March 10, 2010

Book Review! Our Choice, By Al Gore

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

I have a core belief that one can not complain unless one provides a solution (that is certainly part of the reason for this blog). Perhaps a number of people went to Al Gore with the same complaint.  Inconvenient Truth was heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Well, Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, is all about solutions, and it is a must read.

The central theme of Gore’s work is that civilization must price carbon emissions based on the effect they have on humanity.  There are other solutions Gore provides, but without monetizing carbon emissions, Gore’s plan falls apart.  It’s not a new concept (cap and trade), and Gore admits that.

The book is very well written, and easy to read – which says a lot given the sometimes technical and dense content.  Gore is less colloquial than Tom Friedman (click here for my review of Hot, Flat, and Crowded) whose style sometimes loses efficacy to gain mass appeal.  Gore is more academic, but concise.  And on top of that, it’s just plain interesting.  As with Inconvenient Truth, there are graphics and photos to keep the book flowing through the technical parts.

The first half of the book systematically establishes the foundation of the problems we face (a quick summary of Inconvenient Truth), and provides options for the solution.  Mr. Gore addresses the issues with each sector of industry: energy, manufacturing, transportation, farming, housing (though there is really no section on green building per se) and then lays out all of the options for a solution (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration).

Our Choice is the kind of book one will use as a reference.  Not only does the book provide significant policy arguments, it backs up the positions with facts and science (and a healthy analysis of psychology).  The real take-away is the book drills down to risk/benefit analysis for each approach to solving the climate crisis.  Is nuclear energy really an option?  Can carbon capture and sequestration work for coal-fired power plants?  Our Choice asks the reader to make the choice based on the well-defined pluses and minuses for each technology.

The second half of the book focuses on the challenges of convincing the populous and governments that change must occur now.  Climate change detractors and some members of the Republican Party may take issue with some of this subject matter.  The first half of Our Choice is generally non-partisan, but the second half contains some chapters that take on detractors – many of whom are Republican.   A lot of the content in these sections is re-hashed argument, but it needs to be aired and recorded.  In so doing, the differences of opinion are laid out, and some progress can be made toward a political solution.

Mr. Gore has stated repeatedly that our need to create renewable energy is not just a matter of global warming, it’s a matter of national security.  I agree.  As someone who finds political labels a liability, I suggest we consider at least that rationale.

Al Gore does that and more. Our Choice is a great book to help anyone understand the diverse options we face.

 

March 4, 2010

AB 510 Signed By Governor Schwarzenegger! (Part 2)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Building and Design, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 510 on February 26, 2010 (Click here for full text of AB 510) (Click here for press release and video). We covered the basic elements of the new law in Part 1 of our coverage last week (click here for that post). Now, we turn to some other elements of the law… some of the fine print, if you will…

The law balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. (This balance, and the fact that there is no discernable impact to the General Fund, are likely the reasons the bill passed the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote.)    In addition to lowering the proposed cap from 10% to 5%, an example of concessions to utilities is found in Section (3)(l).  That section requires that customer-generators pay the Department of Water Resources for all charges that would otherwise be imposed on the customer had they not entered the net-metering arrangement.

Another significant concession is found in Section (5)(B).  Under that section, the utilities can use the energy provided through net-metering arrangements toward the Renewable Portfolio Requirements (outlined in Public Utilities Code Section 399.15 and 387).  Under previous net-metering law, utilities were not permitted to count net-metering toward these obligations.  Now, utilities have a chance to meet the aggressive target of generating 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020.  (The utilities are far from reaching the Renewable Portfolio Requirements of 20% of energy from renewables by 2010).  If California residents and businesses continue to install solar and wind power generation, the utilities have a chance to meet the portfolio requirements, but the current 5% cap will have to rise again.

On the consumer side, there are very reasonable concerns that net-metering raises the energy bill for non-metering customers.  To assuage those concerns, the bill establishes a rate-setting commission that will set net-metering compensation rates and provide a report detailing 1) the market effects of net-metering and co-energy metering, and 2) how the authority’s rate schedule ensures consumers who don’t enter net metering arrangements pay the same for power that customer-generators pay.

AB 510 reflects a state leading the way in establishing energy independence.  It is great legislation now because it doesn’t tap into the General Fund, and it encourages private businesses (e.g. Solar City or Renewable Funding, LLC).  The law is another step forward that keeps California as a leader in United States renewable energy generation.

 

March 1, 2010

Clean Tech Event – San Francisco March 17

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Conferences / Conventions / Events, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

My friends over at the Kellogg Alumni Club are at it again with another great clean tech event. On Wednesday, March 17 the group will host a panel discussion on two emerging clean industries: transportation and energy – including nuclear power. Can that, too, be clean?

The event is open to the public, and it will be a great way to learn and network with leaders. Ideas will definitely be flowing. The top-shelf presenters and panelists include:

Rod Diridon - Clean Tech Rail Pioneer, Executive, Political Leader, and High-Speed Rail Authority Board Member
Bob Garzee - Clean Tech Automotive Transportation Pioneer and Entrepreneur
Jeff Hamel - Energy Researcher and Clean Tech Advocate

Networking, passed hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar start at 6pm, and the presentations and discussion will go from about 7 – 8:30 pm. You couldn’t ask for a better setting: the beautiful McCormick and Kuleto’s – right on the water. See you there!

Click Here For More Information And For Reservations.

Also, remember Kellogg’s San Jose clean tech event with different panelists, Thursday, April 1. Click here for more information on that!

 

February 23, 2010

AB 510 On The Way To Governor’s Signature! (Part 1)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Building and Design, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

AB 510 (full text here) passed both the Senate and Assembly, and Governor Schwarzenegger says he will sign the bill into law.  The bill raises the cap set on the number of homes and businesses that can take advantage of net energy metering.  Yes, there’s a cap!  The utilities don’t want “customer-generators” producing power without limit, and the government appears concerned the customers will somehow tip the “balance of power” between customer-generators and utilities (yes, that’s an energy pun).

At its core, the bill states utilities are not required to issue permits and enter agreements with “customer-generators” (residential and commercial solar and wind power producers) beyond 5% of the utilities’ aggregate customer peak power demand.  The previous cap was 2.5%.

The legislation also addresses co-energy metering.  Co-energy metering is an arrangement between publicly owned utilities and customer-generators who produce between 10kw (50kw for wind) and 1MW.  These generators are compensated based on the time of energy use and generation.

On the other hand, standard net-metering arrangements are for customer-generators who produce 3 -10kw.  The rate at which net-metering customers are compensated is either a “time of use” model such as that with the co-energy metering producers, or a “baseline” model.

A ratemaking authority (also described in the bill) sets the rates for compensating customer-generators who have an energy surplus at the end of the year and follow the baseline model. The primary goal for the rate-making authority is to set a price that ensures non-participating customers pay the same for energy they would have otherwise paid had no net-metering been used.

To its credit, the bill allows the ratemaking authority to compensate net energy producers for the value of the electricity itself, AND the value of the renewable attributes of the electricity.  This little nod allows net energy producers to receive a bonus if the renewable attributes of the energy production add indefinite or unforeseen benefits (Cap and Trade anyone?)

Congratulations (I hope not premature) to AB 510 sponsor, Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (14th District).  The bill was proposed last year as AB 560 (click here for more of that story), but it died in committee.  We’re glad to see it is on its way to the finish line this time!

Editor’s Note: Stay tuned for Part 2 of this post that will discuss other requirements and considerations in the bill. UPDATE: Click Here For Part 2

 

February 16, 2010

Clean Tech Event In San Jose

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Conferences / Conventions / Events, Energy, Finance, Green Economy, Innovators, Make Money, People | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Some friends of mine are putting on a great event in San Jose, CA April 1 with a panel of speakers discussing innovations in sustainability.  The subject-matter looks to focus on energy, so it’s not exclusivly green building.  Nonetheless, energy and building are inextricably linked (especially with the funding of smart grid and distributed power technologies).  It will be a fun event filled with new ideas and lots of networking.

The title of the event is “The Clean Tech Gold Rush: Where to place your bets in your Investments and in your Career.” The event will be held at Club Auto Sport in San Jose (gorgeous venue).  The organizers have already confirmed Andrew Friendly from Advanced Technology Ventures (his portfolio companies are Solar Junction, AltaRock Energy, Rive Technology, Wakonda Technologies), Kelsey Lynn from Firelake Capital Management, Bob Garzee (Founder and CEO of ETDC), and Eric Wesoff from Green Tech Media (Chief Analyst).

The event is open to the public, and ”early bird” $15 tickets are available until February 21.  If you’re interested in learning more about the speakers and the event, click on this link: http://cleantechgoldrush.eventbrite.com/

 

February 9, 2010

The Grass Is Green And So Is The Stadium

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Building and Design, Finance, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Stadiums.  They’re large, and they’re empty for large amounts of time.  Because of this strange dichotomy, stadiums are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain.  They are also expensive to build.  Construction of the new Yankee stadium cost $1.5 billion.  All that money and a dearth of environmental considerations. Why?!

A few new stadiums are showing better judgment.  The Washington Nationals started the trend a few years ago with the first LEED Silver professional stadium, (more info here).  The Florida Marlins are joining that club with a LEED Silver stadium of their own.  Other venues are showing a commitment to the environment.   The Phoenix Suns, NY Giants and Jets (VIDEO!), NY Mets, San Francisco Giants, and New England Patriots either have or plan environmental efforts or LEED qualifying measures for their stadiums.  The EPA is even helping some of the projects (More info here)

Let’s not forget these efforts are not always smooth.  Remember the labor controversy around the green roof at the Target Center in Minneapolis? (I’m still looking to see how that was resolved – stay tuned).

But, more to the point, public money is regularly required to build these new structures, so implementing green measures should be a required part of the package.  Generally, states are moving to require green municipal buildings, and the federal government already requires it.  How did the new Yankee stadium get city dollars and federal tax breaks and still end up a relic of inefficiency?  It’s disappointing and short-sighted.  The Federal government and many states have long required that large structures for the public must include sustainable measures.  It’s time all publicly financed stadiums get included.  I’m not saying every stadium needs to meet LEED standards, but at 1.5 billion, I’m guessing they could have found some room in the budget for waterless urinals or solar panels. C’mon Yankees, you lead in everything else!

Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints!!  Pitchers and catchers, report in seven days…

 

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: , , , |
1 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 / Events, 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.

 

Next Page »