Energy

Archived Posts from this Category

September 6, 2010

Book Review! Physics For Future Presidents

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

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.

(more…)

 

August 16, 2010

New Legislation Proposed to Reduce Energy Use in San Francisco’s Existing Commercial Buildings

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building Operations, Building and Design, Energy, Government, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

As always, it’s great to have Sarah Grilli contribute.  Here is her latest post:

Last week San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed new legislation with co-sponsor City Supervisor Bevan Dufty focused on reducing the energy use of existing commercial buildings over 5,000 square feet. This new law is expected to be passed next month by San Francisco supervisors. San Francisco is currently subject to a strict green building code which was described in detail on a prior blog post. If this new measure passes, it will assist in making San Francisco’s green building legislation one of the most comprehensive of any city nationwide.

In May, we mentioned that the Mayor was planning this legislation, and, as predicted by pundits, it does go far beyond the statewide energy reporting required by AB 1103.  The program proposed by Mayor Newsom implements many of the recommendations suggested by the Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings. (For our discussion of AB 1103 and our series on the Report from the Mayor’s Task Force On Existing Commercial Buildings, click here).  The legislation is modeled on similar programs in California and Boulder, Colorado, and requires the use of free software from the US EPA.

The cornerstone of the legislation is that it requires building owners to conduct a comprehensive energy audit every five years and an updated audit every year. This emphasis on energy efficiency will provide an additional layer of measurement and verification that is often missed in building codes and third party rating system such as the USGBC’s LEED. However, the newest version, LEED 3.0, does require measurement and verification through a post occupancy audit process. See our prior blog post on this issue here.

The city’s efforts in this regard will provide an important catchall for non-LEED buildings, and even more importantly will focus on existing buildings, not new construction. In theory, once the building owners and managers receive an audit report they will embrace the resulting proposed energy-saving renovations.   Most, if not all, of the available energy-saving renovations are subsidized by Federal and State programs, thus assisting implementation.  Stay tuned to the California Green Building Blog for a comprehensive review of the ordinance if this legislation passes.

 

August 12, 2010

Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Approved

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Last week the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a measure approving the plan and EIR for the redevelopment of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood.  The measure was championed by City Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, and passed with an 8-3 margin.

The project, encompassing 720-acres along the Southeast waterfront of San Francisco, adds 10,500 residential units, nearly a third of which would be priced for low-income residents.  The plan also calls for 320 acres of parkland and open space; retail and commercial space – including a new stadium if the 49ers show some loyalty (they won’t) – and new transportation.

Predictably, there are more than a few immediate issues with the project.  At the top of the list….Lennar needs funding, the stadium has no tenant, the shipyard at the site is highly toxic, and a proposed bridge appears to unnecessarily impact sensitive wetlands. Lets just gloss over those for a minute and imagine what this current symbol of blight might look like if these initial issues are solved and the plan moves forward.

We are interested in green building here at the CGBB, so let’s look at this statement from the project website:

“Hunters Point Shipyard will be the first neighborhood in San Francisco powered entirely by clean, reliable public power. In the new “Green Public Power Community,” the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will deliver reliable, 100 percent renewable and cost-competitive power to new residents and businesses of the current and future developments through its extensive hydropower, solar and other renewable energy generation projects.”

What? 100% from renewable sources?  Until someone really proves they can pull this off, I’m going to say this looks like greenwash. Where’s the co-gen plant?  Where’s the solar array?  There is not much on their website about how efficient the structures will be, so just stating they will pull 100% of renewable energy from the PUC sounds like Lennar is setting up a patsy if the plan falls short, and the PUC will still get paid. Lennar’s plan relies on the development of new energy production technology, and the cost reduction of existing technology.  That, in and of itself, is risky. One can not rely on new technologies.  For example, as we discussed last month, the California Solar Initiative is reducing the state (taxpayer) funded incentives and rebates for solar installations.

But, before I just cynically dismiss this lofty and worthy project, let’s look at Lennar’s track record.  Lennar is experienced in green development, and has the ability to scale the implementation of sustainable technologies.  According to a June 15, 2010 press release, Lennar is the largest producer of solar residential homes in the nation.  In the press release, Lennar discussed the success of its “SunPower Access” partnership with SunPower Corporation to provide a “no-money-down” leaseback program for residential photovoltaic solar installations.  (I am not familiar with the program, but I imagine it follows a Solar City model).  Additionally, Lennar, through its PowerSmart program, offers a pre-designed green home in about a dozen cities in four states (including California).  The PowerSmart program offers homes that are 15% more efficient than California’s current Title 24 requirements.

Whether PowerSmart homes are more efficient than the CalGreen codes that are mandatory starting in 2011 is another story. And, it will take more than green building to make Bayview Hunters Point stick to its 100% renewable energy promise.  Stay tuned for more on this project.

For more information visit the community group by clicking here, or Lennar’s website by clicking here.

 

August 4, 2010

No Bids Necessary on Public Contracts For Energy

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

An article written recently for the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune discusses a dated law that permits no-bid award of public contracts for energy.  The law, passsed in 1983, is Government Code 4217.12, and it states,

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public agency may enter into an energy service contract and any necessarily related facility ground lease on terms that its governing body determines are in the best interests of the public agency if the determination is made at a regularly scheduled public hearing, public notice of which is given at least two weeks in advance, and if the governing body finds:

(1) That the anticipated cost to the public agency for thermal or electrical energy or conservation services provided by the energy conservation facility under the contract will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the public agency of thermal, electrical or other energy that would have been consumed by the public agency in the absence of those purchases.
(2) That the difference, if any, between the fair rental value for the real property subject to the facility ground lease and the agreed rent, is anticipated to be offset by below-market energy purchases or other benefits provided under the energy service contract.

While the sponsor of the bill does not specifically recall the legislative intent, it appears to reflect an early effort to award government contracts to clean energy companies that were not competitive compared to energy producers using traditional fuels. Now, as a recent contract for a solar installation awarded by the Peralta Community College District proves, this law appears to unintentionally undermine competition among sustainable energy producers.  The district, even in the face of a last minute proposal from SunPower that could have saved the district $1 million, awarded the contract to Chevron Energy Solutions.

Not so long ago, in an effort to get the best deal for taxpayers, local, state, and federal governments were required to accept the lowest bid on proposals for contracts.   Low-bid requirements, however, backfired often resulting in cheap, error-prone government construction. Deficient construction led to change orders, modifications, and/or repairs resulting in eventual contract prices far above initial bids.  Due to these shortfalls in the bidding process, governments have turned to ”best value” bidding and procurement such as “design-build,” that affords more flexibility to the award of government contracts.

Government Code 4217.12, however, predates best-value procurement, and appears obsolete. Flexibility was the impetus behind Gov. Code 4217.12, but procurement methods now provide sufficient flexibility without the no-bid option afforded by 4217.12.  The federal government procurement process is defined and regulated in Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). In California, the procurement process is generally defined in the Government Code, but can be found in other areas of state law depending on the project.

As California works to expand its energy sources, and energy production takes on diverse forms, competitive bidding must return to the procurement process.  Best-value bidding, while open to abuses of its own, is better than no bid process at all.

For more on the contract recently awarded to Chevron Energy Solutions by the Peralta Community College District, read the article by  Matt Krupnick by clicking here

 

July 19, 2010

California Sues Federal Government! BerkeleyFirst and GreenFinanceSF In Jeopardy

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Wrong, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Mortgages, Risk Transfer | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The local California programs that allow homeowners to pay for green renovations through an added assessment on their property taxes is in jeopardy.  The BerkeleyFirst program – the first Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program in the nation, is still up and running, but San Francisco suspended the GreenFinanceSF program, and Sonoma County now sends warning letters out with every application.  Mind you, 22 states now have PACE programs (enabled in California by AB 811), and President Obama wants to allocate $150 million in federal funds for these programs.  Someone in his office better call the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), because they don’t like the programs one bit.

The issues started when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sent out a letter in the beginning of May that scared some investors and homeowners because it stated, “an energy-related lien [i.e. PACE loan] may not be senior to any mortgage delivered to Freddie Mac.”  Then, at the beginning of this month, the FHFA (who oversee Fannie and Freddy) stated that the PACE loans pose a risk to lenders, and called for the programs to be stopped.  Last week, California shot back and sued the Federal Government to have the FHFA back PACE programs.

FHFA’s concern is that if a property goes into foreclosure, property taxes are the first debts paid off.  Since the PACE loans are an assessment included in property taxes, the PACE loans would be paid off first in a foreclosure.  Almost universally, a primary mortgage is paid off before any subsequent loans taken on a property.  The PACE loans throw that fundamental rule out the window.  This allegedly adds risk to the primary mortgage, and since Fannie and Freddie are the largest purchasers of mortgages in the nation, they object.

To make matters worse, a New York Times article reports that Fannie and Freddy might not accept mortgages with PACE loans.  Fannie and Freddy turning down mortgages is huge.  The two entities own nearly 50% of the mortgages in the nation, and banks rely on the ability to sell mortgages in bulk to Fannie and Freddie.  If PACE loans make mortgages less valuable in the mortgage market (the banking market that bundles groups of mortgages and sells them wholesale between banks and investors . . .e.g. “mortgage-backed securities”), that will essentially end the programs.

I understand the FHFA point of view, but I think their concerns are overblown. The improvements to the property add value, and the PACE payments are generally very small. A $25,000 loan at 6.5% over 20 years comes to about $185 / month.  If you consider the savings to the owner’s energy bill, are we really talking about a debt obligation that will jeopardize someone’s mortgage payment?  Indeed, what if the local government just increased taxes outright?

The PACE programs are gaining tremendous momentum, creating jobs, and leading us toward energy independence.  Throwing a wrench in the system over something quite small is not only counter-productive, its subversion.  We’ll track this issue closely, and let you know of further developments.

More on the lawsuit from Sustainable Business here

More on the lawsuit from the San Francisco Chronicle here

The CGBB first post on BerkeleyFirst is here

 

July 14, 2010

California Suspends Solar Incentive Program!

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

The California Public Utilities Commission instituted a three month suspension of rebates under the California Solar Initiative.  This Solar Initiative is the vehicle whereby the state government provides tax-funded incentives to install solar arrays.   To read the ruling, click here.

What is so unfortunate about this ruling is that the suspension is directed at non-profits and schools – the very entities that can not make up for lost incentives through tax breaks.  (The Federal government offers tax breaks for solar installations, and California offers tax incentives for solar installations under Section 73 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, amended by AB 1451 in 2008.)  The suspension is also directed to projects that are 30kw or greater, an obvious attempt to control the cost of the program by pausing incentives to the biggest beneficiaries.

The PUC suspension also appears counter-intuitive from an ROI perspective.  Tax-funded rebates to schools are far more likely to pay for themselves because school utility bills  are also paid with tax dollars.  The school utility bills will decrease after solar arrays are operational – a direct return on tax-payer investment!

The California Solar Initiative is wildly successful, and it has always been the intention of the program to gradually reduce the allocations as the cost of installing solar systems decreases.  (Environment California has a great report and chart (albiet two years old) that shows how the projected reduction in incentives is tied to the projected reduction in the cost of installations).  This is smart tax policy, but to suspend the Solar Initiative for the entities that provide the tax-payer with the greatest ROI, just does not make sense. 

The PUC is receiving comments on the California Solar Initiative over the next three months while the suspension is in effect.  

The California PUC recently issued its Annual Program Assessment to the Legislature regarding the California Solar Initiative.  Click here for a summary and access to the full report.

The Oakland Tribune has a great article on the suspension: Click here to read that article.

 

 

June 16, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 4

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings divided their recommendations into four themes.   In this final post of our series, we address the final theme, “Lead By Example.”

The theme speaks for itself.  The task force essentially states that the city must institute change in municipal buildings before it can insist on changes in the private sector.   I emphatically agree, if for no other reason than the government needs to understand how the systems work before enforcing their use.  San Francisco, under Chapter 7 of the Environment Code leads by example, and there are other examples.  The recently launched GreenFinanceSF, a Green Finance program from the SFPUC, is a direct answer to the task force report.  Admittedly, we missed it in our last post on the topic, but we’ve updated the post, and we will discuss the program in the future.  Please check out the program, it looks great.

Some argue that the private sector is more adept to implement change.  The belief that the private sector will lead the way, however, is misguided.  The private sector has had years to renovate existing buildings, but the implementation is only on the fringe.  Below, please find a quick timeline as to why this is.

The 1960’s and ‘70’s saw a huge surge in societal awareness of sustainability.  This was due to hippies, the oil embargo, and in my case, Ranger Rick, Woodsy Owl, the Tearful Native American, and John Denver (among others).  Even then, these advocates addressed pollution and environment.  Sustainability in construction was considered a fringe movement for those who could afford it.  Then, sustainability lost momentum when the price of oil tanked in the 1980’s.

Even when oil prices rose in the ‘00’s, and analysts touted life-cycle cost savings, private developers were unwilling to pay a “green premium” (the cost difference between a green building and a standard building).  But in 2001, citing life-cycle costs, energy independence, and social consciousness, California and Oregon required that all new municipal buildings meet high environmental and energy efficiency standards.  Other states including Washington, and New York followed, and in 2003, the GSA mandated that all new federal buildings meet LEED Silver standards.   Other states including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Florida joined the green movement.

With such huge markets mandating green, economies of scale took over.  To answer the large orders from state and the federal government, manufacturers produced higher volumes of green products thus reducing the price. The municipal contracts created a new green economy, and materials such as denim insulation (pun intended) emerged as viable products.  New companies formed and new technologies were invented to answer the call for green supplies.  Large contractors altered their methodologies and trained their workforce for the green future.

Legislating incentives to encourage green building helped too.  The government, with the help of the taxpayer, led all of this.  Let’s be clear.  If it were not for government, the green building movement would still be for the eccentric fringe. Period.

I’ve said many times that political parties are a liability to progress.  There is no room for partisanship in promoting sustainability and green building.  Energy independence is a matter of national security, and as the gulf oil spew shows, clean energy is a matter of protecting our domestic economy (e.g. keeping fisheries open, generating new construction, or creating auto jobs building electric vehicles at the NUMMI plant).   There is nothing wrong with government leading the way in green building and energy efficiency.  To the contrary, it must be one of their highest priorities.  Government involvement in sustainable development creates jobs, and makes us a stronger, more secure nation.

The task force report is very good, but now the hard part begins.  It has been six months since the report was issued, and I have not seen any new legislation passed or proposed.  GreenFinanceSF is a great program, but that was in the works long before the task force report was issued.  According to the San Francisco Examiner, the Mayor was going to propose new legislation, but I haven’t heard about it since.  I’m happy to help if that’s what it takes, but let’s keep up the momentum.

 

June 2, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 3

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar, Sustainable Community, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Parts One and Two of our analysis of the Final Report and Recommendations from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings discussed mandatory energy audits, the risks associated with allowing unilateral submetering, and the welcome drive to increase transparency in energy use reporting under an expanded implementation of AB 1103.  In Part Three of this post, we look at the task force’s proposal to “attract game-changing capital.”

First, it should be noted that the task force’s interest in attracting game-changing capital comes from not only prudence, but also awareness of the acute financial restraints facing our society.  The task force offers low-cost solutions such as the Green Tenant Toolkit, and looks to engage the private sector in these and other initiatives.

There are two possibly expensive financial initiatives proposed by the task force that we will address at length.  The first is a Financial Optimization Tool (FOT) – a fantastic idea.  The proposed FOT is software that organizes and amalgamates all incentives and rebates available to building developers, managers, and tenants.  Currently, the best place to find such information is through the Database of State Incentives and Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org) (a website that is the anchor on our Tax Incentives and Rebates page).  The problem with DSIRE, and other resources such as the Flex Your Power website or the US Department of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Newsletter, is the fluctuating information is difficult to organize.

DSIRE addresses this problem by simply listing every incentive available, and weekly (if not daily) updating that list.   This approach is thorough, however it creates a mountain of information to sift.   The FOT is a great alternative because it allows owners to use all incentives to design an energy efficiency program specifically tailored to their financial circumstances and their building’s design and condition.

To address the need for constant updates, the task force suggests a public-private partnership (P3).  The inclusion of a private partner could be effective.  But, as with so many other opportunities that are offered to private industry, this represents an early sale of future assets.  Further, including private industry may undermine the intent of the FOT

P3s have an essential place in our society, however, for this situation P3s are not an effective solution.  To have the greatest impact, all parties should have access to the FOT.  Use could eventually be required as a standard of care for the building management industry or as part of energy audits.  But, if a P3 private company is involved there needs to be a profit angle. Due to its niche market, the FOT will not produce sufficient advertising revenue.  And without advertising, the only profit angle is through subscriptions.

A subscription-based FOT will fail because it will deter a majority of potential users including other municipalities.  Further, if the FOT is privatized, anti-trust issues arise if use of the FOT is required

The best approach to implement the FOT is a “top down” approach that I will discuss in Part Four of our analysis.  The federal government, working with state and local agencies, must come up with this tool, so that it is accessible to all interested parties.  Perhaps federal leadership is too much for a locally convened task force to suggest, and perhaps this tool needs to start at the state level with contributions from our state universities.  What the FOT does not need is a private partner seeking profit.

There are areas where a P3 will work, and one surprising area the Task Force misses is an opportunity to suggest a partnership in finance.  The report suggests following the BerkeleyFirst distributed power program that utilizes AB 811.  As we previously discussed on the CGBB, the BerkeleyFirst program is not only innovative in attaching the debt obligations of a solar installation to property taxes, it is also innovative in allowing a private company to underwrite the financing for the installations.  This powerful P3 model epitomizes P3 success.  The private partner provides funding, and earns a fair return on investment.  The municipality reaps the reward of infrastructure development at a fraction of the cost.   Perhaps the task force was wary of opening the proverbial floodgates to private enterprise, or perhaps the task force did not want to single out Renewable Funding LLC, the underwriter in the BerkeleyFirst program.

Nonetheless, San Francisco launched GreenFinanceSF, and the city called on Renewable Funding LLC to finance the project.  BerkeleyFirst deserves a great amount of credit as the first program of this type in California, but GreenFinanceSF looks to be a broader initiative that has a longer list of eligible projects.  Unlike BerkeleyFirst which funds solar residential solar installations, GreenFinanceSF finances a long list of energy and water retrofit projects.  The California Green Building Blog will offer further analysis of the GreenFinanceSF program in the future.

The next and final installation of our analysis of the task force report will discuss a topic near and dear to my heart – the suggestion by the task force that government “lead by example.”  I am a firm believer in this approach.  This is not about government intervention, this is about leadership.  No matter where your political loyalties fall, you’ll want to read next week…

 

May 25, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 2

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Lease, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In Part One of our analysis of the report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings, we discussed the task force’s four themed approach to improving the energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings: 1) “maximize transparency,” 2) partner with the private sector, 3) attract game-changing capital, and 4) lead by example.  We now turn to theme two, “partner with the private sector.”

As discussed in Part One of this post, the transparency mandates suggested by the task force, and/or mandated under AB 1103 will force private industry to report energy use.  These reporting requirements will generate market forces that push buildings to higher energy efficiency.  But, will developers, owners, and tenants really compete in a race to the top of efficiency based on AB 1103 alone? The answer is “probably not,” or maybe I should say, “probably not quickly enough.”

Sure, required energy reporting will occur, but the desired reduction in energy use will not manifest rapidly.   Without government mandate and assistance for developers, owners, and tenants, the measures suggested by the task force, including mandatory energy audits, will create resentment and real hardship for businesses.  Also, the local taxpayers might not be happy with the incentives and rebates suggested to assist in deferring the cost (though some of the underwriting will come from state and federal grants).

The task force suggests two low-cost “tools” to rapidly generate efficiency results and ease the private burden of implementing energy efficiency.  The first suggestion is a “no-brainer,” but the second might not be as simple.

The first tool is the “Green Tenant Toolkit” (“GTT”).  Rather than simply mandating energy efficiency, the GTT proposes a “toolkit” with suggestions for developers, owners, and tenants regarding “best practice recommendations, a model green lease, [and] a standardized checklist to identify green features of spaces for lease.”  Also, as a part of the “partner with the private sector” theme, the task force suggests a public/private (dare I say) task force to come up with the language and suggestions for the GTT.  The proposed GTT is a quick and easy resource, and one that will ease the burden of implementing energy efficiency measures.

The second tool suggested by the task force is “unilateral submetering.”  This strategy proposes allowing tenants or landlords to implement submetering at the requester’s expense.  This is risky, and not completely thought out. First, this option likely already exists for a majority of tenants and landlords, and second the suggestion ignores the issues that arise from such a policy.

For example, unlike other tenant-level capital improvements, submetering affects the operating costs of other tenants.  Generally, a building’s utility costs are averaged, and then allocated to tenants based on square feet.  If a large tenant has a significant amount of space that is below the average energy use in a building, and that space is removed from the building energy calculation, the average cost will rise for other tenants.  Conversely, a landlord, at the bequest of other tenants, may submeter a power-sucking data center.  This action will lower rent for a majority of other tenants, but send operating costs for the data center through the proverbial roof.  It’s not quite that simple, but the example above is closer to the reality than the task force lets on.

To achieve the equity the task force seeks, unilateral submetering will need further analysis, or testing before city-wide implementation.  Perhaps if a tenant submeters, a landlord could be forced for one year to keep the submetered tenant in as part of the calculation for the building’s energy use averages until other tenants can take action to either lower energy costs or also submeter?  Or perhaps the city will limit the amount a landlord can raise an energy charge thus encouraging energy efficiency?  Perhaps other tenants will just have to “get with the program,” submeter, and increase their efficiency to realize ROI.  There are no easy solutions to this question, but submetering is an effective tool to reducing energy use, and is required for any effective energy efficiency policy.

The task force’s next suggestions – including the suggestion of a government fund to cover expenses for implementation of energy efficient technologies – will be covered in part three of our analysis.  Stay tuned…

 

May 17, 2010

Oil Spill Solution?

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Just Plain Cool | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

There’s a video circulating that is just amazing for its simplicity.  It’s a demonstration that sometimes the best solution is the most obvious.  This post is not researched by someone with a PhD, but it is scientific. It sure seems to make sense.  If someone can explain how this won’t work, we’re all ears.

http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

The California Green Building Blog recognizes that oil has a place in our economy, however the destruction caused by the oil spill is a clear reminder that oil is not without environmental costs. For a multi-billion dollar corporation and a government that took over two weeks to figure out how to use a siphon, this might be a good next step.

Good on ‘ya, boys!

Many thanks to my sister for forwarding the link.

 

Next Page »