytime and nighttime views of the LED streetlights along Highway 54, the primary 

east-west highway through town, along with a close-up of a single streetlight ........................... 30

Figure 19. Greensburg historical and projected electricity needs in megawatt-hours.................. 32

Figure 20. Talking with community leaders in Lamar, Colorado, who had experience operating 

these wind turbines, helped convince Greensburg leaders that wind-generated electricity would 

be feasible for their town as well. ................................................................................................. 34

Figure 21. Greensburg City Hall, scheduled for completion in July 2009, will house the city’s 

administrative offices and council chambers and serve as a gathering place for town meetings. 

The building incorporates solar panels and geothermal technology, and the city is striving to 

make it the first LEED Platinum-certified city hall building in America. Building materials 

include recycled wood and reclaimed brick left in the storm’s wake. The east end of the roof will 

feature living vegetation (a so-called “green roof”). .................................................................... 38

Figure 22. This 2-kW PV array supplies power to the Greensburg GreenTown Silo Eco-Home. 

Pictured are David Moffitt, the home’s architect, and Executive Director Daniel Wallach and 

Mason Earles of Greensburg Greentown...................................................................................... 38

Figure 23. This photo of the mechanical room in Greenburg’s Sun Chips Business Incubator 

building shows the ground-source heat pump’s loop piping. ....................................................... 40
xv

Figure 24. Scholfield Honda in Wichita donated this natural-gas-powered Honda Civic to the 

City of Greensburg........................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 25. The Silo Eco-Home is built similarly to a grain silo, which was one of the few 

structures left standing in Greensburg after the tornado. On April 9, 2009, the builder (Armour 

Homes of Bushnell, Florida) tested the home’s ability to withstand pressure by dropping a 1980 

Honda Civic on the roof from a height of 60 ft. The home, unlike the car, was undamaged....... 51

Figure 26. The University of Colorado donated its winning home from the 2005 Solar Decathlon 

to Greensburg GreenTown. Greensburg leaders plan to add it to the Chain of Eco-Homes........ 51

Figure 27. The RnE2EW vehicle is designed to take renewable energy technologies on the road. 

The vehicle is equipped with solar panels and a wind turbine, which produce enough power to 

run everything that requires energy during an educational event like this one in Greensburg..... 52
xvi

Tables

Table 1. NREL Greensburg, Kansas, Team: Staff and Subcontractors.......................................... 3

Table 2. Example Amounts of Electricity Purchased by City from MKEC/KMEA...................... 7

Table 3. Summary of Major Biomass Residues Available (billion dry ton per year [bdt/yr]) near 

Greensburg (10-year averages)..................................................................................................... 13

Table 4. Specifications for Residential Energy Savings in Greensburg, Kansas.......................... 15

Table 5. Projected Monthly Energy Cost Savings for Energy Efficient Homes in Greensburg... 15

Table 6. Residential Energy Savings in Greensburg, Kansas....................................................... 21

Table 7. Selected High-Performance Commercial and Public Buildings in Greensburg............. 26

Table 8. LEED-Certified Buildings in Greensburg Compared to Kansas and United States as of 

March 2009 ................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 9. Alternative Transportation Options Donated to or Purchased in Greensburg................ 45
1

Introduction

On the night of May 4, 2007, an EF-5 tornado—the highest level on the standard meteorological 

scale used to estimate wind strength—demolished Greensburg, an agricultural community of 

about 1,400 in south-central Kansas. With 205-mph winds, the tornado cut a swath 1.5 miles 

wide and 22 miles long through the community. Eleven people were killed, and more than 90% 

of the city’s structures (including some historic buildings), most vehicles, and the electrical 

infrastructure were destroyed or damaged. Most of the residents were displaced from their homes 

and businesses, which were leveled. Figure 1 shows the grim scene in Greensburg right after the 

tornado.

Credit: Photographer Galen Buller, Ingalls, Kansas

Source: http://www.pbase.com/gbphotos/image/78572891

Figure 1. Tornado devastation in Greensburg, Kansas.

But when the initial shock subsided and it was time to start rebuilding, the townspeople realized 

that they had been afforded an opportunity—a chance to turn a tragedy into a triumph.

Conversations began about rebuilding as a model “green” community, and the idea quickly 

picked up steam. Soon after the storm, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) dispatched a team, 

including energy experts from the agency and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL), to Greensburg to assist the townspeople with the technical aspects of rebuilding along 

green lines. The hard work began immediately, and many national and local institutions, 

agencies, industries, and individuals pitched in. 

The DOE/NREL team played an instrumental role in making the opportunity a reality, and this 

report summarizes the technical areas in which the team made significant contributions. First, the 

report examines the evolution of energy use in Greensburg, starting before the tornado and 

moving up to today. Next, the report summarizes available renewable energy sources and the

integrated energy planning conducted in the area. This is followed by discussions of the work 

performed within each energy-related technical area—renewable resource availability; integrated 

energy planning; energy efficiency; renewable energy generation at both community and 

distributed (individual homeowner or business) scales; greener transportation options; green 

economic development; and leadership, outreach, and education. 
2

The final project products are aggregated into the following appendices that are available 

electronically at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/greensburg/publications.html:

• Appendix A: Cross-Cutting Information 

• Appendix B: Residential Construction 

• Appendix C: Commercial, Nonprofit, and Public Buildings

• Appendix D: Power Generation

• Appendix E: Alternative Transportation

• Appendix F: Green Building Codes and Standards

• Appendix G: Electricity Generation Policies and Ordinances 

• Appendix H: Educational and Outreach Materials

Project Goals 

In June 2007, representatives from DOE and NREL visited Greensburg, bringing a plan of action 

for rendering technical assistance to the city in key energy-related areas. The goals of the 

DOE/NREL project included helping rebuild the city as a model community of clean, affordable, 

and energy efficient technologies and buildings; facilitating renewable electricity generation for 

long-term, clean, and economical power; and supporting the reconstruction of Greensburg with 

access to information and materials to achieve national goals related to energy diversity and 

reliability. The June 2007 list of specific tasks was adjusted as work progressed, according to the 

evolving priorities and needs of the community in this unique situation.

DOE supported the project by supplying the funding for NREL’s technical work in Greensburg.

Project Scope

The technical scope of NREL’s work from June 2007 through the end of May 2009 encompassed 

various studies, recommendations, and plans. In addition, the team furnished specific guidance 

on individual projects, including several high-visibility buildings and design of a community 

wind system. Several factors determined which projects were given what level of priority at what 

time, such as the needs of the city and its major constituents; competing nonrenewable energy 

options that others brought forth; and the pressure to move forward quickly in rebuilding homes 

and businesses. 

Although integrated energy planning should ideally be completed before implementing any 

energy-related projects, this was not possible in this disaster recovery situation. Some individual 

projects had to proceed while studies and discussions were shaping the overall energy plan. 

Under the real pressures of rebuilding a community and restarting a local economy, the team 

made compromises and adjusted the process to seize opportune moments as they arose to 

influence city decision making toward the ultimate goal of a model green community. Overall, 

during the project, the team studied and supported all energy areas originally planned within the 
3

given budgets, and an integrated energy plan was ultimately created as part of the city’s final 

Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive Plan .

2

NREL presented most of its studies to city leaders and residents in written and presentation 

formats and through meetings, mailings, and Web sites. The team also prepared short, formal 

recommendations on energy opportunities as necessary. NREL received and incorporated 

feedback from city leaders, various city groups, and advisers on these studies, recommendations, 

guidelines, and information. NREL’s work in Greensburg is expected to be completed in fiscal 

year 2010.

Project Team

NREL established an office in Greensburg in space borrowed from either the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) or the Kansas Workforce Development organization. The NREL 

office was staffed full time from August 2007 through February 2008 with a rotating pair of 

architects who offered technical assistance on energy efficiency to residents and builders. At 

other times, the office was a base for NREL team members who visited for short periods of time. 

NREL’s team consisted of the individuals and subcontractors listed in Table 1.

Table 1. NREL Greensburg, Kansas, Team: Staff and Subcontractors 

Name Organization Role or Specialty Area

Ren Anderson NREL Residential building

Lynn Billman NREL Project lead

Steve Bolibruck IBACOS Residential building energy efficiency

Eric Bonnema NREL Commercial building support

Deb Bowditch NREL consultant Communications

Alex Dane NREL Building codes

Mason Earles Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination and support

Trudy Forsyth NREL Wind energy

Chris Gaul NREL District energy systems, biomass

Rachel Gelman NREL Biomass resource analysis

Alana Goodman Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination & support

Scott Haase NREL Biomass utilization

Gerry Harrow NREL Alternative transportation

Catherine Hart Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination

Al Hicks NREL Graphic design

John Holton IBACOS Residential building, building codes

René Howard WordProse, Inc. Writing and editing

Joe Lstiburek Building Science Corporation Residential building

Alex Lukachko Building Science Corporation Residential building

Anelia Milbrandt NREL Resource assessment

Ruby Nahan NREL Communications

Dale Osborn Distributed Generation 

Systems

Wind energy

Dave Peterson NREL Biomass resource analysis

Betsy Pettit Building Science Corporation Residential building

Shanti Pless NREL Commercial & public buildings

 2 Visit http://www.greensburgks.org/recovery-planning/Greensburg%20Comprehensive%20Master%20Plan%2001-

16-08%20DRAFT.pdf to download the plan.
4

Lauren Poole NREL consultant Communications

Adrienne Powell NREL Communications

Duncan Prahl IBACOS Residential building

Ari Rapport IBACOS Residential building

Emily Schlickman Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination and support

Philip Shepherd NREL Biomass (landfill) resource 

assessment

Roger Taylor NREL Building efficiency

Paul Torcellini NREL Commercial building energy

efficiency

Christina Thomas Sage TechEdit Inc. Editing

John Thornton Consultant Renewable generation: solar

Andy Walker NREL Renewable energy analysis

Daniel Wallach Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination and support

Michael Wentz BuildingGreen Buildings database

Mary Werner (Colvin) NREL Technology manager

John Wickland Greensburg GreenTown On-site coordination and support

Tom Wind Wind Utility Consulting Wind energy

Many other federal and state agencies, professional organizations, universities, and nonprofit 

agencies sent representatives to help in Greensburg, and many of them had strong interests in 

energy and sustainability. NREL led weekly conference calls for those with interests in energy

during the first year of the project. These organizations and individuals were instrumental in 

sharing ideas, disseminating information, developing related plans, and, in some cases, helping 

to fund Greensburg projects. The downside to this enthusiasm, however, was that the multiplicity 

of these many entities and of various citizen groups at times made coordination challenging as 

the team worked on making progress on energy plans and projects. This was particularly acute 

during the initial months of the project, but eased as the months passed. 
5

The Evolution of Energy in Greensburg 

Before the Tornado

Buildings were (and are) the largest users of energy in Greensburg. Established in 1886, 

Greensburg grew rapidly from 1900 to 1910, and its population peaked at 1,988 in 1960. When 

the tornado struck, the city was home to about 1,400 people in 515 single-family residences and 

215 rental properties.3

Before the tornado, the city acted as a municipal utility, selling electricity, water, sewer, and 

trash services to customers in Greensburg. A small portion of the revenue from the sale of 

electricity served as additional funding for other city departments, as is common in many rural 

communities. The city supplied electricity to residents and businesses through a power purchase 

agreement with Kansas Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA), which purchased power for its 

members through Mid-Kansas Electric Company (MKEC)/Southern Pioneer Electric/Sunflower 

Electric Power, and five city-owned dual-fuel (natural gas and diesel) generators with a total 

capacity of 6.5 MW. The generators were run on demand during peak periods or when there was 

a power outage. Base-load consumption was about 2.7 MW, with a peak load of about 4.3 MW. 

Electricity usage for about 1,000 customer accounts totaled 15.6 million kWh in 2005 and 14.0 

million kWh in 2006, at an average retail price of 12–13¢/kWh. A 115-kV transmission line runs 

a few miles south of Greensburg. 

Greensburg also had a school, many businesses, and city offices. And as 

the seat of Kiowa County, the city housed the county courthouse, Kiowa County Memorial 

Hospital, the county library, and other county functions. Total gross square feet (gsf) of built 

space at the time of the tornado was estimated at 450,000 gsf for public buildings, 850,000 gsf 

for residential buildings, and 200,000 gsf for commercial buildings. Although exact data on the 

age of the structures standing before the tornado were not available, most were probably built 

during the boom period around 1960. They have been described anecdotally as having very poor 

energy efficiency measures, which was common at the time of their construction.

Although no exact figures are available, annual natural gas use before the tornado was estimated 

at about 92,000 million cubic feet (mcf) at an average retail price of $7–$8/mcf. 

Mid-Kansas Electric had about 1,000 MW of generating capacity in 2008. Although this capacity 

was predominantly coal based, about 100 MW was generated by wind (with additional wind 

capacity on the drawing board). BTI Equipment (a John Deere dealer) in Greensburg routinely 

burned corn and waste oil for some of the heat required in the dealership. There were no 

documented uses of solar photovoltaics (PV), solar hot water, biomass, or wind turbines for 

energy supply in Greensburg before the tornado.

Cars, trucks, and off-road vehicles were (and are) the second largest users of energy. Before the 

tornado, about 4,000 vehicles were used within a 30-mile radius of Greensburg, including about 

100 flexible-fuel vehicles that could use gasoline or E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline blend), 

300 diesel on-road vehicles, and 3,600 gasoline-fueled vehicles. Some of the larger fleet owners 

were Kiowa County, the Iroquois Center for Human Development, and Southern Plains Co-op. 

 3 Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell (BNIM) Architects. Long-Term Community Recovery Plan, January 16, 2008, p. 26. 

http://www.greensburgks.org/recovery-planning/long-term-community-recovery-plan. 
6

Many of these vehicles were destroyed in the tornado. Fuel sales volume was estimated at 1.6 

million gallons of gasoline and 415,000 gallons of diesel. Alternative fuels (>10% ethanol 

blends, biodiesel blends, compressed natural gas, and propane) were not available in Greensburg.

Immediately after the Tornado

In the first few months after the tornado, everyone focused on regaining the stability of the 

community. Greensburg’s first priority was to care for the needs of its citizens and restore 

services as quickly as possible. FEMA and Southern Pioneer Electric worked rapidly to make 

emergency electricity generators and phone service available. FEMA brought temporary trailers 

for those who indicated an intention to stay or move back into Greensburg, and to support city, 

county, and school functions. Figure 2 shows a mobile medical unit sent by Heart to Heart 

International, a humanitarian relief and development organization. And some businesses set up 

temporary operations in trailers or quickly constructed temporary metal structures. 

Credit: Photographer Galen Buller, Ingalls, Kansas

Source: http://www.pbase.com/gbphotos/image/78690392

Figure 2. A mobile medical unit set up to offer assistance shortly after the storm.

Emergency generators supplied power until KMEA could—through its Mutual Aid Program—

build overhead distribution lines to undamaged portions of the city and to the governmental 

trailers near the county courthouse at the center of town. Southern Pioneer Electric gave 

technical and physical assistance to the city in rebuilding the destroyed electricity distribution 

lines. Professional Engineering Consultants designed, and BBC Electrical Contractors and Parr 

Electric built, the new overhead electrical distribution system in less than 5 months. The $10-

million distribution reconstruction project was funded 75% from FEMA, 10% by the state of 

Kansas, and 15% by the city, as is typical in disaster recovery. The entire community had 

electricity by December 2007. In June 2007, the city prepared a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with MKEC and Southern Pioneer that would require the city to sell them the 

distribution system and enter into a long-term power purchase agreement for electricity from 

Southern Pioneer at market rates. Ultimately, this MOU was not executed.
7

For immediate transportation needs, several agencies and entities donated older conventional 

vehicles to keep the city, county, school, and hospital fleets operating. Several new alternativefueled or hybrid vehicles were also donated.

Energy in Greensburg Today 

As of March 2009, about half the original population of 1,400 had returned to Greensburg and 

some new residents had moved in, for a total population of about 800. From the date of the 

tornado up to publication time for this report, the city issued approximately180 new home 

building permits. These included at least two rental properties, such that the number of individual 

homes available, including rentals, was about 225. A few remaining former residents are waiting 

for additional rental opportunities. The rest of the former residents have apparently resettled 

elsewhere. The city hopes to regain its former population of 1,400 by 2012, five years after the 

tornado. 

Since the tornado, 71 building permits were issued for permanent commercial structures. About 

50 individual businesses survived the tornado, have rebuilt, will soon be moving into business 

incubators, or have plans to rebuild or return. 

By December 2007, electricity infrastructure was rebuilt, serving the entire community through 

13.8-kV lines within the community and a 34.5-kV line around the outskirts of the community. 

Electricity is currently being supplied through a short-term agreement with Mid-Kansas. Current 

retail electricity rates are 12¢/kWh plus demand charges. Table 2 shows monthly electricity 

usage between December 2007 and October 2008. 

Table 2. Example Amounts of Electricity Purchased by City from MKEC/KMEA

Month Peak Kilowatt-hours Total Kilowatt-hours

December 2007 1,100 780,133

January 2008 1,182 781,315

February 2008 1,838 810,629

March 2008 1,425 716,251

April 2008 1,320 606,791

May 2008 2,541 514,291

June 2008 1,620 610,935

July 2008 1,793 731,962

August 2008 1,916 649,098

September 2008 1,916 541,732

October 2008 1,411 593,722
8

11-month total 7,333,859

11-month average 666,987

Annualized total 8,003,846
9

Renewable Resource Availability and Integrated Energy Planning 

Renewable energy resources are abundant in Greensburg and within a 50-mile radius.4 Individual 

renewable energy resources are summarized here, but are discussed in more detail under various 

project accomplishments within the technical areas. 

Wind resources are excellent, with wind power class 4, wind power density of 500–600 W/m2

 at 

50-m height, and an average wind speed of 16 mph at 50-m height (Figure 3). Overall, Kansas is 

rated as the third-highest state for wind potential, although current state policies in Kansas are 

not as favorable for wind (or other renewable) energy as those of other states. 

Figure 3. Wind resource map of the United States 

Solar resources in the area are also very good, rated at 5.0–5.5 kWh/m2/day (Figure 4). For 

comparison, the highest solar resources for flat-plate collectors in the United States are rated at 

6.0–6.5 kWh/m2

/day in Arizona, and the lowest is Seattle at 3.5–4.0 kWh/m2/day. In Greensburg, 

each kilowatt of a south-facing array mounted at 37.7° from the horizontal (Greensburg’s 

latitude) would generate 1,200–1,400 kWh/year. 

 

4

 See Appendix D, particularly D.2–D.9. 
10

Figure 4. Annual PV solar radiation in the United States 

Geothermal resources in the area are of low to moderate temperature, not suitable for electricity 

generation. 

Integrated Energy Planning 

In contrast to a disaster that affects isolated parts of a community, the nearly complete 

devastation in Greensburg made long-range and comprehensive community planning imperative 

before substantial rebuilding could begin. This planning took place in stages, first with a LongTerm Community Recovery Plan5 led by FEMA, and then with the Greensburg Sustainable 

Comprehensive Plan led by BNIM Architects, a community planning and architectural firm in 

Kansas City, Missouri. Phase I of the comprehensive plan, which focused on land use and 

downtown design, began in September 2007 and was delivered in January 2008, an extremely 

short period of time for this type of plan. Phase II of the plan, adding implementation options and 

more details, was delivered and approved by the Greensburg City Council in May 2008. Energy 

 

5

 FEMA. Long-Term Community Recovery Plan: Greensburg + Kiowa County, Kansas. August 2007. 

http://www.greensburgks.org/recovery-planning/long-term-community-recoveryplan/GB_LTCR_PLAN_Final_HiRes.070815.pdf. 
11

considerations were a key component of both of the FEMA-led and the BNIM-led planning 

efforts, in which NREL was a major contributor. Figure 5 shows BNIM’s architectural rendering 

of the Greensburg of the future. 

Credit: Courtesy of BNIM

Figure 5. In rebuilding Greensburg, the importance of integrated master planning became clear. 

This architectural vision for the town from Greensburg’s Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive 

Plan emphasized walkability, which helps save energy. The master plan included NREL’s 

recommendations on energy.

Greensburg’s community vision—“Blessed with a unique opportunity to create a strong 

community devoted to family, fostering business, working together for future generations”—

emphasized key values that affect the community’s energy goals:

• “Promote a high level of efficiency in new construction and look to renewable options for 

generation.

• Greensburg’s vast wind resources are part of an emerging economy and should be 

harvested.”6

NREL’s integrated approach to energy planning considers the following areas:

• Reducing energy use in buildings, industry, and infrastructure

• Using renewable sources for electricity and heat at the community and distributed scales

• Using alternative transportation vehicles, fuels, and infrastructure

• Supporting new approaches with institutional and administrative actions.

 6 BNIM Architects. Long-Term Community Recovery Plan, January 16, 2008. http://www.greensburgks.org/recovery-planning/long-termcommunity-recovery-plan.
12

NREL’s recommendations for the technologies considered for energy solutions in a community 

such as Greensburg follow these guidelines: 

• Use technologies that have the most favorable environmental characteristics.

• Use commercially available, proven technologies. 

• Use technologies with the lowest life-cycle cost.

• Use technologies that are simpler and highly reliable compared to those with exceptional 

characteristics, but more complex to operate.

• Strive for synergistic, integrated energy solutions.

The choice of the best renewable resources for any particular application depends on the 

resources available, energy requirements, operational requirements, economics, and goals of the 

decision makers. At the beginning of the work in Greensburg, NREL conducted an integrated 

energy modeling study to see if a modeling approach might give some immediate answers for 

Greensburg’s energy plan. 

Analysts now use a variety of computer modeling tools to determine the optimal choice of 

renewable energy technologies for any given community, military base, school system, or 

factory. NREL used a computer-based multivariate analysis approach to compare several 

electricity and heat sources against conventional fossil fuels for Greensburg to determine the 

optimal renewable energy mix for the community as a whole. This approach used estimates of 

the future energy requirements, knowledge of the local renewable resources, and estimates of the 

costs of all alternatives, then determined the most cost-effective solutions.7

This study verified that wind energy is the most cost-effective renewable source for electricity in 

Greensburg; agricultural residues were also favored for electricity and heat. Daylighting was 

considered not as an efficiency technology, but as an energy source in this study. Because 

NREL’s recommendations were aimed at maximum cost-effectiveness and dependability, some 

technologies—among them geothermal direct usage, fuel cells, and microturbines—were not 

included in the study. And these findings offered only general guidance, because their practical 

application depends on factors beyond the scope of this case study.

Biomass resources in Kiowa County are abundant, but already under market and price pressures 

for production of not only food and feed but also corn and soybeans for nearby corn ethanol and 

biodiesel plants.8 In 2007, corn and milo (grain sorghum) production rose to 711 million bushels, 

driven by high prices for ethanol feedstock grains. In 2008, the ethanol market began to decline. 

Corn ethanol plants near Greensburg include Garden City, which produces 55 million 

gallons/year, and Russell, which produces 48 million gallons/year. An existing corn ethanol plant 

in nearby Pratt went into receivership in 2008. Another ethanol plant proposed for mixed 

feedstocks, including cellulosic residues, has been partially funded through a DOE grant, and 

was still expected to be constructed in Hugoton. Figure 6 and Table 3 indicate the biomass 

residues available within a 50-mile radius of Greensburg.

 7 See Appendix A.3.

8 See Appendix D, particularly D.9, D.10, and D.11.
13

Figure 6. Crop and forest residues near Greensburg.

Table 3. Summary of Major Biomass Residues Available (billion dry ton per year [bdt/yr]) near

Greensburg (10-year averages)

County Wheat Corn Sorghum Soybean Sunflower Cotton Logging 

Residues

Other 

Forestry

Removals

Corn 

Cobs

Total

Barber 25,283 407 4,004 1,337 46 210 161 2,818 623 34,888

Barton 74,604 17,556 47,399 14,320 222 22 14,760 168,882

Clark 469 9,681 345 218 10,713

Comanche 3,835 285 5,357 627 450 10,554

Edwards 31,955 39,921 18,599 21,961 60 31,913 144,409

Ford 55,368 22,632 53,883 10,214 136 21,533 163,765

Harper 96,815 146 9,270 1,821 65 436 0 135 108,687

Hodgeman 21,536 2,228 18,130 1,287 4,200 47,380

Kingman 78,586 5,270 8,869 6,458 185 3,810 103,177

Kiowa 17,281 15,562 12,205 12,255 24 15,113 72,438

Pawnee 59,127 21,710 35,327 16,494 52 18,915 151,626

Pratt 58,679 38,472 19,270 17,711 377 1,122 12,500 33,533 181,663

Reno 89,693 13,495 51,240 22,829 1,253 15 13,118 191,642

Rice 111,254 14,194 50,816 15,130 931 24 8,190 200,539

Stafford 35,258 18,182 20,366 14,845 85 31,935 120,670

Total 759,742 210,058 364,416 157,632 3,435 1,768 222 15,318 198,443 1,711,034

Source: Appendix D.10.
14

Energy Efficiency 

Residential Buildings 

The goal for residential energy efficiency was to encourage, and offer technical assistance to the 

residents and builders to rebuild new homes with 30% or higher improved energy efficiency. 

(All energy efficiency is noted as energy savings compared to a home in this climate built to the 

2003 International Energy Conservation Code [IECC] with 2004 Supplement.) To support this 

goal, NREL developed the specification packages with its BeOPT computer model for 30%, 

40%, and 50% energy savings for a 2,000-gsf residence, and calculated the cost savings at each 

level (see Figure 7 and Table 4). The costs were calculated based on national averages, because 

no Greensburg-specific cost data were available. Calculations show (Table 5) that for a 2,000-gsf 

house built to achieve 30% energy savings relative to standard practice, a homeowner can save 

$512 a year more on his or her energy bills than the extra cost of the slightly larger mortgage. In 

fact, Greensburg residents could use savings in utility bills to pay for higher energy efficiency in 

their new homes for a net positive cash flow every month up to a level from 30% to 50% 

improved energy efficiency. These calculations were summarized in a flyer that was distributed 

widely in Greensburg to help residents understand the long-term savings they would enjoy from 

an energy efficient home.9

 

Figure 7. NREL analyses of cost versus energy savings. 

 

9

 See Appendix B. 
15

Table 4. Specifications for Residential Energy Savings in Greensburg, Kansas

Feature or Factor

Basic

Efficiency

Package (30% 

energy savings)

High

Efficiency

Package (40% 

energy savings)

Premium

Efficiency

Package (50% 

energy savings)

Insulation

Walls R-19 R-21 R-19 + R-5 Foam

Roof R-40 R-50 R-50

Basement R-10 R-10 R-10

Windows Double-glazed, low-e Double-glazed, low-e, 

argon-filled

Double-glazed, low-e, 

argon-filled

U-value 0.30 0.28 0.28

Solar rating 0.37 0.37 0.37

Lighting

Compact 

fluorescents

50% 80% 80%

Heating

efficiency

rating (AFUE,%)a

90+ 90+ 90+

Air-conditioning

efficiency rating

(SEER, Btu/watthour)b

14 18 18

Appliances Standard Standard ENERGY STAR

Water heater Tank—gas Tank—gas Tankless—gas

Energy factorc 0.61 0.61 0.80

Ventilation Exhaust Supply Balanced a

AFUE (Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency) is a rating system for the seasonal or annual efficiency of heating 

systems, expressed in percentages. The rating system takes into account the cyclic on/off operation and associated 

energy losses of the heating unit as it responds to changes in the load, which in turn is affected by changes in 

weather and occupant controls. Higher percentages indicate higher efficiencies.

b

SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) is a rating system for the efficiency of heat pumps and air conditioners. 

The SEER rating of an air-conditioning unit is the Btu of cooling output during a typical cooling season divided by 

the total electric energy input in watt-hours during the same period. c

The energy factor is a number indicating the overall efficiency of a water heater, the maximum being 1.0.

Table 5. Projected Monthly Energy Cost Savings for Energy Efficient Homes in Greensburg

For a Typical 2,000-gsf Home

Upgraded Energy Savings Levels

Base

Efficiency ($)

High

Efficiency ($)

Premium

Efficiency ($)

Estimated incremental first cost 4,000 7,000 13,000

Savings on monthly utility billa 60.25 76.58 96.83

Increase in monthly mortgage paymentb 17.58 34.25 58.83

Net monthly savings 42.67 42.33 38.00

a

Evaluated compared to IECC 2003 with 2004 Supplement.

b

Based on a 30-year mortgage at 7% APR with an increase in loan value of $4,000 for the 30% option (base), $7,000 

for the 40% option (high), and $13,000 for the 50% option (premium).
16

The key recommendations for residential construction that NREL offered the city in April 2008 

are broken down by category and outlined in the sections that follow.

NREL Recommendations for the City

• Encourage all new residential construction to be designed, contracted, and built to 

achieve whole-house energy savings of at least 40% relative to minimum code using a 

green building approach. 

• Encourage renovators of all existing residences and housing projects to target maximum 

cost-effective energy savings. 

• Encourage residents and builders to design homes for potential solar use. As examples, 

one major roof slope should face south and buildings should be spaced to enhance solar 

access.

NREL Recommendations for the Homeowner

• Learn what actually makes a home energy efficient and gain an understanding of the 

benefits of an energy efficient home. Whether involved with new construction or 

renovation, better informed homeowners can make better choices among builders. Use 

local experts with reputable experience in energy efficient construction. The Internet has 

an astounding amount of good information from many reputable sources.

• Verify credentials and levels of experience with energy efficient construction of several 

builders before choosing one.

• Think ahead about solar panels. A homeowner may not be interested in solar panels right 

now, but orienting the home for solar (one major roof slope facing south) will make this 

choice more attractive in the future. A further enhancement would be to add wiring and 

plumbing (very low marginal cost during construction) to facilitate adding solar electric 

and hot water panels in the future.

NREL Recommendations for the Builder

• Seek continued education to improve skills and marketability in this fast-growing 

housing market. NREL and its subcontractors developed and gave training sessions for 

builders in Greensburg in July and December 2007; similar sessions will be offered 

periodically in the future.10 Take advantage of the abundant information available on 

energy efficient home design and construction to improve knowledge. Besides 

information already available for the Greensburg climate,11 NREL and its subcontractors 

developed a series of fact sheets on improving the energy efficiency of specific 

components of the house system specifically for Greensburg.12

• Learn about and stay current on the federal and state tax incentives available to builders 

for energy efficiency and renewable energy.13

 10 See Appendix B.5. 11 U.S. DOE Building America. Designs that Work—Mixed-Humid Climate (Haymount, VA). 2006. 

http://www.buildingamerica-greensburg.com/downloads/BSP-033_MH_Haymount.pdf. 12 See Appendix H. 13 Visit the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) at http://www.dsireusa.org/ for upto-date information on incentives.
17

NREL Recommendations for Community Leaders and Businesses

• Encourage the further education of the homeowners and youth on energy efficiency. Bill 

Hanlon, an instructor in the Construction Technology program and director of the 

Sustainable Living Center at Flint Hills Technical College in Emporia, Kansas, and Russ 

Rudy, who was with the Kansas State Energy Office at the time, offered a homeowner 

session in February 2008. Similar sessions should be encouraged periodically. Various 

organizations have K-12 educational curricula on energy efficiency, and there are 

countless creative ways to involve students in energy efficiency projects to help teach 

math and science skills.

• Encourage all homeowners to get a Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rating on their 

homes, perhaps through the building permit process.14

• Work with the State of Kansas to continue to support a trained person to do HERS ratings 

in Greensburg at no or reduced cost after the DOE grant for the current rater is depleted.

HERS ratings will tell the 

homeowner their energy efficiency, and are most effectively done both when plans are 

developed and after construction. A HERS rating is necessary to receive tax incentives or 

an energy efficiency mortgage, will help identify the most cost-effective energy 

measures, and will help isolate performance problems after construction.

• Establish a program to acknowledge and reward owners of highly energy efficient or 

green homes. This is more difficult to accomplish than it may seem at first glance. In any 

community, several stakeholder groups are naturally affected—homeowners, builders, 

and city staff issuing permits, among others. There are several existing home rating 

programs besides the HERS approach mentioned (ENERGY STAR, Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], National Association of Home Builders 

[NAHB], and some specially developed by individual cities).15 In most cases, 

stakeholders should be involved in developing the program, and administering the 

program will most likely require professional expertise.16

• Be cautious about donated materials for buildings. They can help reduce cost, but they 

should also have the characteristics that will best serve in the building in the long run for 

energy efficiency and durability, and should function effectively with other materials and 

building systems.

 14 See the Residential Energy Services Network Web site at http://www.natresnet.org/ for more information on 

HERS.

15 NAHB. National Green Building ProgramTM, http://www.nahbgreen.org/; U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), 

http://www.usgbc.org/; and austinenergy.com Energy Efficiency,

http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Green%20Building/Participation/index.htm. 16 Global Green USA. Developing Green Building Programs—A Step-by-Step Guide for Local Governments.

Undated. http://www.globalgreen.org/docs/publication-71-1.pdf; P. Bruck. “Developing Green Building Programs 

or Ordinances,” Building Safety Journal. August 2007.

http://www.iccsafe.org/news/green/0807BSJ22.pdf.
18

Residential Energy Efficiency Solutions

Building Science Corporation (BSC) developed a 50% efficient house design appropriate for 

Greensburg, with full construction drawings, and offered house plans at no cost to any resident 

who wished to use them.

17 Greensburg Homes LLC (Greensburg, Kansas) used these plans for 

six high-performance spec homes it built and offered for sale in Greensburg (see Figure 8). BSC

also took the initiative to find some companies who were willing to donate building materials 

appropriate for a high-efficiency home, and offered a package of materials worth $3,800 to the 

first 10 builders who were willing to build to 50% efficiency in Greensburg. The package of 

materials was also used in some homes by Mennonite Housing and others.

 

Credit (left): Greensburg GreenTown, NREL/PIX 16293

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/index.cfm#search

Credit (right): Lynn Billman, NREL/PIX 16677

Figure 8. Left: High-efficiency homes under construction in Greensburg. The bright pink material 

is insulating vapor wrap.

Right: The finished homes.

BSC also conducted three training sessions (in July and September 2007, and in November 

2008) for local builders. About 25 individuals from 12 different builders or organizations 

attended these training sessions, and several builders subsequently used these ideas in their plans. 

In addition, BSC prepared an educational display (see Figure 9), which was erected on a 

prominent street in Greensburg for several months. Finally, BSC produced a series of fact sheets

(see Appendix B.4) for local builders on key aspects of construction details—ranging from 

insulation through ventilation to appropriate ductwork—that make a difference in energy 

performance. 

 17 See Appendix B.7.
19

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure 9. This educational display consists of a full-size corner section of a home, showing how 

advanced framing, advanced windows, and caulking can be used to save energy.

The Mennonite Housing organization, which helps low-income individuals build affordable, 

single-family homes with so-called sweat equity, adopted NREL’s recommendations for the 

construction of high performance homes in the Greensburg climate region. Key features of

NREL’s package of recommendations follow:

• Water management for durability through the installation of a wall drainage plane with 

effective flashing at windows and doors

• Excellent insulation, including fiberglass in the attic, rigid foam on basement walls, and a 

layer of exterior foam board on the walls—as well as cellulose inside the walls—for 

condensation control

• Good-quality windows with low-e surfaces and argon gas fill for good insulation and 

solar control

• Extensive caulking and sealing to reduce air leakage

• A high-efficiency gas furnace (94 AFUE) and air conditioner (SEER 14)

• All ductwork installed inside the insulated envelope of the house

• Controlled fresh air ventilation with exhaust fans in kitchen and baths ducted to the 

outside

• Compact fluorescent lighting.

So far, 20 such houses have been built and as many as 50 are planned. Figure 10 shows a 

Mennonite house during construction.
20

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure 10. Mennonite house under construction in Greensburg.

IBACOS (Integrated Building and Construction Solutions) contributed to the planning process as 

well, developing sections on residential energy efficiency for both the Long-Term Community 

Recovery Plan and the Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive Plan. IBACOS also assisted with 

the builder training sessions, advised potential builders and business owners at two housing fairs, 

advised major housing projects, and offered broad on-site technical assistance. One full-time 

person in an NREL office in Greensburg offered on-site technical assistance, Monday through 

Friday, from August 2007 through February 2008. On-site support was then reduced to a few 

days per month, but telephone assistance was available five days a week through November 

2008. This technical assistance included answering questions from homeowners and builders 

who sought help at the NREL office; observing and assisting builders at building sites; meeting 

residents in their temporary living quarters to discuss the costs and benefits of energy efficient 

homes; and reviewing and advising on individual house plans. 

Major housing projects that benefited from extensive technical assistance included modular 

homes by Wardcraft (modular homes built off site) as well as the Prairie Point townhomes (32 

units; see Figure 11), which were subsequently managed by Kiowa County. The Prairie Point 

project was an in-fill development on land where the high school once stood. Each structure has

2 × 6 framed walls with blown-in cellulose insulation, and the concrete slabs were constructed 

using a “floating floor” design. Every townhome has compact fluorescent lights and low-flow 

toilets, showerheads, and aerators. To the extent possible, ENERGY STAR appliances were used 

in the kitchen and laundry room. High-efficiency air-source heat pumps were used, and the 

homes achieved an overall HERS score of 64. All interior walls of the apartments were painted 

with low-VOC (volatile organic compound) paint. Biobased tile forms much of the flooring. 

Drought-resistant landscaping and turf and an efficient irrigation system complete the complex.

All of the homes mentioned and pictured here were designed to save 45%–50% of the energy 

compared to a home built to the standards of IECC 2003 with 2004 Supplement.
21

Credit: Mason Earles, NREL/PIX 16644

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1437

Figure 11. The Prairie Pointe Townhomes have achieved LEED for Homes Platinum status.

IBACOS also gave significant oversight to the HERS rating specialist, who was funded by a 

grant from DOE to the State of Kansas, trained at the Energy & Environmental Ratings Alliance, 

and aligned with the Kansas Building Science Institute.

IBACOS and NREL also installed energy monitoring equipment in two of the Mennonite homes. 

The monitoring period is December 2008 through December 2009.

The measured results of these efforts at technical assistance, education, and encouragement in 

the residential area are impressive, as seen in the HERS rating in Table 6. Of the 180 new homes 

permitted after the tornado and before March 6, 2009, approximately 52% were voluntarily rated 

for energy efficiency. Of these, nine townhome rental units in the Prairie Point complex were 

measured. These 106 single-family homes and townhome units are projected to use, on average, 

41% less energy than a standard home built to the IECC 2003 code with 2004 Supplement. Of 33 

homes renovated and measured, ratings indicate these homes should use, on average, 25% less 

energy than a similar home built to IECC 2003. As a reference, ENERGY STAR homes 

typically use about 15% less energy. Obtaining a HERS rating was voluntary. As a result, these 

numbers should not be extrapolated to be an average for all of the rebuilding and renovation after 

the tornado. 

Table 6. Residential Energy Savings in Greensburg, Kansas

Type of Construction Average 

HERS 

Rating

Average Energy 

Savings (%)a

Number of 

Houses/Units

New construction 59 41 106

Renovations 75 25 33 a

Energy savings compared to a home built to the IECC 2003 code with 2004 Supplement.

Local builders also benefited from this residential building effort. At least eight individual 

companies or builders used the formal training, on-site discussions, building plans, and fact 

sheets to affirm and often go beyond their level of understanding of the best practices for high 

performance homes. Three of these companies have affirmed in anecdotes that they are already 

building higher-efficiency homes in all their markets, including beyond Greensburg; other 

builders can be assumed to be benefiting as well.
22

NREL subcontracted with BuildingGreen, a green publishing company, and Greensburg 

GreenTown, to develop and populate the Greensburg Sustainable Building Web site. This online 

database makes descriptions of green residential homes available to the wider home-building 

community as part of the effort to maximize the benefit from the DOE work in Greensburg in its 

application to other similar communities.18

Energy Efficiency Solutions for Commercial and Public Buildings

The goal for commercial and public building reconstruction in Greensburg was to encourage and 

help owners in rebuilding to as high an energy efficiency level as possible. Although the original 

action plan included only the school complex (K-12), it soon became apparent that other 

excellent opportunities existed as well. 

NREL staff members gave presentations to city leaders about the benefits of energy efficiency in 

these buildings, suggested specific guidelines and goals, and distributed copies of Advanced 

Energy Design Guides.19

In addition to these educational efforts, NREL staff ran highly advanced energy models using the 

latest version of EnergyPlus to optimize the designs of several high-profile buildings that were 

intended to achieve a Platinum LEED level. These buildings included the Sun Chips Business 

Incubator (owned by the city; Figure 12), the Greensburg School Complex, the Kiowa County 

Memorial Hospital, and the BTI Equipment/John Deere dealership. NREL staff also did 

extensive energy modeling for the renovation of the Kiowa County Courthouse, badly damaged 

but not destroyed in the tornado (Figure 13). Finally, NREL and IBACOS staff offered varying 

amounts of technical consultation on the construction of Shank Motors (General Motors 

dealership); Greensburg State Bank; Dillon’s Kwik Shop (Figure 14); Centerra Bank; People’s 

Bank; Fleener Life Celebration Center; the Senior Center; and several churches. 

These guides give design specifications to achieve 30% energy 

efficiency compared to code, in specific climate zones, for small retail, small office, warehouses 

and self-storage facilities, and schools. 

 18 Visit http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/ and click on “Our Projects” to explore the Greensburg Sustainable 

Building Database. 19 ASHRAE, et al. Advanced Energy Design Guides. Available for free download at 

http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1604.
23

Credit Lynn Billman, NREL/PIX 16660

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1151

Figure 12. The Sun Chips Business Incubator in Greensburg is designed to offer affordable 

spaces for businesses getting back on their feet, as well as for new retail ventures. This building 

received a major funding boost from Frito-Lay Sun Chips division, a company known for its 

environmental advocacy, and additional help from actor Leonardo DiCaprio, a well-known 

sustainability advocate.

Credit: Catherine Hart, Greensburg GreenTown, (left) NREL/PIX 16671, (right) NREL/PIX 16670

Figure 13. In rebuilding the Kiowa County Courthouse in Greensburg—originally constructed in 

1914—the community decided to salvage the original white trim (left) along with several ornate 

doors (right) from the stately and historic building. The rebuilt structure is a highly energy 

efficient green building and serves as an excellent example of building design that combines the 

best of the old and the new.
24

Credit: Photographer Galen Buller, Ingalls, Kansas

Source: http://www.pbase.com/gbphotos/image/112145081

Figure 14. This hybrid convenience store/gas station, completed in February 2009, features an 

insulated concrete form (ICF) wall system, skylighting, light-emitting diodes (LED) for lighting, and 

high-efficiency refrigeration.

NREL joined BNIM in recommending that Greensburg adopt a resolution that all city-owned 

buildings (more than 4,000 square feet) be designed to a LEED Platinum level with a minimum 

of 42% energy cost savings. The city passed this ordinance in December 2007. In addition, 

NREL also made the following more general recommendations to the city in April 2008:

• Encourage all new commercial, nonprofit, and non-city-owned public buildings to be 

designed, contracted, and built via a green building approach to achieve at least 30% 

energy efficiency compared to current building code. 

• Strive for at least 30% energy efficiency, because the specific, integrated design 

recommendations needed by architects and builders for office buildings, small retail, and 

some other types of buildings are already determined at this level for this climate and 

available to all owners, architects, and builders free of charge.20

• Incorporate additional green features as outlined to achieve at least the LEED Silver 

certification level. 

Better yet, strive for 

40%–50% energy efficiency.

• Use an integrated, whole-building design to minimize cost.21 The only way that highly 

efficient buildings can be built at the same cost as or only slightly more cost than 

conventional code buildings is if energy efficiency, reduced water use, and other green 

features are designed in from the beginning.22,23

 20 ASHRAE, et al. Advanced Energy Design Guides. Available for free download at 

http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1604.

Siting, building orientation, building 

envelope, daylighting, windows, overhangs, and many other features all work together to 

lower energy use. Using building energy modeling programs during the design phase will 

21 See Appendix C.3. 22 D. Langdon. Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the 

Light of Increased Market Adoption. July 2007, 

http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/images/publications/USA/The%20Cost%20of%20Green%20Revisited.pdf. 23 USGBC Web site. Green 101 and 102 presentations from the Green Affordable Housing Training in Chicago, 

Illinois, November 5, 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1810.
25

help with this integrated design, identifying the options that minimize energy use at the 

lowest cost.24

• Use a competitive bidding process, which will help building owners identify the 

architects and builders who have the most experience, knowledge, and training to design 

and build energy efficient buildings. 

• Use specific recommendations for metal building efficiency developed for Greensburg. 

Metal buildings are inexpensive for commercial construction (low capital costs), but 

often are not designed to be energy efficient (high life-cycle costs) to the levels required 

to achieve Greensburg’s goals.25

• Establish a program to acknowledge and reward owners of highly energy efficient or 

green government, nonprofit, and agency buildings. 

The results of these efforts in technical assistance, training, and encouragement include a 

substantial list of high-performance buildings (Table 7). Several of these buildings have been 

described in some detail in the Greensburg Sustainable Building Database. The database includes 

buildings on which NREL had significant influence on design, and other buildings in which 

NREL did not have direct consultation, but which are nonetheless important examples of energy 

efficiency that were influenced by the overall efforts of NREL, BNIM, McCluggage Van Sickle 

& Perry (MVP) Architects, and others.

Greensburg’s business community is also rebuilding with a major focus on energy efficiency and 

green building techniques. The John Deere dealership, completed in January 2009 (see Figures

15 and 16), is under consideration for LEED Platinum status, and has become the recommended

model for all future John Deere dealerships in North America. The General Motors dealership, 

Greensburg State Bank, Centerra Bank, People’s Bank, the Kiowa County United Building (a 

second business incubator), and other businesses are also designed for exceptional energy 

efficiency. 

Credit Lynn Billman, NREL. 

Figure 15. The John Deere dealership in Greensburg, Kansas, owned by BTI Equipment, uses two 

wind turbines to produce electricity for the building. 

 24 See Appendix C.3. 25 See Appendix C.6.
26

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1150

Figure 16. The John Deere dealership burns waste oil in this boiler to heat its service shop. 

All of these buildings feature extensive natural daylighting (see Figure 17), a well-insulated 

envelope, and high-performance lighting and controls. Some include ground-source heat pumps; 

two have PV panels; two have wind turbines; and two more are trying to procure wind turbines. 

As shown in Table 8, Greensburg—with 1 square mile and 800 residents—may soon have the 

greatest concentration (buildings per square mile) of LEED Platinum and Gold buildings in the 

country. 

Table 7. Selected High-Performance Commercial and Public Buildings in Greensburg

Building Owner Size 

(gsf)

Design Intent Certified Award 

(as of March 2009)

Sun Chips 

Business 

Incubator

City of Greensburg 9,580 LEED Platinum, 

50% energy 

savings

Not available

City Hall City of Greensburg 4,700 LEED Platinum

Kiowa County 

Courthouse 

(renovation)

Kiowa County 18,600 LEED Gold

Kiowa County 

Commons

Kiowa County 14,800 LEED Platinum

Kiowa County 

Memorial Hospital

Kiowa County 48,500 LEED Platinum

Greensburg K-12 

School

USD422 School 

District

120,000 LEED Platinum

5.4.7 Art Center 5.4.7 Art Center 1,670 LEED Platinum LEED Platinum
27

Prairie Point 

Townhomes (32 

units)

Kiowa County 24,000 LEED Gold LEED Platinum

BTI Equipment 

John Deere 

Dealership

BTI Equipment 30,000 LEED Platinum, 

42% energy 

savings

Dillon’s Market Dillons 8,000 Not available

Dwane Shank 

General Motors 

Dealership

Dwane and Ester 

Shank

8,300 Not available

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure 17. This photo of the parts area in the John Deere dealership building clearly shows the 

power—and beauty—of daylighting.

Table 8. LEED-Certified Buildings in Greensburg Compared to Kansas and United States as of 

March 2009

LEED 

Certification 

Level

United States 

(certified)

Kansas, not 

including 

Greensburg 

(certified)

Greensburg 

(certified)

Greensburg (not 

yet 

certified/design 

intent)

Platinum 117 0 2 6

Gold 679 2 0 1
28

A Green Building Program for Greensburg

Greensburg was interested in a formal green building program from the earliest days after the 

tornado. The primary desire expressed was to develop a checklist representing the key features of 

a green building that could be used as the basis for an award or recognition. 

The NREL project did not originally budget for helping the city develop a green building 

program. Also, because of the abundance of existing programs already available and nationally 

recognized, the NREL residential energy team did not agree with the idea of developing a 

program unique to Greensburg. During 2007 and early 2008, staff from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) took the lead on developing a unique green building program for the 

city. NREL offered written comments on this proposal. The city did not adopt the EPA guide, 

opting instead for a green building program that would garner more support from local builders 

and could be recognized at a national level.

Beginning in September 2008, the city expressed an interest in having NREL’s assistance on 

formalizing green building codes. As of that date, Greensburg used the 2003 International 

Residential Code for residential buildings and the 2003 International Building Code for 

commercial buildings. Both codes contain health and safety specifications along with very 

limited energy provisions. Kansas has no required code for residential structures, and adopted 

IECC 2006 for commercial buildings without any enforcement mechanism in the state statute.

26

From October 2008 through February 2009, NREL and IBACOS summarized the rapidly 

changing field of green building codes and green building programs at three briefings for a city 

leadership team. At each discussion, recommendations were updated based on the feedback from 

the city and the best available options. The city expressed concerns about how the residents, 

business owners, and builders would respond to perceived higher building costs for green 

buildings, and about how the city staff would learn the new energy code or program 

requirements.

In the period of these discussions, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) through 

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) completed the transformation of their Model 

Green Home Building Guidelines into the National Green Building Standard. This has been 

adopted by the International Code Council (ICC) as the ICC 700-2008. The NREL team 

approached NAHB about a partnership with the City of Greensburg to help them conduct a pilot 

program for this new standard. At NAHB’s suggestion, this partnership was pursued at the state 

affiliate level with the Kansas Building Industry Association (KBIA). NREL prepared a draft 

MOU for this partnership, in which the city would adopt the National Green Building Standard 

as a voluntary program and KBIA would give training, offer some discounted services, and 

support public awareness of the partnership. Greensburg welcomed this partnership approach as 

a response to the city’s concerns about learning the new energy-related building requirements 

and options. Also, the city felt that KBIA’s solid reputation with local builders would help allay 

some of the fears about perceived higher costs of green building.

 26 See Building Codes Assistance Project. http://www.bcap-energy.org/node/69.
29

In March 2009, based on these discussions with the city and NAHB, and new information about 

incentives for building code development related to the February 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, NREL made its final recommendation to the city. The NREL team 

recommended that the city establish a Greensburg Green Building Program, consisting of two 

main elements, the Greensburg GreenHome Program and the Greensburg GreenBusiness 

Program.27

In addition to adopting IECC 2006 as code, NREL recommended that the city encourage higher 

energy efficiency and green performance on a voluntary basis. The program to guide voluntary 

residential efforts would be the partnership with KBIA, using the ICC 700-2008, National Green 

Building Standard. The program to guide voluntary commercial efforts would be to encourage or 

incentivize architects and builders to use the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides, which 

spell out climate-specific design recommendations for four common commercial structures that 

will achieve 30% energy use improvement compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

NREL recommended the overall adoption of IECC 2006 as the basic energy code 

because it applies to both residential and commercial sectors and has reasonably achievable 

energy requirements. Given the city’s concerns about perceived costs and new code complexity, 

the NREL team decided that, as a separate commercial energy code, American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 might be too difficult 

for the city to implement at this time. 

The city approved a portion of the overall Greensburg Green Building Program in April 2009. 

The portion approved at that time was the voluntary GreenHome Program and the related 

memorandum of understanding between Greensburg and KBIA. As of May 2009, the city was

still working with NREL to move toward adopting either the IECC 2006 or IECC 2009 building 

codes. This adoption may be phased, first with commercial buildings and later with residential. A

voluntary GreenBusiness Program is also being discussed.

Efficiency in City and County Infrastructure Equipment

City and county infrastructure includes street lighting, lighting at fairgrounds and parks, water 

and sewage pumps, and other miscellaneous motors and generators. The NREL team 

recommended that the city and county choose equipment for their infrastructure with the highest 

practical energy efficiency. These include high-efficiency lights using LEDs for streets, parks, 

and parking lots; high-efficiency pumps for water and sewage; and high-efficiency motors and 

generators in shops and other miscellaneous uses. 

Although not all these areas have reported results, the city did install LED streetlights, with 

project design by Professional Engineering Consultants (Wichita, Kansas). Greensburg appears 

to be the first city in the United States to use all-LED streetlights. The new streetlight system 

should use 40% less energy compared to standard metal halide streetlights, and cost the city 70% 

less in operating costs per year. The streetlights are pictured in Figure 18.

 27 See Appendix F.
30

Credits: City of Greensburg (top left); Lynn Billman, (top right) NREL/PIX 16665, (bottom) NREL/PIX 16664

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1395

Figure 18. Daytime and nighttime views of the LED streetlights along Highway 54, the primary 

east-west highway through town, along with a close-up of a single streetlight.
31

Community-Scale and Distributed Power

Community-Scale Power

As noted earlier, the city’s electrical distribution system was destroyed by the tornado. Using 

insurance, state, and FEMA funding, the city and local contractors rebuilt the distribution system 

and delivered electricity to every resident within about six months. The city also quickly 

developed a draft MOU with the rural electric cooperative, largely coal based, with whom they 

had done business for many years, to disband the Greensburg municipal utility and enter into a 

long-term power supply contract. Before the MOU was finalized, however, the city leadership 

and the community became increasingly interested in moving forward with a green vision. 

In August 2007, NREL staff member Trudy Forsyth and subcontractor Tom Wind of Wind 

Utility Consulting gave a public presentation in Greensburg on community-scale wind systems.28

Further, NREL and its subcontractors Wind Utility Consulting and Distributed Generation 

Systems helped the city arrive at these goals for a community-scale electricity solution:

They introduced the possibilities for Greensburg, using examples of other communities that had 

been successful in completing wind projects. Several city and county officials attended, as did a 

handful of interested residents.

• Sell electricity at retail rates about the same as before the tornado, including covering the 

city’s expenses for staff and other obligations at the same level as before.

• Design an electricity system that would be reliable and reasonable for city staff to operate 

and maintain.

• Produce enough electricity so that peak conditions would be met.

• Be as close to 100% green as possible, in support of community goals for sustainability.

• Demonstrate a solution that other communities in Kansas could possibly emulate.

• Clearly demonstrate a cutting-edge green electricity source.

• Offer flexibility to the community to determine its electricity source as technologies and 

opportunities change in the future.

• Minimize the uncertainties and financial risk inherent in fossil-fuel-based electricity costs 

and supply in the future.

In contemplating a project to generate wind energy for the city, some city leaders expressed the 

irony that the power of the wind destroyed the community in May 2007, and now the community 

wanted to harness the power of that wind for their benefit. To accentuate the positive, 

Greensburg GreenTown adopted this slogan: “Greensburg: A Wind-Wind Situation.”

Greensburg’s future energy requirements were assumed to be at least equal to the energy 

requirements before the tornado, plus some uncertain amount beyond for growth in new 

businesses and industries. The NREL team prepared an analysis indicating that the excellent 

 28 See Appendix D.2.
32

wind resource in this area of Kansas was likely to make a 4-MW grid-connected wind energy 

system a feasible option for supplying 100% of the city’s annual electricity needs. (Figure 19

graphs historical and projected electricity supply requirements.) 

Figure 19. Greensburg historical and projected electricity needs in megawatt-hours.

NREL also recommended to the city that several other technologies should not be considered 

prime candidates for community-scale electricity supply for Greensburg, for the following 

reasons:

• Purchase of renewable energy credits (buying a certificate that pays for the extra 

generation cost of some other entity’s wind turbines or solar systems): This would not 

visibly demonstrate the city’s commitment to renewable energy.

• Conventional grid electricity: The current Mid-Kansas generation mix, at 10% renewable 

and the rest primarily coal, obviously met several of the goals. But it would not ensure 

clearly demonstrated 100% green electricity or flexibility, or avoid risks of future fossil 

fuel costs.

• Geothermal power plant: Ground temperatures at reasonable depth would be too low for 

electricity generation.

• Solar thermal electric: The solar resource would be insufficient and the project would be 

too small to be economical.

• Fuel cells: For electricity alone, the cost would be higher than other options. Fuel cells 

are best for large cogeneration (heat and electricity) loads, such as a possible future 

industrial park.

• Diesel generators: Operating cost would be uncertain, and sometimes could be extremely 

high; diesel generators require biodiesel to meet 100% green goal, and the biodiesel 

supply and cost would be uncertain.

• Natural gas generators: The future cost of natural gas would be uncertain and the 

technology is not 100% green.

• Wind turbines with vanadium battery storage: The cost would be high.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Losses

Commercial

Residential
33

• Wind-electrolyzer system using hydrogen storage: The technology is immature and the 

cost would be high.

• Wind-compressed air energy storage: The relatively small size of the system and the 

unlikelihood that suitable underground resources would be available in the area would 

make this impractical.

• Wind turbines with ice storage: This would be more suitable for a single building rather 

than a community. 

• Gasification of biomass as a substitute for natural gas: The fuel supply would be 

uncertain and the technology is immature.

• PV: The cost would be high.

Beginning in August 2007, Tom Wind prepared a set of extensive feasibility studies on this and 

other configurations for possible wind systems for Greensburg. In December 2007, Dale Osborn 

of Distributed Generation Systems joined Tom and NREL staff in a series of meetings involving 

the city leadership, representatives from the state energy office, representatives from two rural 

cooperatives, and several other stakeholders to debate the pros and cons of the city’s electricity 

options. In January 2008, Marc O’Connor, Tom Rath, and Ben Speed from Maxon Holdings also 

joined the team to assist with financing opportunities. Tim Lenz of Professional Engineering 

Consultants, under contract to the city, assisted throughout the process with electrical 

engineering expertise. In April 2008, NREL arranged a site visit for Greensburg city 

representatives with counterparts in two small communities in Colorado—Lamar and 

Springfield—that had experience owning and operating one or more wind turbines (see Figure 

20). This visit helped convince the Greensburg city staff that owning and operating a wind

turbine would work for their community.
34

Credit: Leon Sparks

Source: Presentation, City of Lamar Light & Power and ARPA /Springfield Wind Project, Colorado Wind and 

Distributed Energy Conference, April 2004.

Figure 20. Talking with community leaders in Lamar, Colorado, who had experience operating 

these wind turbines, helped convince Greensburg leaders that wind-generated electricity would 

be feasible for their town as well.

By January 2008, the city had decided to retain ownership of its distribution lines and thereby 

remain a municipal utility, which preserved the city’s flexibility in determining its future energy 

choices as its sustainable community vision unfolds. The city made a short-term rather than longterm arrangement to continue to purchase electricity from its conventional supplier while studies 

and decision making were in process. Greensburg also chose to remain connected to the grid 

because energy storage would have added markedly to the cost of electricity. 

Wind resource data for Greensburg were estimated from public databases, refined through a 

more detailed computer algorithm, and finally measured with meteorological equipment 

beginning in June 2008. The intended site for the wind turbines was at the edge of Greensburg 

city limits, and about 1 mile from the major highway passing through the community, which 

would be not only an excellent wind resource but also an excellent visual message for the city. 

The team helped the city form a new relationship with the Kansas Power Pool, a rural electric 

cooperative with a strong renewable energy generation portfolio who expressed a desire for 

additional wind generation capacity for its city members. Representatives of Kansas Power Pool 

indicated an interest in not just 4 MW of wind generating capacity, but as much as 10–12 MW. 

Kansas Power Pool also agreed to formalize an understanding with the city that Kansas Power 

Pool would manage their generation resources such that renewable energy, whether wind or 

other available resources such as hydropower, would be available to Greensburg 100% of the 

time. This was an expression of support from Kansas Power Pool to the city, given its difficult 

challenges in recovering from the tornado devastation. 
35

The business strategy recommended by the team was the model known in the wind industry as 

the Minnesota Flip model. In this model, the city would begin the project with a small percentage 

of ownership compared to the private equity owner, who would benefit from the federal 

production tax credit for 10 years. At the end of that time, the city would have the option of 

owning most or all of the system. The city’s ability to sell renewable energy credits helped the 

economics of that proposed business model. The team continued to work through July 2008 on 

developing this business strategy and pro forma, and to identify investors who could give the 

capital and debt equity for the project, estimated at $22 million for a turn-key 12-MW system. 

After initially declining interest in developing a 4-MW system, John Deere Renewable Energy 

finally did express an interest in being the developer for a 12.5-MW wind system to serve the 

city. In September 2008, based on the speed with which a system could be installed and expected 

lower electricity costs in the initial years of the project, Kansas Power Pool and the city decided 

to go with the John Deere Renewable Energy proposal. Based on the information that was shared 

at that time, the NREL/Maxon team endorsed this decision. 

The Greensburg Wind Farm will include 10 turbines, each rated at 1.25 MW. John Deere 

Renewable Energy will build and maintain the wind farm, and it will sell power to the Kansas 

Power Pool. Greensburg expects to consume about a quarter of the electricity the wind farm 

generates. When the wind is not blowing and the turbines cannot generate electricity, the Kansas 

Power Pool will have enough other clean power sources online, including hydropower, to meet 

the community’s goal of being powered entirely by renewable sources.

Before the tornado, the city owned five dual-fuel generators (diesel and natural gas) totaling 6.5 

MW of capacity. Under the new electricity agreement with Kansas Power Pool, additional peak 

power was not expected to be required. The other purpose of those original generators, as backup power in an emergency, was rendered unnecessary by the use of individual generators by key 

service providers. Therefore, the city decided not to replace the diesel generators.

Distributed Power

The goal for distributed power in Greensburg was to identify power solutions for individual 

homes, businesses, or district systems that could cost-effectively produce heat or electricity from 

solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal resources. Because of the potential for donations, fuel cells 

were also considered. The NREL team assisted the city in developing and adopting ordinances 

and policies to support distributed wind and solar systems. Team members prepared feasibility 

studies on options for small wind turbines, PV, and a downtown district heating and cooling 

system. Biomass options, regardless of scale, are discussed at the end of this section.

Distributed Power Policies and Ordinances

NREL developed four related policy documents for the City of Greensburg: Interconnection 

Agreement, Net Billing Tariff, Wind Ordinance, and Solar Ordinance.29

 29 See Appendix G.
36

The Interconnection Agreement describes the details of the requirements and commitments for 

the city municipal utility and the owner of a distributed wind or solar regarding how that system 

is interconnected to the municipal grid. The city adopted the Interconnection Agreement.

The Net Billing Tariff describes the financial agreements between the municipal utility and 

customer. Net billing encourages the installation of distributed wind and solar by allowing the 

electricity produced by these systems to run the owner’s meter backward, effectively valuing 

electricity produced by the owner’s system at the retail rate for municipal utility electricity. This 

gives more value to the system owner than the current Kansas parallel generation legislation, 

which only allows the system owner to receive a payment for his solar or wind electricity that is 

a little more than the grid operator’s wholesale cost of electricity. Without net billing, small wind 

and solar systems are likely to be rare in Greensburg because of the high capital costs. Limiting 

net billing to distributed systems up to 100 kW, and using a “perpetual” approach such that 

system owners are never paid outright for extra electricity their systems generate, discourages 

entities from installing systems large enough to end up effectively competing with the municipal 

utility. The city adopted the Net Billing Tariff.

The Wind and Solar Ordinances describe details of installation and operation requirements to 

enhance safety and lessen potential issues with these distributed technologies, and were adopted 

by the city.

Greensburg may have to create additional guidance or ordinances at some time in the future on 

solar access (e.g., making sure that one owner’s solar panels are not shaded by another owner’s 

building additions or growth of trees or shrubs). Encouraging the use of solar panels should not, 

however, be delayed until solar access is clarified at the city level. For this type of community, 

solar access may be able to be effectively handled case by case.

Distributed Wind Systems 

NREL recommended that individual, public, and business land and property owners consider 

generating their own electricity using wind turbines if they have sufficient space (e.g., turbines 

setbacks from property lines must be at least equal to the height of the turbine), meet other city 

requirements for the safe installation and interconnection of relatively quiet wind turbines, and 

can afford or finance the turbines.30

NREL recommended against attaching wind turbines directly to buildings or building 

components to generate electricity. Wind turbines produce significantly less electricity in an 

urban setting or close to a building because tower heights are generally restricted and wind 

patterns are disrupted by the building, adjacent trees, other buildings, and other obstructions. 

Also, many small wind turbines, especially older models, can be noisy and induce vibration if 

secured to a building component.31

One resident wanted to install a wind turbine on a city-sized, one-quarter-acre lot, which was not 

large enough to meet the setbacks NREL had recommended in the Wind Ordinance. NREL’s 

wind team, and other experts from the DOE Wind Program’s Community Wind project, 

developed a short white paper further analyzing the key issues that influenced the 

 30 See Appendix D.4. 31 See Appendix D.7.
37

recommendations for setbacks: safety, visual impacts, sound emission, and economics.32

As of February 2009, two building owners had installed small wind turbines in Greensburg. The 

BTI Equipment John Deere dealership, located just outside of city limits, installed both a 

Southwest Windpower Skystream, rated at 1.4 kW, and an Endurance turbine, rated at 4.2 kW. 

The Endurance turbine has been operating constantly since it was installed in March 2008. It

powered the John Deere dealership job site and produced between 1150 and 1250 kW per month 

in 2008. Together the two wind turbines offset approximately 8% of the building’s electrical

load.

Although the NREL team appreciated the recognition in the community of the value of wind 

energy and distributed wind turbine usage in the Greensburg city limits, the team also had to 

control the expectation that every homeowner could lower their electrical bill by putting up a 

wind turbine outside their back door. The city followed NREL’s original recommendations.

The 5.4.7 Art Center, designed by students from the University of Kansas Studio 804 graduate 

design/build program, has 3 Kestrel wind turbines connected to a bank of 12 batteries. Each wind 

turbine is rated at 600 W. Actual power output data are not available.

As of March 2009, the Greensburg K-12 School and Kiowa County Memorial Hospital each 

intend to add a wind turbine, perhaps with 50 kW capacity, to their new facilities. Success will 

depend on finding additional funds or a financing mechanism to lower upfront capital costs.

Distributed Solar Systems

NREL’s solar subcontractor, John Thornton, prepared a feasibility study analyzing appropriate 

uses for PV systems in Greensburg.

33

NREL recommended in April 2008 that individual, public, and business land and property 

owners consider generating their own electricity from PV panels where desired. It was noted, 

however, that small PV systems were still not cost-effective at this time compared to grid 

electricity, especially in Kansas, which has no state incentives. But some entities may want to 

install PV for noneconomic reasons. To generate the greatest electricity, NREL recommended 

that PV panels be mounted on a south-facing slope, ideally at an angle of 37.7° from the 

horizontal (plus or minus 20° will still work). PV panels should also be installed in accordance 

with city guidelines. They can be connected to the grid (less expensive) or to batteries (more 

expensive) for off-grid applications. PV panels can easily be used for lighting signs at night for 

businesses and city and county buildings (batteries required); for overhead shade as well as 

electricity when used as window awnings, carports, and canopies for gas stations; for powering 

park pavilions; for powering streetlights with LEDs; and on farms and ranches to control 

irrigation, pump water, run a workshop, and maintain communications. 

The study emphasized the importance of first optimizing 

energy efficiency in any building being considered for solar, and presented the current market 

prices for PV. It identified many appropriate uses for PV in Greensburg, as noted in the 

following recommendations.

As of March 2009, a few buildings in Greensburg had PV panels or they were under 

construction. The city-owned Sun Chips Business Incubator has a 6.8-kW DC system on the roof 

 32 See Appendix G.5. 33 See Appendix D.8.
38

that should produce 10% of the building’s total energy load. The 5.4.7 Art Center has eight 

panels. Solar panels are planned for the Greensburg City Hall, which is under construction (see 

Figure 21). And Bauer Power in Michigan donated a 2-kW PV system with inverter (Figure 22)

to Greensburg GreenTown for its Silo Eco-Home.

Credit: Emily Schlickman, Greensburg GreenTown

Source:http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/overview.cfm?projectid=1341

Figure 21. Greensburg City Hall, scheduled for completion in July 2009, will house the city’s 

administrative offices and council chambers and serve as a gathering place for town meetings.

The building incorporates solar panels and geothermal technology, and the city is striving to 

make it the first LEED Platinum-certified city hall building in America. Building materials include 

recycled wood and reclaimed brick left in the storm’s wake. The east end of the roof will feature 

living vegetation (a so-called “green roof”).

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure 22. This 2-kW PV array supplies power to the Greensburg GreenTown Silo Eco-Home.

Pictured are David Moffitt the home’s architect, and Executive Director Daniel Wallach and Mason 

Earles of Greensburg Greentown.
39

For solar hot water, NREL recommended that entities in Greensburg consider the use of solar hot 

water systems with care. To be effective, a solar hot water system has to be very carefully 

designed and skillfully installed for freezing conditions. Even then, system performance can be 

degraded by losses from long pipe runs from the panels and mismatch of solar resource with use 

patterns. Investments in solar hot water systems are typically not as cost-effective as investments 

in energy efficiency (insulating pipes, a building design with short pipe runs, and highly efficient 

water heaters, including tankless heaters). 

Solar hot water systems are, however, generally more cost-effective than PV systems. NREL 

recommended that building owners consider solar hot water systems if initial cost is not a major 

issue or if a building owner wants to install solar hot water to achieve a zero-net-energy building 

or to demonstrate the use of solar energy.34

Distributed Geothermal Systems

In commercial applications, solar hot water systems 

are most easily justified where there is large hot water demand such as showers at the school, a 

motel, hospital, or industrial plants with high hot water usage. 

Geothermal energy for homes and buildings is captured through a ground-source heat pump, 

which is simply a two-way air conditioner with a low-energy circulating loop that transfers heat 

to and from the ground through pipes buried underground. The fluid carries heat from the earth 

to the building in the winter, and carries heat from the building to the earth in the summer. NREL 

recommended that individual, public, and business owners consider the use of ground-source 

heat pumps, depending on local costs. 

The primary concern with ground-source heat pumps is the relatively high and hard-to-predict 

cost of installation because of the drilling or trenching necessary to bury the pipes in the ground. 

The ground loop inherent in a ground-source heat pump system typically doubles the first cost of 

a conventional heating/cooling system. Annual energy costs can, however, be reduced by as 

much as 70% compared to conventional electric heating and cooling. Costs vary depending on 

the local soil conditions and water table depth, the familiarity of the installer with the locale and 

technology, and the number of units being done. Although not yet widely adopted in Kansas, 

numerous residential and large commercial systems are being built nearby in Oklahoma. 

Homeowners, businesses, or public entities collaborating on a shared (district) system using 

ground-source heat pumps can reduce the cost and make this solution more economical.

As of March 2009, ground-source heat pumps had been installed or chosen for the designs of at 

least four public buildings:

• 5-4-7 Art Center (3 wells, 200 feet deep)

• Greensburg K-12 School

• Sun Chips Business Incubator (21 wells, 340 feet deep; see Figure 23)

• Kiowa County Courthouse (32 wells, 300 feet deep)

 34 DOE EERE. Volume 6: Building America Best Practices Series – High Performance Home Technologies: Solar 

Thermal & Photovoltaic Systems. June 4, 2007. NREL/TP-550-41085. 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/41085.pdf.
40

Five homeowners have also installed ground-source heat pumps. This is not an exhaustive list. 

Other facilities in Greensburg may have already installed or plan to install ground-source heat 

pumps.

Credit: City of Greensburg

Source: http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/images.cfm?ProjectID=1151

Figure 23. This photo of the mechanical room in Greenburg’s Sun Chips Business Incubator 

building shows the ground-source heat pump’s loop piping.

District Heating and Cooling Systems

NREL recommended that Greensburg pursue district heating and cooling systems with caution. 

District heating and cooling systems use a centralized set of heating and cooling equipment with 

underground pipes to carry hot or cold water or air to a set of closely located buildings. They are 

used quite successfully in such applications as college campuses, office parks, and downtown 

districts. In Greensburg, no situation lent itself well to centralized ownership of a set of closely 

located buildings with large enough heating and cooling loads to make such a system 

economical, nor was there a business model in which a heating and cooling system owner could 

economically develop a district system for individual users.

The downtown district was studied as a possible application. Greensburg’s “Big Well” is 

immediately adjacent to the downtown district. The Big Well, 23 feet in diameter and 109 feet 

deep, was hand dug in the 1880s and supplied city water from 1888 to 1932. Since 1937 it has 

been a significant tourist attraction. The district heating and cooling study noted that using the 

55°F water in the Big Well, if circulated to a nearby set of buildings in a closed-loop system, 

might produce some of the summertime cooling required. This was identified as a potentially 

unique use of Greensburg’s most important tourist attraction as an energy asset for the city.35

 35 See Appendix D.12.

The high cost of installing the underground pipes, the relatively small loads, the uncertainty of 

when individual business owners would build, and whether they would consent to be part of the 

district system, though, made the project very high risk. Homeowners or businesses or public 

agencies who can work together in a modest geographic area to develop more than one building 

into a heating and cooling district could make the idea worth reconsidering. The study was done 
41

only on the concept of the independently owned lots in the downtown area without such a

collaboration.

Fuel Cells

As noted earlier, some major corporate donors showed interest in assisting Greensburg. One of 

these was UTC Power. NREL and UTC discussed UTC’s latest fuel cell systems, and concluded 

that the most cost-effective application would be users with high energy needs for both heat and 

electricity. Next-generation fuel cell technology, to be introduced to the marketplace in 2009, 

may significantly lower the life cycle cost of energy compared to previous technology. This type 

of fuel cell technology uses natural gas to generate electricity and heat (cogeneration), and can be 

used for chilling as well (trigeneration). In the near future, UTC plans another commercial 

advance that will operate on anaerobic digester gas or biomass gasification instead of natural gas. 

Both methods produce a product similar to natural gas from biomass. 

The fuel cell technology currently available is not as modular as renewable energy systems and 

requires large energy loads to be cost-effective, including large heating loads. No single load 

currently planned in Greensburg is large enough, but the future industrial park might be the type 

of load that is a good match for the capabilities of a next-generation fuel cell system.36

In 2008, UTC Power donated three 5-kW polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells to the 

Greensburg K-12 School. UTC also donated an electrolyzer to generate the hydrogen gas needed 

as the fuel for the fuel cells. The fuel cells will be used for back-up generation during an 

emergency or power outage, using wind-generated electricity for the electrolyzer. 

Operating 

a fuel cell with digester gas would bring such a system closer to Greensburg’s goals for 100% 

green power, but this technology requires maturation and demonstration before being considered 

by Greensburg.

Energy from Biomass

Biomass is generally considered to include such energy sources such as wood or forestry waste, 

agricultural products or residues, municipal solid waste, methane or manure form cattle feeding 

lots or other animal operations, or crops grown especially as an energy resource. 

Biomass can be gasified in a high-temperature, oxygen-starved environment to make synthesis 

gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Gases generally burn cleaner and more 

efficiently than solids, avoiding the release of particulate matter into the atmosphere. After 

gasification, the synthesis gas can be used in place of natural gas. In Greensburg, the 

DOE/NREL team did consider using municipal solid waste for producing electricity. But 

because only a relatively small quantity of waste is available, the team determined that installing 

a gasification system—of any scale—would not be cost-effective.

Manure from cattle feed lots and dairy farms represents an energy source that could be fuel for 

the feed lot or dairy operations and produce valuable byproducts. Feed lots have long been a 

 36 See Appendix D.13.
42

staple, and dairy farms are expanding, in western Kansas.37

In the course of learning about sustainable living and building design following the tornado, 

some of the leaders in the community also realized that urban debris in the form of scrap lumber 

or downed trees could also be a useful source of biomass for recycling in buildings and trim. Not 

realizing this at the time, however, the community burned most of the debris from the tornado as 

quickly as possible. The team discussed with the local residents ideas about collecting and 

composting yard clippings and other suitable urban waste for use on local gardens in support of 

the community’s interest in locally grown foods. 

Such an operation could be designed 

as a closed-loop energy and material system, though such operations are in the experimental 

stages, through use of anaerobic digestion. This technology is fully commercial in Europe and is 

beginning to be widely adopted in the United States. Most animal feed lots or other operations 

were, however, too far from Greensburg to be useful to the city. No further feasibility studies 

were done for this idea.

Biomass can be cofired with coal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if allowed by local 

regulations. With 53,000 acres of Conservation Reserve Program land in Kiowa County that 

could be planted in switchgrass or similar energy crops, 27,610 acres of corn producing stover 

and cobs, and a railroad line through Greensburg, such biomass could be collected, compressed, 

and shipped to a coal plant. No further feasibility studies were done for cofiring, although 

biomass collection and densification has been evaluated.

NREL recommended in April 2008 that entities in Greensburg consider using biomass, 

especially agricultural wastes, for various solid fuel, commercially proven, heating applications. 

Boilers are available that will burn almost any type of dry biomass to generate hot water; and 

heaters are available that will burn corn or biomass pellets, briquettes, or other solid or loose 

forms of material. Boilers and heaters need to have emissions acceptable to Kansas and EPA 

regulations. Collecting and supplying waste biomass to use with boilers in the community, or 

pelletizing biomass into a solid fuel for customers using heaters in the community, could 

represent a business opportunity for an entrepreneur.38

Based on community interest in this idea, NREL subsequently developed an extensive feasibility 

study for the concept of developing a pelletizing mill in or near Greensburg using biomass 

residues. Because the larger amounts of potential biomass feedstocks reside mostly outside the 

city limits, the pelletizing feasibility study considered counties within a 50-mile radius of 

Greensburg.

NREL conducted its study in cooperation with Sunflower Resource Conservation and 

Development (RC&D), a local nonprofit. The study consisted of several steps:

• Understand the local biomass resource base.

• Assess potential biomass resource chemical and performance characteristics.

• Assess local competitors (both for biomass feedstocks and for pellets produced).

 37 Kansas Department of Agriculture Web site. “Kansas Dairy in Industry,” 2006. 

http://www.ksda.gov/dairy/content/122. 38 See Appendix D.9.
43

• Understand the economics of the process.

• Assess the local market and potential for biomass to produce thermal energy.

A detailed biomass feedstock assessment was conducted as part of the analysis; the appendices 

contain the technical report with assessment results.39

The partnership with Sunflower RC&D identified a local person who had access to a substantial 

amount of eastern red cedar, which is cleared as an undesirable competitor with crops in local 

fields. In contrast to the agricultural residue samples, the clean-burning eastern red cedar was 

suitable for premium pellets. This individual suggested the possibility of using wood-agricultural 

residue blends as a potential feedstock.

The current pellet market is dominated by 

premium pellets, predominantly from clean-burning wood products, which have ash content less 

than 1% and low alkalis. The actual agricultural residue samples tested from the study area, 

however, indicated high ash content and high alkalis. High ash leads to excessive amounts of ash 

to dispose of, and high alkali content leads to excessive slagging, which contaminates the 

combustion equipment. In addition, some agricultural residues do not bind into pellets as readily 

as wood, creating greater fines. 

The study considered wood-agricultural residue pellets compared to the primary competitors for 

providing process heat, which include natural gas, propane, electricity, cedar chips, and 

unprocessed straw bales or other unprocessed agricultural residues. The study also examined 

several potential competing pellet companies, including wood-pelletizing companies and the 

closest cellulosic/corn ethanol plant in development. One company was identified (Show-MeEnergy Cooperative of Centerview, Missouri) that had developed a plant to make pellets from 

biomass residues; this company contributed their experiences to the conclusions of the study. 

One large industrial company was identified in the area that could be a substantial user of pellets 

for heating. This company, National Gypsum of Medicine Lodge, Kansas, expressed some 

tentative interest in considering biomass pellets to replace natural gas. A detailed economic 

analysis should be conducted for National Gypsum to evaluate this option.

A study of process and market economics included the investment costs of a startup pellet plant, 

total feedstock costs, costs of competing natural gas, and the difficulty of customers changing 

from natural gas combustion equipment to pellet combustion equipment.

The key conclusions of the study were as follows:

• There is potentially enough agricultural residue feedstock and eastern red cedar to 

support a 24,000 ton/year pellet, briquette, or bripell plant making wood-biomass blended 

pellets with potentially acceptable performance characteristics.

• Given market prices in early 2009, biomass pellets will have a hard time competing with 

industrial natural gas rates. Pellets are much more competitive when compared to 

propane, fuel oil, electric heat, and commercial and residential natural gas.

 39 See Appendix D.10 and D.11.
44

• Cedar chips and unprocessed straw bales are lower cost biomass resources than any 

pellet, although these feedstocks are bulkier to store and more difficult to feed into 

boilers.

• The need for end users to buy a new boiler or furnace is a barrier; third-party financing 

might be helpful.

• Considerable market development efforts are still needed:

o There are not many incentives for users to switch to biomass at this time.

o There are not incentives to be the first biomass pellet plant owner.

• A carbon tax or a national renewable portfolio standard may change the situation 

dramatically.

NREL does not intend to continue any further development of this study at this time.
45

Transportation Alternatives

A major consideration for any sustainable community is reducing the use of gasoline and diesel 

fuel, which are major contributors to carbon dioxide and other emissions. NREL analyzed the 

fleet composition before the tornado, availability of various fuels, cost of new infrastructure such 

as dispensing equipment for new fuels, and interest on the part of key stakeholders in using 

alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles.40 Alternative fuels include electricity; biofuels 

such as ethanol/gasoline blends and biodiesel/diesel blends; compressed natural gas and propane; 

and hybrid vehicles (combining electricity and gasoline) and plug-in hybrids (an emerging 

technology that includes the ability to charge the vehicle in an electrical outlet, increasing the 

electricity use and range of a hybrid vehicle; Figure 24).

Credit: City of Greensburg, NREL/PIX 16667

Source: http://greensburgks.org/resident/photo-gallery/scholfield-honda-civic-donation/SANY0106.JPG/view

Figure 24. Scholfield Honda in Wichita donated this natural-gas-powered Honda Civic to the City 

of Greensburg.

Table 9 lists other vehicles donated to or purchased in Greensburg.

Table 9. Alternative Transportation Options Donated to or Purchased in Greensburg 

Type Technology Number Donor Owner/Driver

Honda Civic Compressed natural 

gas (CNG)

1 Scholfield Honda, 

Wichita, Kansas

Greensburg 

GreenTown

CNG filling station CNG 1 Scholfield Honda, 

Wichita, Kansas

Greensburg 

GreenTown

Ford sedan E-85/hybrid electric 

vehicle (HEV)

1 Ford dealer, 

Missouri

City administrator

 40 See Appendix E.
46

Chevrolet Tahoe HEV 3 General Motors City staffers

Honda Insight HEV 1 Not applicable GreenTown staffer 

(privately owned)

Toyota Prius HEV 1 Not applicable GreenTown staffer 

(privately owned)

NREL recommended that Greensburg lower the vehicle miles traveled as much as possible. 

Given that Greensburg is about a mile square, many residents are able to walk or bicycle. This 

was encouraged in the Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive Plan, which included 

suggestions for attractive paths and sidewalks and bicycle racks. Also, the city could introduce 

the Segway people mover to the community through a city or county purchase or donation. 

Greensburg can also encourage the purchase of locally grown food and locally manufactured 

products, further reducing the need for regional transportation.

NREL also recommended that city and county leaders promote small electric vehicles such as the 

two-passenger Global Electric Motorcar (GEM; a division of Chrysler) or equivalent. These 

vehicles, which are a step beyond electric golf carts, currently cost about $12,000 each. If the 

goal of 100% green electricity can be met for the community, all electric vehicles would then be 

considered green as well. The city and county could purchase these for meter reading, building 

inspections, small repair tasks, and other short runs around town. These closed vehicles with 

heaters and storage space will operate in normal traffic but have a short range that limits their 

usefulness to in-town tasks. The community should also encourage using small electric vehicles 

in a community cooperative program that makes some of these available to businesses and 

residents, and could install electric recharging stations along Main Street. These vehicles would 

be especially useful to the older population who cannot easily walk to key locations within town. 

Encouraging small electric vehicles would also open up possibilities for a new dealership and 

service shop for electric vehicles in Greensburg.
47

Green Economic Development

The NREL team supported green economic development through a feasibility study of 

community wind development; the addition of John Deere as a member of the DOE/NREL 

Commercial Building National Accounts partnership; assistance to a new wind division of a 

Greensburg company with national impact; a feasibility study of biomass pelletizing potential; 

training of a HERS rater; subcontract funding to a new sustainability nonprofit (Greensburg 

GreenTown); and education and training of two dozen architects, engineers, and builders on 

energy efficiency.

Because the wind farm will be owned and developed by an existing company, John Deere 

Renewable Energy, it is not likely that this relatively small installation and operation of 10 wind 

turbines will result in additional jobs or economic development in the area. 

A valuable new partnership developed out of a Greensburg project between DOE/NREL and the 

John Deere Corporation. John Deere is now a member of the Commercial Building National 

Accounts activity,

41

A significant new green business started up in Greensburg. BTI Equipment in Greensburg, the 

local John Deere dealer, became the North American distributor for a Canadian wind turbine 

company, after having had a positive experience with this wind turbine in the building of their 

new dealership. In their first nine months of business, they built a North American Dealer 

network across 32 states and four Canadian provinces, resulting in 120 new wind-related North 

American jobs (mostly U.S., including wind specialists, service technicians, and installers), and 

nearly 300 existing sales representatives who are learning the new business of wind energy. 

NREL staffers worked extensively with BTI Equipment executives and other personnel to 

improve their understanding of small wind turbine technology and marketplaces during the 

planning stages of this new business venture.

which is a partnership between DOE/NREL and key leaders in business and 

government aimed at identifying and promoting energy efficiency in commercial and public 

buildings. A second John Deere dealership in Kansas is being built based on the lessons learned 

in Greensburg. And John Deere Place, the corporate focal point for dealership design and 

marketing, has redirected its business plan to promote energy efficient, green dealerships 

throughout North America.

Working with local business and economic development committees, the NREL team completed 

a feasibility study analyzing the biomass resource quantity and quality, conversion technologies, 

potential market opportunities, and potential business viability for converting local crop residues 

to pellets for solid fuel heating. The study indicated that certain feedstocks, and certain market 

conditions, could lead to a successful business. There is a possibility that this study will be 

pursued further by interested persons in the local area. 

DOE provided funding to the Kansas State Energy Office to train a HERS rater for Greensburg

and allow him to conduct 200 to 300 energy audits. The local person chosen for this, Brian 

Wendland, is an excellent example of how someone without a background in energy can learn 

 41 See http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/national_accounts.html.
48

the necessary skills and enter the green collar job market. Wendland’s success has inspired other 

residents to inquire about training in energy auditing.

As noted below in more detail, Greensburg GreenTown was established shortly after the tornado 

by a local resident, outside the city limits but nearby, who had the desire and appropriate 

background to organize this nonprofit and offer its assistance to the City of Greensburg. In terms 

of green economic development, NREL assisted by choosing this nonprofit as a subcontractor to 

provide extensive and detailed information and advice on the city and its residents, leaders, 

businesses, stakeholders, media opportunities, meeting opportunities, and other areas. As a 

subcontractor, NREL funding helped GreenTown hire two local residents, adding to the growing 

number of green jobs in the community. As its successes and reputation grew, GreenTown was 

also able to attract three AmeriCorps volunteers, who have worked on green projects for 

GreenTown and the city for a year, and will then move into other types of green careers with this 

valuable experience.

The efforts of the NREL team to educate and train architects, engineers, and builders appear to 

have ramifications well beyond Greensburg. Professional Engineering Consultants of Wichita, 

Hastco Builders of Emporia, MVP Architects, Mennonite Housing, and Wardcraft Homes are 

representative of the several dozen companies who had limited experience with highperformance green buildings and received extensive guidance and training from NREL. Each has 

shared anecdotally with the NREL team about the value of that training, and how it is enabling 

them to replicate the high-performance concepts in their work well beyond Greensburg.
49

Leadership, Education, and Outreach

City Leadership

The general actions and attitudes of city leadership and various community groups strongly 

affected the successes achieved in Greensburg.

In April 2008, NREL made the following recommendations to the city leadership to help the city 

continue to actively promote the adoption of sustainable technologies in support of the 

community vision:

• Designating one person or organization to guide or be the primary point of contact for 

promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other green advances on behalf of 

the community should help focus efforts and improve communication. If city resources 

will not support dedicated staff, any available city resources should be spent with a local, 

committed organization to accomplish this. Greensburg GreenTown has already 

established a mission along these lines, using a board of citizens in various leadership 

roles in the community, and may be able to continue serving this role for the community. 

• The city should encourage, hire, or contract with a centralized person or organization to 

become familiar with, and stay current with, up-to-date information on all financial 

incentives available for energy efficiency and renewable energy. This person would act 

as a source of information for entities within the community, and thus would help 

encourage the adoption of such technologies. Similarly, the economic development 

professionals assisting in Greensburg should stay abreast of incentive programs that 

encourage the development of green businesses and industries. These incentives, 

including tax credits, tax deductions, and rebates, are available from federal agencies, 

state agencies, utility companies, some large banks, and foundations. Because this is a 

complex and rapidly changing marketplace, such local expertise will help Greensburg 

adopt green technologies more effectively. 

• Engaging the youth in the community in green technologies has already begun with the 

establishment of the Green Club at the high school, supervised by Greensburg 

GreenTown. Involvement of the youth at all ages should be encouraged. Many 

organizations offer training materials, curricula, activities, and ideas in these areas for 

youth.

• The faith community is very strong in Greensburg, and some churches have already 

shown a strong interest in pursuing energy efficient buildings and embracing the 

sustainable development vision of the community. Church leaders who support the 

sustainability vision should encourage others within the community and consider 

becoming spokespersons for energy efficiency and renewable energy among the wider 

faith communities of Kansas and the nation. 

• Education and awareness among the residents of Greensburg should be constantly 

encouraged. Public recognition programs were mentioned previously, and should be 

developed to reward energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, recycling, green 

landscaping, and other green technologies. Various media approaches, community 
50

events, and information workshops should be sustained to continue to educate and 

encourage the residents. 

• Ecotourism has been effective around the world for improving the local economy, and 

with Greensburg’s growing reputation for a unique community demonstrating sustainable 

development, ideas for ecotourism (such as GreenTown’s Chain of Eco-Homes concept 

for ecolodging) should be encouraged.42

• Maintaining a high public profile within Kansas and across the nation will be important 

to bring in the outside investments the community needs to implement or help some of 

the energy efficiency and renewable energy recommendations made in this strategy. 

Although the work of the Discovery Channel and others was effective during the first 

year, other long-term relationships will be needed to sustain a high profile at a national 

level, such as the USGBC, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), NAHB; Mother 

Earth News, Home Power, and similar green publications; providers of green 

technologies; the major dealerships or businesses in Greensburg that are nationally based; 

environmentally sensitive companies; federal agencies; and others who have not yet been 

much involved in Greensburg but could be, such as the Rocky Mountain Institute, Urban 

Land Institute, and various foundations.

The city leaders continued to grow steadily in their confidence and commitment to energy 

efficiency and renewable energy, and the overall sustainability vision and goals, throughout the 

period of this project. This has been because of a multiplicity of factors, including influence from 

the NREL team. In fact, on May 2, 2009, Greensburg recognized NREL with the city’s first 

annual Outstanding Support Award for playing an “instrumental” role in the town’s recovery. 

NREL advisers will work in Greensburg for another year (through fiscal year 2010) to complete 

on-the-ground projects and additional outreach to share the lessons learned from Greensburg that 

will help other cities and towns. 

As of June 2009, the city has maintained its active relationship and MOU with Greensburg 

GreenTown to coordinate and promote the sustainability initiative in Greensburg. GreenTown’s 

executive director, staff, and board of directors (all local citizens) have continued to supply the 

most consistent leadership and focus on sustainability opportunities throughout the community, 

working wherever possible with other volunteer citizen groups. As was pointed out to the city 

leadership on more than one occasion, the Discovery Channel advocates would come and go, and 

the federal agencies providing support would also end their activities after a while. At that point, 

local advocates such as Greensburg GreenTown are vital to continue to carry and promote the 

green vision for Greensburg.

The city established a tourism committee, which is focusing on ecotourism ideas in conjunction 

with Greensburg GreenTown. GreenTown developed a vision for a dozen Eco-Homes, which are 

residences built to display different types of sustainable residential design. They will operate as 

bed and breakfast stops for tourists. The first of these, the GreenTown Silo Eco-Home, is nearing 

 42 Visit http://www.greensburggreentown.org/the-chain-of-eco-homes/ and www.thechainofecohomes.org for more 

information about these homes.
51

completion (Figure 25). The University of Colorado Solar Decathlon house from 2005,

43

pictured in Figure 26, has been committed to Greensburg, and fundraising is under way to pay 

the cost of transport and local infrastructure. Other ideas have been developed and are in various 

stages of design and fundraising.

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL

Figure 25. The Silo Eco-Home is built similarly to a grain silo, which was one of the few structures 

left standing in Greensburg after the tornado. On April 9, 2009, the builder (Armour Homes of 

Bushnell, Florida) tested the home’s ability to withstand pressure by dropping a 1980 Honda Civic 

on the roof from a height of 60 ft. The home, unlike the car, was undamaged.

Credit: Chris Gunn

Source: PIX# 14622

Figure 26. The University of Colorado donated its winning home from the 2005 Solar Decathlon to 

Greensburg GreenTown. Greensburg leaders plan to add it to the Chain of Eco-Homes.

 43 The Solar Decathlon is a DOE-sponsored competition that challenges 20 universities from around the world to 

build the most state-of-the-art, sustainably designed residence. Visit http://www.solardecathlon.org/ for more 

information.
52

The city hired a housing coordinator as a central point for information on financial incentives 

available for housing. The city did not hire someone to be a source of information on financial 

incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the absence of this person, the NREL 

team drew from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE)

44

Education

to 

prepare summary tables highlighting federal and state incentives applicable in Greensburg. 

NREL and its subcontractors offered several educational briefings for selected audiences in 

Greensburg, including a community presentation on community wind energy; training sessions 

for builders; fact sheets for builders; presentations to the City Council on several topics (energy 

efficiency for buildings, distributed solar, alternative transportation, biomass pelletizing, 

community wind systems, and distributed generation ordinances and policies); and a briefing for 

the business owners on energy efficiency.

In March 2008, NREL and GreenTown staff jointly organized and presented a Green Day 

Celebration for the community. The purpose of this set of events, culminating with a wellattended (about 175 people) community meeting, was to continue the momentum and interest in 

the community for the green initiative and to publically highlight NREL’s work and information 

on energy efficiency and renewable energy. For this event, a staff person and subcontractor from 

NREL’s Education Office drove NREL’s RnE2EW truck and trailer to Greensburg (see Figure 

27). Over two days, the NREL team helped each class in the Greensburg school with hands-on 

projects to build working wind turbine models, solar-powered cars, solar-powered circuitry, and 

paper wind mills for the youngest grades. The NREL team also attended a local football game, 

socializing with residents from three nearby towns who gathered for the game. The NREL team 

also hosted many visitors to the RnE2EW vehicle at the Green Day Celebration event itself. 

Credit: Lynn Billman, NREL/PIX 16667

Figure 27. The RnE2EW vehicle is designed to take renewable energy technologies on the road. 

The vehicle is equipped with solar panels and a wind turbine, which produce enough power to run 

everything that requires energy during an educational event like this one in Greensburg.

 44 See http://www.dsireusa.org.
53

At the Green Day Celebration, panels of local leaders and experts and NREL staff discussed 

specific projects and lessons learned relating to building energy efficiency design, construction, 

and financing, and other sustainability projects. The NREL team lead gave a presentation on the 

work NREL had been doing in the community. NREL also hosted tables of free information on 

energy and sustainability for the community. Midwest Research Institute (MRI) helped offset the 

cost of the event, and sent a representative to attend and explain MRI’s support. 

In August 2008, NREL hosted six students from the Green Club and two GreenTown staff on a 

tour of NREL’s research facilities. This tour helped give the students a sense of the work to 

develop better energy sources and technologies for the future, and each prepared a short paper 

for their classes on specific research areas on the tour.

Outreach

NREL staff gave invited presentations on the work in Greensburg at the following national 

venues: 

• National Energy and Utility Affordability Conference, June 17, 2008

• Heartland Energy Policy and Climate Protection Symposium, sponsored by the Greater 

Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, August 12, 2008

• National Association of State Energy Officials National Conference, September 8, 2008.

NREL also organized and proposed a 90-minute educational session, “Greensburg and Beyond,” 

for the GreenBuild 2009 Conference to be held in Phoenix November 11–13, 2009. The session 

will present the impact that the work of DOE/NREL has had in Greensburg and beyond, in the 

region and nation. In addition, the City of Greensburg and GreenTown proposed and organized a 

session where they could share their experiences in rebuilding green. The annual GreenBuild 

conference typically draws 20,000–30,000 professionals in sustainability. More than 1,300 

session proposals were submitted for GreenBuild 2009; these two were among the 112 selected.

Various city leaders have given dozens of high-level briefings all around the country about 

Greensburg and its green initiative. City leaders have briefed the Kansas state legislature, given 

congressional testimony, and given presentations around the country and the world on 

Greensburg. President George W. Bush visited the community immediately following the 

tornado, and again a year later to give the high school commencement address. Greensburg was 

also acknowledged in President Obama’s nationwide address on the state of the nation in 

February 2009.

The story of Greensburg and its residents caught the attention of the national media as well. The 

Discovery Channel decided to film the rebuilding of Greensburg as part its efforts to launch 

Planet Green, a new channel, with a 13-part series called “Eco-Town.”45

 45 Visit http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/greensburg/ for more details.

Discovery Channel 

crews filmed and interviewed at essentially every significant event related to sustainability 

(including energy) for more than a year. The Discovery Channel also introduced an energy 

consulting company and others to the city. These individuals spent several intense months 
54

working with city leaders to help with vision and planning, and to attract potential corporate 

donors. Their intent was to help meet the city’s needs for additional project funding and their 

own need for marketing partners. Although the NREL educational team was highlighted briefly 

in one episode, in general the series focused more on human interest stories than energy projects. 

The series did, however, certainly raise the national level of visibility of Greensburg. A followon series of about six episodes was released in the spring of 2009.

Media interest and articles on Greensburg from broadcast news programs, major newspapers, 

major magazines, online news organizations, and other venues have been too numerous to 

mention. NREL staff members have been interviewed for many of these media efforts, though 

inclusion of DOE or NREL in the final product has not been as frequent as hoped.

For the second anniversary of the tornado, May 2–3, 2009, NREL developed a number of 

educational documents to take advantage of the anticipated presence of high numbers of visitors. 

The Executive Summary of this report contains a full list of these products.46

As mentioned, one Web site was developed to highlight sustainable buildings in Greensburg, 

using an NREL subcontractor who works with the High-Performance Buildings Program, and 

under the branding of Greensburg GreenTown. A new DOE Web site, Rebuilding Green in 

Greensburg, Kansas, recently came online at www.buildings.energy.gov/greensburg/.

 46 See Appendix H.
55

Conclusion

Energy affects all aspects of a community, and that is abundantly apparent when rebuilding after 

a disaster. Greensburg’s unique situation of near-total destruction represented an opportunity to 

try alternative energy solutions on a community-wide scale, for which there are few precedents 

in the world.47

We hope these efforts in Greensburg, Kansas, will inspire and assist other communities facing 

similar challenges.

Pursuing a wide range of new energy solutions throughout the city has placed 

Greensburg in a leadership position not only among Kansas communities but also among 

communities throughout the United States and the world. In addition, becoming known as a 

leader in sustainable development may add to Greensburg’s economic competitiveness and allow 

the community to take advantage of the upsurge of interest in green initiatives from many 

businesses and surrounding communities. 

 47 Carlisle, N.; J. Elling, J.; Penney, T. A Renewable Energy Community: Key Elements. NREL/TP-540-42774. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, January 2008.
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Rebuilding Greensburg, Kansas, as a Model Green Community: 

A Case Study: NREL’s Technical Assistance to Greensburg, June 

2007 – May 2009

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Lynn Billman

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-45135

5e. TASK NUMBER

IDKS1070

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-45135

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This comprehensive case study describes technical assistance provided by NREL to help Greensburg, Kansas, 

rebuild as a green community after an EF-5 tornado nearly leveled the town in 2007.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NREL; DOE; U.S. Department of Energy; Greensburg; case study; TP45135; technical report; technical assistance; Greensburg tornado; Kansas; tornado; tornado damage; EF-5 tornado; 

severe weather; green communities; green buildings; green community development; sustainable development; 

rebuilding green; renewable energy; solar energy; photovoltaics; wind energy; geothermal energy; energy efficiency

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18