January 30, 2011
As we’ve been reporting, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors may vote on the Commercial Buildings Energy Performance Ordinance this week. The first reading of the ordinance will be Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 2pm in the Board of Supervisors chamber at City Hall. It is possible that the Board will vote at that time. We will let you know how it goes.
For our full analysis and a copy of the proposed ordinance, click here
January 24, 2011
As mentioned on Friday, the Land Use and Development Committee for the City and County of San Francisco is holding a hearing on Monday, January 24, 2011 to discuss the proposed Existing Commercial Buildings Energy Performance Ordinance. I encourage you to attend if possible.
The proposed ordinance would require certain commercial buildings to produce two reports, (1) an energy and performance audit every five years and (2) an Annual Energy Benchmark Summary (AEBS). Save for any confidential information, the audit and the AEBS would be made available to the public. The ordinance makes sense, but may place a cost on building owners that will inevitably be passed on to renters. The upside is that renters usually pay for utilities, so energy savings may offset the cost of the audit…something to think about in a green lease, that’s for sure.
Here’s a short summary:
The proposed ordinance will require two reports. The first report is the AEBS, and that will use the Energy Star Portfolio Manager Energy Performance Rating as a basis. This report will likely not cost too much money as it is based on the Portfolio Manager software that is freely available, and the data is generated from the local utility (in the case of San Francisco, PG&E).
The second report is a building-wide audit (as defined by ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits) conducted by a third-party vendor. As such, I am guessing the audit likely carries a higher price tag. Full disclosure, I have never hired someone to do an energy audit for a commercial building, so I am only guessing that the fees are more than nominal.
After the initial three-year staggered start period (which will also be used for the AEBS), the required energy audit would be required once every five years. As proposed, the audit requirement is as follows: Level I audits (as defined by ASHRAE) are essentially “walk-through” audits. These are required for buildings between 10,000 to 49,999 sq ft (smaller buildings). Level II audits (as defined by ASHRAE) are comprehensive surveys and analyses, and they are required for all buildings 50,000 sq ft and above. (larger buildings).
If owners do not comply with the requirements they may face fines. The fines are $100/day (for larger buildings) or $50/day (for smaller buildings) for every day of non-compliance up to 25 days per 12 month period. In other words, the maximum fine per year is $2,500 for a large building and $1,250 for a small building.
In general I like the ordinance but there are some issues that should be addressed… (more…)
January 21, 2011
This post today is short and sweet, because I want to get the notice out. San Francisco is contemplating legislation that will require commercial building energy audits. A hearing in front of the Land Use And Economic Development Committee will be held on Monday, January 24 at 1pm in San Francisco City Hall Room 263. The Board of Supervisors will vote on this soon following a recommendation from the committee. If you’re interested in attending, go for it! We support this legislation, but a full and thorough debate is necessary to create effective legislation.
Click here for the committee agenda: 012411 LU Agenda – FINAL
Click here for the ordinance and supporting documents that are under consideration: 101105
We previously covered post-occupancy performance and the proposed legislation (click here for a few of the posts). Updated analysis will follow this weekend when I have time to write.
December 14, 2010
Last week Mayor Gavin Newsom and Recurrent Energy announced the completion of the Sunset Reservoir Solar Project. We mentioned the story back when it started, and we’re glad to see it finished quickly! A year and a half is pretty good to install 24,000 solar panels (imagine 12 football fields) generating 5 megawatts of power (with some sources stating as high as 7 megawatts). The energy generated can power 1,500 homes, but will be used instead by the city to power public transportation and city buildings.
The project is the result of a public-private partnership (P3) with Recurrent. As a result, San Francisco owns the property, but leases the rights to operate the plant and sell the energy. Under the current contract, Recurrent will sell energy to the city at $0.235 /kWh. That price will allegedly save roughly $1 million per year in energy costs. Through the P3 procurement method, San Francisco saves the up-front costs of implementing the system, and reaps the rewards of low cost sustainable energy.
And, let’s not forget. The money paid to Recurrent stays right here in California. The corporation was founded in California, pays taxes in California, and employs people in California. 71 general labor jobs – in a decimated construction industry – were created from this project. 30 percent of those jobs were for individuals from disadvantaged communities (Though they had to fight to keep those jobs).
This project looks like a win for proponents of sustainable energy, public-private partnerships, and green job promotion (The CGBB fits into that category). It also looks to be a win for San Franciscans who will instantly see savings in energy costs to public services.
In the meantime, congratulations to Recurrent Energy and San Francisco. The Sunset Reservoir Solar Project is currently the largest municipal solar installation in the state. We hope more of these projects are built immediately all around California and the nation!
San Francisco Press Release Here
(For those of you wondering, “FTW” stands for “For The Win”)
November 16, 2010
Tomorrow is the Cleantech Open in San Jose, and for those of you who have made it there in the past, you know it’s an exciting event for anyone interested in the latest in clean technology. Below is a communication from the organizers with a discount code for registration – check it out!
* Expo from 12pm to 2pm – showcasing technologies from throughout the United States and 16 other countries
* Awards Gala from 2:30pm to 6:30pm – technology demonstrations and some terrific speakers
* Networking Reception from 7pm to 9pm.
There will be networking all day, and speakers including Lori Wigle – head of Eco-Technology at Intel, Neal Dikeman – Jane Capital, Chuck Reed – Mayor of San Jose, Lesa Mitchell – VP of Innovation at Kauffman Foundation, Joel Serface – Managing Partner at Serface Ventures, Trond Unneland – Managing Executive, Chevron Technology Ventures, Chuck Reed – Mayor of San Jose, VIP Dinner speaker Representative Jeremy Kalin – Chair of CLEAN, and others.
The Cleantech Open is a nonprofit and the Awards Gala is a fundraiser. Tickets normally go for $97 and up –but there are some discounted tickets which will give you a 20% reduction – just click this link: www.cleantechopen.com/20_percent
October 20, 2010
The feud between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the PACE program is heating up. I’m going to play devil’s advocate (for a moment), so let me quickly set the stage. As you will recall, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and their parent entity (following the financial crisis of 2008) the Federal Housing Finance Agency (for convenience, collectively “FHFA”) single-handedly torpedoed the Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE), one of the best publicly and privately-funded tools for gaining energy independence. California immediately sued to stop FHFA from interfering with the programs. (United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, Case 4:10-cv-03270-CW) According to pacedata.org, five other parties have separately sued the FHFA. Just last week, the FHFA filed a motion to dismiss the California lawsuit. I am not willing to join FHFA’s motion, but I am also willing to say we can’t just scapegoat FHFA. They are just doing their job. Perhaps a compromise is in order?
For a copy of California’s lawsuit against the FHFA, click here.
For a copy of FHFA’s recently filed Motion To Dismiss, click here.
FHFA is in charge of protecting the integrity of the housing finance industry, and they have taken on PACE financing because it undermines the integrity of primary mortgages. They have a point, and they can’t just look the other way (as much as it appears they are looking straight into the pockets of big banks).
PACE debt is classified by municipalities as an assessment, and in case of non-payment the PACE debt becomes a tax lien against a home. The issue FHFA have is that in case of foreclosure, tax liens are paid first. That puts the PACE payout in front of a primary mortgage, and that undermines the integrity of the primary mortgage market. If PACE programs explode in popularity across the nation (as they were prior to the FHFA advisory letter), that’s a big problem for FHFA. The PACE debt is likely small, but if it is nationwide it is definitely an issue. If FHFA are going to be true to their mission they have to stand up to this (especially since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t show sound judgment leading up to the mortgage-backed securities financial crisis).
The sticking point is proponents of PACE financing aren’t interested in making the PACE debt secondary to a primary mortgage. Recently, California Representative Mike Thompson (and many others) proposed a bill that’s a pretty good compromise, but still asks the FHFA to look the other way on PACE financing. The devil’s advocate is not sure this is appropriate in situations where private entities finance PACE debt.
HR 5766 requires that:
“the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] shall adopt underwriting standards that are consistent with the Guidelines for Pilot PACE Financing Programs issued on May 7, 2010, by the Department of Energy.”
The DOE guidelines referred to in HR 5766 state:
“In states where non-acceleration of the lien is standard for other special assessments, it should also be standard for PACE assessments. After a foreclosure, the successor owners are responsible for future assessment payments. Non-acceleration is an important mortgage holder protection because liability for the assessment in foreclosure is limited to any amount in arrears at the time; the total outstanding assessed amount is not due in full.” (Full Guidelines Here)
The DOE guideline quoted above states that under a PACE program in a state where under foreclosure proceedings a primary mortgage holder can demand payment for the full amount of the debt, PACE assessments can only ask for the debt that was owed up to the time of the foreclosure. This is an important distinction. The problem is that the PACE lien still supersedes the primary mortgage to some degree.
I doubt this would be such a problem if municipalities provided all of the financing for PACE programs. Municipalities will always have the power to impose assessments. The problem is that often PACE financing is provided by private enterprise. Further, with the municipal budgets in pieces, the likelihood of private finance for PACE programs only increases. I am all for PACE programs, but allowing a private entity to supersede a primary mortgage without asking the primary lender seems a little, shall we say, inconsistent (even if the motives are pure).
For my return from the devil’s side of the argument, and some suggestions for solutions, click the “more” link here: (more…)
October 12, 2010
A class action lawsuit against the USGBC has just been filed in Federal Court for the Southern District of New York (Gifford v. U.S. Green Building Council, docket number 10 CIV 7747). Stephen Del Percio who does a great job publishing the Green Real Estate Law Journal and Green Buildings NYC broke this story (at least to me), and it’s going to have reverberations throughout the sustainable development community.
The complaint is brought on behalf of Henry Gifford, Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc., and others similarly situated. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs allege the USGBC has engaged in deceptive trade practices, false advertising and anti-trust (among other things) by promoting the LEED system. Plaintiffs further allege that because the LEED system does not live up to predicted and advertised energy savings, the USGBC defrauded municipalities and private entities.
The basis for the class action has been mentioned more than a few times in this blog and many others (including Mr. Del Percio’s). Essentially, many green buildings are not performing as touted. In some situations they are performing WORSE than buildings built to code. The plaintiffs allege that because of these performance shortcomings, the USGBC commits anti-trust violations when it convinces municipalities to align their building codes to the USGBC’s LEED system.
While some LEED buildings are underperforming, the lawsuit is no slam-dunk for the Plaintiffs. From a personal perspective, I find plaintiff’s complaint is a bit overly dramatic. An effective complaint acknowledges and then refutes the defense’s potential arguments. Here the plaintiffs’ complaint seems almost melodramatic in its representation of big bad USGBC. In my opinion they lose some credibility there.
One of the biggest issues plaintiff will face is that occupants are often the primary reason green buildings underperform. Many occupants don’t understand the new technology used in green buildings. However, occupant “sabotage” is not the exclusive reason green buildings underperform. Often it is also because the technology itself doesn’t work. The USGBC is working on this issue, and Post-Occupancy Performance is a cornerstone of LEED 3.0.
No doubt there is a valid lawsuit here, and I anticipate this lawsuit will grow if more members of plaintiffs’ class sign on. We’ll keep you updated as the lawsuit progresses.
Click here for a copy of the complaint.
September 29, 2010
First, thanks to all of you who joined me and the Paladin Law Group at the Annual Meeting of the California State Bar. It was great to have a lively audience, and I’m happy you enjoyed the presentation. For those of you who want to find out what the discussion was all about, email me at steve at californiagreenbuildingblog.com. Now, on to our post.
The New York Times ran two intriguing articles on Sunday. One article was about Masdar, a space age sustainable city in Abu Dhabi, and the other piece was about passive homes (there’s even a video). As much as I’d love to talk about all the cool new technology in Masdar, I’m writing on the passive homes story since it’s immediately applicable to everyday construction here in California.
Passive homes are not especially new. They have been around for at least 15 years (if you don’t count my igloo comparison below) We covered them in January 2009, but still they have not caught on in the USA. The likely reason is the molasses-like speed of change in the United States’ energy policy (cue scowl), but it could also be that passive homes seem a bit daunting.
Passive homes use up to 90% less heating and cooling energy and 60-70% less over-all energy than homes built to most nationwide standards (I’m not sure how they stack up against the new CALGreen codes). However, to reach these efficiency levels, passive homes maintain an air tight environment surrounded by massive amounts of insulation and a high-tech heat exchanger that allows stale air out without loosing heat. Ironically, in some ways passive homes are similar to igloos or ice caves. Get in, seal up, and heat the air inside.
Passive homes are extremely popular in Europe – especially middle Europe (e.g. Germany) where the climate is temperate. Indeed, the NY Times article featured a home in Vermont that has a similar climate to middle Europe. The sealed nature of the homes leads to two challenges for nationwide implementation. First, how can one cool the home in the desert or in a hot southern environment? And second, how can one ventilate effectively enough to keep moisture levels down and eliminate the risk of mold?
To get the answers, click the “more” link here (more…)
September 8, 2010
The burning question everyone is asking: “What is the difference between the new California Building Code (CALGreen) and third party rating systems?” GOOD NEWS – a very handy and thorough comparison chart has arrived!
The USGBC-NCC, along with AIA California Council, AIA-SF, StopWaste, City of San Francisco, Simon and Associates, and Build it Green formed the Green Building Codes Educational Collaborative. This group created two matrixes (one for commercial space and one for residential space) as quick reference guides to compare CALGreen to third party systems. The matrixes are as compact as one could hope.
The commercial matrix compares CALGreen (Commercial) with LEED BD+C. The residential matrix compares CALGreen (residential) with (GreenPoint) Build it Green and LEED for Homes.
Please click below for the complete packet I just received Friday from the USGBC-NCC. If you like the content of these documents, please consider a membership with at least one of the groups that helped make the documents possible.
(Full disclosure, I am a member of the USGBCC-NCC, but I receive no compensation for this, or any, post on the CGBB)
September 6, 2010
After reading a slew of books on sustainability (some of them reviewed here), I was ready to take a break. Then, a colleague handed me Physics for Furture Presidents, The Science Behind The Headlines, and asked me for my opinion. I’m glad I read the book, but I can’t endorse it with the same enthusiasm I have for the others reviewed on CGBB. Physics for Future Presidents was written in 2008 by Dr. Richard A. Muller, a Professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley. The book is based on Dr. Muller’s wildly successful lectures that are popular on the Cal campus, and online. Think of it as physics for people who don’t know about math.
Dr. Muller’s writing style is fine (not great), but I found the consistent reference to “Mr. President” created disconnect. I will take an idea from the review on the back jacket, and state that the book should have addressed “fellow citizens” (or residents), not Presidents.
Regardless, the book contains more than a few biased interpretations and cherry-picked facts focused on creating shock-value, and support for Dr. Muller’s opinions. In this regard, it fails as a memorandum to the President of the United States, let alone a nationwide primer in physics. Whatever value can be rendered from the fascinating facts recited by Muller, is overshadowed by a question of doubt about the validity of the statements or the balance provided to the opposing opinion.
The book is worth a read only if you are well versed in the subject matter or you’re willing to do some fact-checking regarding some of Muller’s statements. Unfortunately, you can’t take the book at face value, and that was supposedly the whole reason for the book in the first place.
I stewed for a long time on how to respectfully refute some of Muller’s statements. After all, he is a MacArthur Fellow, and I’m . . . well, I’m not a nuclear physicist, that’s for sure. If you want to read more of my analysis, click the “more” button at the end of this post. If you want to read some quick science-based reviews by Earl Killian that dispute Dr. Muller, click here for part 1 and here for part 2.
Building Green RSS Feed
Steve Sacks