January 19, 2010

California Passes Nation’s First Mandatory Green Building Codes

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Build It Green / Green Point Rated, Building and Design, California Green Builder / Building Industry Institute, Energy, Government, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Editor’s Note:  The CGBB is always pleased to have Sarah Grilli contribute, and here is her latest post:

On Tuesday January 12, 2010 California became the first state in the USA to pass a state-wide building code that requires comprehensive sustainable construction and energy reduction. Currently voluntary, the CalGreen Codes are mandatory starting January 2011.

The codes focus on all aspects of sustainable buildings (materials, energy, water, construction and other waste). An important piece of the legislation that media failed to mention, however, is the requirement for building commissioning and post occupancy systems management. This often overlooked piece is seen as a huge victory by the USGBC whose LEED version 3.0 also placed significant emphasis on systems performance elements.

Several California environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and NRDC along with, Build-it-Green and the USGBC (the two leading CA organizations with private green rating systems) have opposed certain elements of the codes.  A key concern for some of these groups is the fear the new code will allow developers to market a development as “green” by building to code instead of the more stringent private rating systems.  Thus, the new codes may cause marketplace confusion about the definition of a “green” building.

These concerns are legitimate.  The fight to define “green,” is the subject of constant debate.  Take the term “organic” for example.  The federal “organic” label is regularly the subject of litigation and debate.  Is “green” different?

As sustainable building measures become commonplace, the building community and the public will strive to comprehend what elements make a building “green.”  People may still opt for buildings that exceed the State’s green code, but the state now provides an easier option.  As long as the codes are enforced, smaller California communities without any green elements in their building codes will benefit enormously. This is precisely the reason a national energy efficiency building code is needed.

It is possible that “green building” will follow a similar path as “organic,” and the federal government will pass a national energy efficiency building code (See our post on the subject here and a fact sheet from the EPA here). There will always be variations on quality, but at the end of the day what’s most important is that “green building” practices become the norm.

 

January 11, 2010

eSolar Inks Deal For Solar Thermal Plants In China

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Solar, Thermal | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

ESolar, based out of Pasadena, CA, just announced a deal to help build a series of solar thermal power plants (AKA concentrating solar power or CSP) in China capable of generating 2 gigawatts (2,000 megawatts).  Under the arrangement, eSolar will provide Shandong Penglai Electric Power Equipment Manufacturing with the technology and information to build a $5 billion series of CSP power plants.

China has set a goal for 15% of the nation’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2020. The Associated Press reported on Saturday that due to market pressures, and recent success in generating renewable energy the Chinese government may increase that goal to 20%. Further, Chinese law requires that energy companies buy all energy available through renewable sources (such as wind, solar, and geothermal) before they can use energy from non-renewable sources such as coal.

This deal not only shows China’s interest in generating power from renewable sources, it also shows China’s interest in acquiring knowledge about alternative fuel technologies.  Though China is not allowed to export any technology acquired under the deal, all of the manufacturing for the plants will occur in China.  With that kind of expertise, it will be tough to keep Chinese industry from using the knowledge to build similar plants in China.

ESolar counts Idealab, Google, and Oak Investment Partners as some of its investors.  The New York Times also ran an interesting story about the eSolar deal and some of China’s apprehension about CSP.

 

January 3, 2010

Book Review! Hot, Flat, And Crowded By Tom Friedman

Posted by Steve Sacks under Book Review, Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Happy New Year!

Publishing a blog is a far cry from writing a book, let alone a number of best-selling books, so my credentials for reviewing Tom Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, may be a little thin.  But, since I recently read the book, it’s a free country, and I do publish a blog, here goes…buckle up, it’s the California Green Building Blog’s first book review!

Tom Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times among other publications.  He also writes non-fiction books, and back in 2005, he wrote the wildly popular bestseller, The World Is Flat (about the tech revolution).  I read The World Is Flat, as well as Hot, Flat, And Crowded, and I will say I like Mr. Friedman’s easy-to-read style.  As with most essayists, he finds a topic of the times, researches the heck out of it, and comes up with conclusions (though often not really his own).

Hot, Flat, and Crowded follows that model.  It is a quick review of the climate crisis and how we can solve the problem of global warming.  However, I think Friedman was a little “late to the party” with The World Is Flat, (written in 2005 about the tech revolution) and I think he’s a little late with Hot, Flat, And Crowded.  Anyone who saw Inconvenient Truth, or anyone who has been following the climate crisis, will find some of the ideas a little stale.

But, don’t get me wrong;  Hot, Flat, and Crowded is enjoyable.  Mr. Friedman condenses the need to “Green” the world into some convenient and, yes, some unique themes and provides examples of those themes in action.  He has a knack for getting to the point which I appreciate, but there are some places where that comes at the expense of facing hard facts.  For example, his “feel-good” story about an Indonesian oil and gas company’s preservation of a rain forest gives light treatment of the unique market forces at work.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded will grab the attention of  readers with any level of expertise in Green.  I did find some of Friedman’s conclusions compelling – particularly some of the terms he coins, and his comparison of the green movement to the civil rights movement.  The book is well-organized, and won’t take long to read (unless you read it in 10 minute blocks on the subway like I did).  Further, the statistics Friedman compiles are unique and staggering.

As with most climate change research these days, the numbers are depressing, and Friedman doesn’t shy away from shock value.  Thankfully, the second half of the book focuses on solutions.  From a Green building perspective, Friedman’s discussion of appliance energy efficiency, metering, and smart grid opportunities is particularly interesting.  Thankfully, Friedman spends a decent amount of time on those topics.

Pick up Hot, Flat, and Crowded if you want some great new stats and some new thoughts and themes for redirecting the Unites States mentality.  Also, stay tuned for our next book review.  I’m almost done with Al Gore’s Our Choice…a far more comprehensive work.

 

December 10, 2009

Green Neighborhood Pops Up In Sonoma

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Green Economy, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

One of the most interesting sessions I attended at Greenbuild discussed sustainable neighborhoods.   Greg Searle from One Planet Communities provided a great case study of Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO), a new community being built in Sonoma California.

SOMO, a partnership between developer, Codding Enterprises, and consultant, BioRegional, is a fantastic example of green building.  Not only is SOMO striving to be a net zero community, it is also being built on a defunct business campus, so it is a brownfield site.  Along with municipal buildings, the 200 acre development will include commercial, office, retail, and residential space including 1,900 homes of all sizes and types for sale and rent.    According to the SOMO website, the development has already generated more than 600 jobs, and will lead to 4,400 jobs by completion.

One Planet Communities is a fantastic concept, and I love the flexibility it offers… flexibility as long as you hit the very high benchmarks, which is not the easiest thing to do…. To achieve designation as a One Planet Community, a development must follow these ten principles:

  1. Zero Carbon – All buildings and their fittings and fixtures must be energy efficient and supplied by renewable energy.
  2. Zero Waste – At least 70% of waste by weight to be reclaimed, recycled or composted and ideally no more than 2% should be sent to landfill.
  3. Sustainable Transport – CO2 emissions of persons travelling to and from the site and within it must be reduced relative to an agreed regional benchmark. Ideally all unavoidable CO2 emissions from transport should be offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme.
  4. Local & Sustainable Materials – Use of local, reclaimed, renewable, recycled and low environmental impact materials in construction and estate management should be increased and optimised.
  5. Local & Sustainable Food – Healthy diets should be promoted and minimum targets achieved for supply of organic or low-environmental impact food and local sourcing.
  6. Sustainable Water – Water efficiency and recycling must be promoted in line with country-specific best practice.
  7. Natural Habitats & Wildlife – Local biodiversity and natural resource stocks must be increased.
  8. Culture & Heritage – Valuable aspects of local culture and heritage must be maintained, enhanced or revived.
  9. Equity & Fair Trade – Targets must be set to boost the local economy, notably in disadvantaged areas, and to ensure a set ratio of imported goods are fair trade certified.
  10. Health & Happiness – Health and happiness of residents must be promoted based on emerging findings from ‘happiness’ research and periodic residents’ surveys

OK, I know some of these categories may sound like “fluff,” so you’ll have to go to the Principles Page on the One Planet Community website to read more.

The beauty of One Planet’s concept is the lack of rigid  checklists found in the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system (just emerging from pilot phase).  LEED-ND is certainly a step in the right direction, but I think the One Planet Communities approach makes more sense for neighborhoods.  LEED works well for buildings because builders want and need uniformity in methodology.  Costs come down when you can reuse building methods from one building to the next.  But neighborhoods are regional and unique.   One Planet Communities’ flexibility acknowledges that difference with a simple approach that is easy to understand.  In the end, the standards are set high, and that’s what matters.

It is unclear if SOMO will strive for LEED-ND, and with One Planet Communities certification under its belt, one has to wonder if a LEED-ND designation for SOMO is necessary at all.

 

November 23, 2009

Risk Transfer Reflections From Greenbuild

Posted by Steve Sacks under Build It Green / Green Point Rated, Conferences / Conventions, Incentives and Rebates, Risk Transfer, USGBC / LEED | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

There were many compelling sessions at the USGBC Greenbuild conference, but I focused on sessions that discussed policy, local government, and risk transfer.  I would like to start with the session on risk transfer.  But rather than go into what the speakers presented (which only scratched the surface), I thought it would be a good to dig deeper and review and summarize what we have stated previously on the CGBB.

When going for LEED, Greenpoint Rated, or any other certification, make sure to pay close attention to the following areas:

- Scope of work.  Make sure the scope of work is clearly defined.  If you’re going for a specific certification, LEED, GreenPoint Rated, or other, cut and paste the requirements right into the specifications in the contract.  Also, you’re going to need to specify who is responsible for review and inspection of each item, and who is responsible for documentation and preservation.  High-performance buildings require a new level of inspection, and the heightened level of liability for these tasks must be detailed in the contract.  Failure to properly document materials for construction is one of the top reasons buildings fail to get proper certification.

- Incentives and rebates.  Make sure it is clear who is responsible for applying for and securing incentives and rebates for products and efficiencies.

- Standard of care.  The AIA recently issued form contract B214–2007 for architects working on LEED buildings.  That form specifies the standard of care architects should observe when designing a LEED building.  After the AIA contract, there’s not a lot of guidance, so make sure your contract is specific regarding ALL parties on the project.

- Review specifics with your surety.  Make sure your surety is committed to building a green building…not many are convinced of the added value in green buildings.  Sureties will not help you build an independently certified building unless you clearly specify such in the contract.

- Value engineering.  Don’t go through the process of value engineering without reviewing how this might effect your LEED or GreenPoint Rated application.  Know your materials, and make sure there are no substitutions without a clear understanding of the implications.  This goes for projects that use BIM software too.  If the project uses BIM, make sure liability is clearly assigned for any changes that may result in issues, and make sure the liable party is aware of the implications changes may have of third party certifications.

Arguably, the greatest risk to constructing a high-performance building is in the contract documents themselves.  Make sure the documents are precise and reflect exactly what needs to happen.  All parties need to be informed of their responsibilities, AND liabilities.

Stay tuned for more from Greenbuild – future posts will reflect more of actual session content…I promise.

 

November 17, 2009

Al Gore Speaks At Greenbuild

Posted by Steve Sacks under Conferences / Conventions, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

I just returned from the USGBC Greenbuild conference in Phoenix, AZ, and it was great! Roughly 28,000 people attended the three day conference, and there were over 1,000 exhibitors.  I will spend the next few weeks posting about the sessions I attended, but first I want to relay a funny and poignant story.

Al Gore was the keynote speaker, and he has a new book out (Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis).  He is a very gifted speaker, and told the following anecdote.

Mr. Gore spoke with the US representative to the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.  When Mr. Gore asked the representative how he thought the conference would go, the representative said “we’ll be fine.”  Mr. Gore found this remark quite unsettling and used a joke he once heard from the famed Minnie Pearl to bring home the point. Here’s the joke…

A farmer was involved in a car accident and sued the other driver for the farmer’s injuries.  The opposing attorney was cross-examining the farmer and said, “Sir, isn’t it true that at the scene of the accident you stated you were ‘fine’?”

The farmer replied. “Well, I was driving down Martin Road when the fella over there…”

The attorney interrupted. “Did you, or did you not say that you were ‘fine’?”

The farmer, patiently paused and then started again.  ”Well it’s not that simple.  See, I was driving down Martin Road when the fella over there came into my lane and hit my truck and trailer.  My horse and I were thrown, and we were lying there on the road.  After some time, a policeman came up and saw my horse writhing in pain.  ’This animal is suffering,’ said the policeman. ‘I’m gonna shoot him to put him out of his misery.’ Well, that’s just what the policeman did, and then the policeman turned to me with that gun still smokin’. ‘How are you feelin?’ the policeman asked.   I told that policeman ‘I feel fine.’

The moral of the story is one I think we all can see.  It’s easy to say everything is “fine” when you have a gun pointed at your head, but the truth is there may be a lot of hurt hiding.

There was plenty of “feel-good” praise going on at Greenbuild, and I guess that’s better than the pain of facing the daunting numbers associated with climate change.  Mr. Gore hit the nail on the head, however and drove home the idea that it’s not enough to just be involved in the solution.  The United States has to make real progress, and now.  The US government can not go on saying things will be fine without tackling climate change aggressively at all angles.

The angle we promote here at the CGBB is that we need to fix our buildings.  If our buildings are efficient, then we won’t need foreign oil to heat and power them.  You don’t even have to believe in climate change, and this is not a question of political allegiance. Dependence on foreign oil jeopardizes our national security, and that is a non-partisan issue.

The current version of the climate change bill before congress doesn’t even address building inefficiencies, and buildings are the single largest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world.  The disconnect between political pressure and reality is real and vast.  The original Waxman-Markey bill contained a national building code to address energy efficiency.  Let’s hope the climate change bill that eventually makes it to a vote gets back to that priority.

Stay tuned for more information from Greenbuild…..In the meantime, contact your congressional representatives by clicking here, and tell them you want energy efficiency guidelines and mandates in a national building code!

 

October 20, 2009

Congratulations AB 920!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Photovoltaic, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

AB 920 was signed into law last week.  The law requires that utilities pay for energy they receive through net metering.  We have followed AB 920 (previously AB 1920) here at the CGBB since we posted our first articles nearly a year ago.  AB 920 is the common-sense approach to net metering.  

Net metering is an arrangement whereby utilities purchase power from consumers who generate power from solar arrays or small wind turbines.   Previously, utilities would provide credits against a utility bill.  Starting in 2011, utilities will be forced to pay power-producers wholesale rates for the power (if a credit remains at the end of the calendar year).   Cash compensation to the original power producer makes sense because the utility makes money by selling that same power to end users.  

AB 920 is a great step, but California needs to travel light years before we realize the “million solar roofs” idea.  At the very least, California needs to abandon the limits on the sizes of residential power production.  Currently, to be eligible for net metering, residences must limit the size of their solar array or wind turbine.  PG&E and other utilities argue that larger arrays and turbines will result in higher electricity rates for those not participating in net metering.  This argument can not be summarily dismissed.  There are legitimate concerns about reliability from residential power producers.  However, utility concerns can be addressed in future legislation (such as infrastructure service fees or production guarantees for net meter users over a certain size).   I appreciate that ideas such as this were left out of AB 920 in order to get it passed, but by no means does this mean the work is done.

Also, the net metering program has an overall cap, and after the cap is met residential power producers are not compensated for their power produced.  AB 560, proposed by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, representing the 14th District, would have raised the cap for net metering power available for purchase from 2.5% of peak power to 5% of peak power.  PG&E supported that bill, but it died in committee .  For an article on some of the issue with the bill, click here.

AB 920 represents a positive step for residential solar and wind power in California, but we have miles to go before we sleep.

 

October 15, 2009

Small Wind – The Million Solar Roofs’ Answer To Nighttime

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Research, Wind | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

“Big wind” is just that.  Big.  With big wind comes big power generation.  Thing is, big wind also needs LOTS of STRONG wind.     That level of wind doesn’t blow in most areas, especially residential areas.  Understandably, most people do not want to live in consistently strong wind….including San Franciscans.  

“Small wind” also follows its name.  “Small wind” or small wind generators (SWGs) are defined as a wind turbine whose production capacity is 100kW or less, or 50kW or less (according to the American Wind Energy Association[AWEA] and Consumer Energy Center [CEC] respectively).

Big wind is not a good option for San Francisco.  According to a CEC PIER report in 2004, San Francisco only has a “moderate” wind resource for medium and large wind projects. For a city aiming to generate 50 MW of in-city renewable energy by 2012, that’s bad news.   But a new report issued by the San Francisco Urban Wind Power Task Force suggests small wind projects could yield results.  Placing such projects in an urban setting has generated the term “urban wind.”  

Some observations in the Urban Wind Report are thinly veiled attempts to provide a positive spin (pun intended) on wind (e.g. ”cats are far more dangerous to birds than wind turbines” ).  But overall the report reflects the diversity of the 44 member task force that composed it, and is a realistic and fair-minded attempt to find solutions. 

The report, offers information and recommendations on the following subjects:

  • Urban wind technologies, testing and certification
  • Data collection and analysis
  • Permitting
  • Costs and incentives
  • Potential impacts on flying animals
  • Workforce development
  • Public awareness and possible demonstration sites

The Urban Wind Report is well written and has lots of useful information, statistics and suggestions.  The report deserves a full read, and at 15 pages, it’s pretty quick. 

Among the 29 recommendations the report recommends:

  • The City should adopt the Small Wind Certification Council (SWCC) certification procedures
  • The City should encourage or require manufacturers to adopt information labels on small wind products
  • The City should lead by example and install wind turbines on city buildings – this is how green building in general got its start, and is a great idea
  • The Department of the Environment should develop an “SF Wind Map” (similar to the SF Solar Map) that provides wind data for consumers
  • The City should explore ways to offer permitting cost refunds
  • The City should consider revising city-wide height limits to allow for greater wind power generation.  This is essential – click here to read the CBBG Post From March 2009 on the subject of siting urban wind
  • Permit applications should require data capture to help build the SF Wind Map
  • The City should encourage the funding and use of federal and state incentives (local incentives are “premature”)
  • The City should implement an on-property-tax-bill financing program, (under development, and similar to the widely lauded Berkeley First program
  • The City should support efforts at the state level to exempt SWGs from property tax increases
  • The City should work closely with groups to minimize bird and bat mortality
  • The City should continue to make small wind companies eligible for the Clean Tech Payroll Tax Exclusion and other incentives
  • The City should consider additional services for small businesses and research
  • The City should encourage training in the small wind industry through schools and labor unions
  • The City departments comply with the Mayor’s Executive Directive 08-08 instructing departments to include wind turbine design in existing and new City facilities
  • The City should revise its Green Building standards to require all new residential and commercial construction and significant renovations to be built with the potential for installing renewable energy devices such as SWGs

San Francisco has lots of fog, and inconsistent wind, that reduces the application of the two frontrunners in alternative energy.  To their credit, Mayor Newsom and the City Council seem undaunted, and consistently press for answers.    Small wind…think of it as a million solar roofs, with a spin …

The full report can be found by clicking here, or by visiting our Case Studies and Reports page.

 

September 15, 2009

“West Coast Green” Conference 2009

Posted by Steve Sacks under Conferences / Conventions, Green Economy | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

West Coast Green is one of the largest green conferences in the United States with roughly 14,000 attendees last year. This year the conference is October 1 – 3 at Fort Mason in San Francisco.  The conference has a very large exposition area with well over a hundred participants in the manufacturing, energy, and building industries. There are dozens of top speakers covering all aspects of sustainable development and green trends.

Attendance in the expo area (usually $40)  is $20 if you click this link.  Attendance to hear speakers is $795 for 3 days and $355 for one day.

Exposition space is still available.

Click Here if you want to register or get more information on West Coast Green.

 

August 28, 2009

Inefficient, But Green…Is That Good?

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Water, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Some power generation facilities store energy during peak hours to later use during off peak hours (and vice versa).  The best example of this is battery storage of energy from wind and solar generators.  Wind and sun generate most of their power during the day, and in the case of solar, there is no energy generated in the evening.  An example of how this process works both ways is in the case of hydroelectric power generation when water is pumped to higher elevations during off-peak hours.  During peak hours the water pumped up is released, and extra power is available.  This method is called “pumped storage.”

These processes result in some energy loss, but proponents say the cost to generate the electricity is minimal, so why not?  For a small hit in efficiency, you get clean, carbon neutral power around the clock.  For the most part, I agree.  Wind, sun and water are in high abundance for power generation, and not an ounce of carbon is produced (though the added wear and tear on equipment eventually leads to shorter life spans, higher maintenance costs, etc…)  This leads to more manufacturing and likely more carbon emissions. Regardless, these methods are all far better than popping up a new coal plant.

Now, add a “new” tool to the tool box.  Compressed Air Energy Storage (“CAES”).  I guess it’s been around for a while in Germany and Alabama, so it’s not so “new.” But it is possibly new to California!   An article from the San Francisco Chronicle on August 27, 2009 details how PG&E is seeking a federal grant of $25 Million to design a facility in Kern County, CA using CAES.  Kern County is about half-way between LA and San Francisco.  The facility would use power generated by solar and wind to pump air into porous rock reservoirs.

Then, at night when the sun’s gone, or on a day when the wind won’t blow, the compressed air is released and generates electricity.  The plant PG&E would like to see would provide 300 MW for 10 hours…that’s enough to power 750 homes.

The total cost of the facility would be about $300 Million over five years.  That may seem like a lot, but when you realize that once it’s up and running there are no added costs for fuel, it starts to make sense.

By 2010, PG&E needs to generate 20% of it’s power from renewables.  They’re not going to make it, but with efforts like this and the recent deal with BrightSource Energy (full disclaimer, BrightSource is a client of Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes, the workplace for the authors of this blog), no one can say PG&E isn’t trying.  According to a recent article in the Sacramento Business Journal, Peter Darbee, CEO and Chairman of PG&E stated PG&E has contracts that will allow the utility to deliver up to 24 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013.

CAES doesn’t sound ideal, but creativity like this can only lead to better things.  Also, with a carbon credit market likely around the corner, facilities like this may generate unforeseen dividends.

For the San Francisco Chronicle article that includes a great illustration of CAES, click here

For the Sacramento Business Times Article, click here

 

Next Page »