April 28, 2009

“New” Bills Propose Zero Net Energy Buildings And Zero-Limits On Net Metering

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Assembly Member, and Speaker Pro Tempore, Lori Saldaña from the 76th Assembly District (based in San Diego County) has sponsored a great idea!  AB 212 proposes to have all new residential buildings in California meet zero net energy by 2020.  AB 212 was sponsored last year, and passed the Assembly before dying in the State Senate (much like AB 1920 which died last year, but was resurrected as AB 920 this session.  Check out our quick update of former AB 1920 below).

AB 212 proposes:

“The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt building design  and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consuption of energy, including energy associated with the use of water. 
 
This bill would require the commission to adopt, in collaboration with specified parties,  building design and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to require new residential constructions commenced on or after January 1, 2020, or on a date by which the commission determines that the use of photovoltaic technology is cost effective, whichever is later, to be zero net energy buildings, as defined.”

 

The bill defines a “zero net energy building” as:

“[A] building that implements a combination of building energy efficiency design features and clean onsite or near-site distributed generation that result in no net purchases from the electricity grid on an annual basis and produces enough electricity to  offset the energy use attributable to an onsite use of purchased natural gas.”

 

Of course, we would like to see this bill pass, and we would also like to see it extended to non-residential construction as well!  Critics argue the legislature should focus on refurbishing old construction, and they are correct to that extent.  However, there is no reason to only focus on old construction.  Contrary to the critics, we have full confidence the legislature can walk and chew gum at the same time.  The legislature must address both old and new construction!

We will track the progress of AB212, and report back regularly.  For the full text of AB 212, click here

Also, since we’re on the topic of legislation, remember AB 1920 sponsored by Assembly Member Jared Huffman?  That bill proposed elimination of  limits on net metering (among other things).  Well the bill has been re-introduced as AB 920 and is now in front of the Natural Resources Committee for a vote.  You can read more about the original bill from our previous posts ( click here) and (click here) and our Interview with Assembly Member Huffman (click here).  Our understanding is AB 920 is essentially the same as AB 1920.   Let’s hope AB 920 doesn’t get lost in politics as its predecessor did.

 

April 11, 2009

Lauded: California’s Green Building Codes

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , |
[3] Comments 

The Sunday New York Times columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, well-known for his books The World is Flat, and, Hot, Flat and Crowded, is a notorious proponent of green practices. In a recent article, Mother Nature’s Dow, Friedman quotes Hal Harvey, CEO of the foundation ClimateWorks , who states that there are 5 key elements that will ensure the planet is on a forward trajectory in the fight against carbon emissions. The first element Harvey lists is building codes, and he cites California’s Green Building Codes as an example.

As discussed in a previous blog article here, California’s Green Building Codes are currently voluntary, but have been praised as a positive step and an example for other states to emulate. Currently, the Building Standards Commission (“BSC”) is working on a subsequent version of the code that will be mandatory. The codes have been well-received by most Californians, however, some groups would like to see significant changes prior to enactment of the mandatory version. One of these groups is the Northern California Chapter of the US Green Building Council. As a member of the green codes committee, I have been assisting the NCC in their efforts to provide input and recommendations to the BSC during the ongoing drafting process. Currently, the green building code is a separate section of the building code, however, because green building techniques need to be implemented throughout an entire building, the NCC USGBC’s position is that the green codes should eventually be integrated into all sections of the building code.  The group also wants the code to include language that clearly states that it is only setting a floor for green building measures; local cities and towns are not restricted from enacting more stringent legislation. Additionally, to avoid any perception that mere compliance with the code will result in a green building, they suggest changing the name to the Environmental Standards Code.

Another concerned group, the NRDC, recently sponsored legislation, AB 828, that parallels some of the items the NCC USGBC is advocating. The bill also seeks to require more input of other state agencies in the drafting process, such as the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.

Be sure to check back with this blog to stay updated on these efforts and the final version of the regulations. And if you are highly interested in the codes, or if you have ideas to impart to the BSC, attend one of their open meetings, typically announced on the events page of the BSC website.

 

January 23, 2009

San Francisco’s Green Building Codes: The New Requirements Under Chapter 13C

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

San Francisco has emerged as a leader in the Bay Area by enacting a comprehensive set of green building standards that include aggressive mandates. On November 3, 2008, a new chapter of San Francisco’s Building Code, Green Building Ordinance, Chapter 13C went into effect. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection also released an administrative bulletin, AB-093 on September 24, 2008 to accompany the code and provide a comprehensive guide to the new requirements.

The new chapter of the building code includes sustainability requirements for new construction and substantial remodel work in both the residential and commercial context. The regulations incorporate elements of the USGBC’s LEED rating system as well as the GreenPoint rating system for residential construction and make several of these voluntary systems mandatory practice. San Francisco’s new codes  promote energy reduction and sustainable practices but also focus on stringent requirements in two particular areas: water efficiency and waste reduction. Recognizing a key environmental challenge the city faces is scarcity of water, the chapter focuses on water reduction and efficient use by requiring certain buildings to meet standards and develop ways to maintain site imperviousness, prevent post-development peak discharge rates,  protect existing on-site stream channels, capture rainwater, recycle gray water, and choose to plant specific vegetation that reduces run-off.  Another major element the city chose to focus on is reducing the amount of waste that is generated during the actual construction process by mandating strict on-site separation of materials for recycling and composting. For a complete detailed summary of the specific requirements of Chapter 13C check out the full article here:

SF Green Building Code Analysis

San Francisco has taken a strong stand by enacting this new chapter into their building code and cities and towns on the verge of creating their own green building ordinances will most likely look at Chapter 13C as an innovative and aggressive benchmark.

 

December 5, 2008

Million Solar Roofs Progress

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Energy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Materials and Manufacturing | Tags: , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

On August 21, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1, known as SB1, changing the definition of energy infrastructure in California forever. SB1 (AKA the “Million Solar Roofs Initiative”) earmarked roughly $3.3 billion for incentives, and set a goal to create 3,000 megawatts of solar-produced electricity by 2017. If successful, the new law will result in placement of solar energy generators on top of half of all new homes constructed in California by 2017. That, combined with incentives to put solar energy generators on existing buildings, promises a revolutionary shift of energy production from massive power plants to the roofs of individual homes and businesses. We’re still awaiting information on the program’s 2008 progress, but we do have numbers from 2007.  So, how bright is SB1′s future?

 

If initial reports are accurate, SB1 is off to a good start. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (a trade group), and the New York Times, 100 megawatts of solar generating capacity was installed in California in 2007. (Matt Richtel and John Markoff, A Green Energy Industry Takes Root Under the California Sun, N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 2008). That’s a 50% increase over 2006, and momentum indicates the number of installations will rise quickly in 2008. But, it is important to note that not all of the new power results from the passage of S B 1.

Incentives, under the new law, are divided into three components with the biggest incentives falling under the purview of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). According to the CPUC, demand in 2007 for CPUC-administered incentives exceeded California’s total installed solar systems from all of the previous 26 years! But, these numbers just reflect demand for installations. The vast majority of actual installations in 2007, and thus the 100 megawatts referred to in the New York Times article, is from pre-SB1 incentives. Of all installations in 2007, only 17.9 megawatts of roughly 188 megawatts have been installed, inspected, and put into operation as a result of SBl.

 

This lag is a reflection of publicly owned utility inefficiencies in processing residential incentive requests, inherent project delivery time requirements, and a dearth of qualified solar system installers. Some utilities have addressed delay issues by providing additional staff to review applications. The project delivery time requirements will shorten as installers and designers gain experience and increase efficiency, but the dearth of qualified installers will only be fixed with training.

 

The Future of SB1, and the Progress of AB1920:

 

Over time, SB1 decreases financial incentives to consumers. The theory behind reduction in incentives is that as efficiencies increase in delivering solar energy systems, consumers will not need financial incentives to subsidize costs. Some fear this will stall SBl. To maintain the momentum of solar installations, state assembly member Jared Huffman has proposed ABl920, the California Solar Surplus Act. AB1920 aims to increase incentives for residential energy generators by proposing many amendments to SBl, including changes to the energy netting policies of utility companies.

 

Energy netting is a system where consumers who generate more electricity than they use feed electricity back into the grid. In this way, consumers can earn credits redeemable against their energy but if consumers generate enough electricity from their own systems, theoretically their overal1 annual production will exceed their overall annual consumption. Under current legislation, if a consumer has unused credits at the end of the calendar year, those credits wilt not roll over to the next year, and the utility sets the consumer’s credit account back to zero. Under AB1920, consumers will earn a retail rate for the surplus power they produce. That cash is credited against their energy bill, and if consumers annually produce more energy than they use, consumers are provided a cash rebate or that energy.

 

With literally billions of dollars being thrown at the consumer level solar energy industry, it’s a good time for contractors and developers to offer installation of solar energy systems as a service. Who thought infrastructure could be so small?

 

Do you want to find out how much solar energy a lot or home can generate? Go to http://sf.solarmap.org/ and enter any San Francisco address. Oakland is coming out with a similar map shortly, and CH2MHill, the sponsor of the map, plans to offer it to communities nationwide.

 

Some Helpful Websites:
PUC website: 
www.cpuc.ca.gov (general information on energy policies and solar initiatives)www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov  (information on rebate applications and netting policies)
“Solar Map:”
http://sf.solarmap.org/ (interactive map sponsored by CH2MHill and Google)
Research and Advocacy:
www.environmentcalifornia.org (including a great report on the efficacy of solar initiatives)
Renewable Energy News:
www.renewableenergyworld.com
 

November 7, 2008

California’s Green Building Standards Code

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , |
1 Comment 

On July 17, 2008 California became the first state in the nation to adopt a set of “green” building codes.  http://www.bsc.ca.gov/prpsd_stds/default.htm. The code was drafted by the California Building Standards Commission as a result of governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s directive to the Commission on October 14, 2007 vetoing AB1058. The governor opined that it was “imperative to expedite the greening of California’s building standards” and stated that green standards should be incorporated into the 2010 building code. After extensive meetings between policymakers, industry insiders and environmentalists, the current set of standards were agreed upon and will first be introduced as voluntary in the upcoming January 2009 version of Title 24, the California Building Code. The Commission claims a voluntary introduction will make the transition easier on builders as they can gradually incorporate the measures into their practice over the next couple of years before they actually become mandatory and because they will not effect projects currently under construction. The state agencies adopting sections of the voluntary code include the Building Standards Commission (BSC), California Department of Housing and Community Development (HDC), Division of the State Architect (DSA), and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). If a project is under the jurisdiction of one of the above mentioned agencies, a builder must determine what sections of the codes the agency has adopted by using the checklist supplied in chapter 11 of the code.

The code’s self-proclaimed purpose is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices.” Sustainability measures in the following five categories are discussed in detail: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality. According to the code, a green building should achieve more than a 15% reduction in energy usage from the state’s already mandatory energy efficiency standards. Some of the energy reducing techniques the code specifically mentions include the installation of Energy Star appliances, HVAC systems that include demand response software, use of landscaping for thermal loss protection and maximum shading, installation of sufficiently sealed building joints and openings, orienting buildings to provide maximum exterior shade for south facing windows, and proper training of building maintenance staff. Also included is the incorporation of on-site renewable energy such as the use of solar, wind, or geothermal sources to power the building’s energy needs. Water efficiency and conservation measures mentioned include installation of plumbing that meets a 20% reduced flow rate, as well as installation of graywater irrigation or rainwater collection system. Further measures include the use of recycled, bio-based and regional materials, certified wood products and materials with a long service and reduced maintenance life. Lastly, to build a structure with positive environmental air quality, the code suggests the use of low VOC paints, sealants and adhesives, along with the use of proper ventilation.

Although the code is currently voluntary, the Commission chair stated that she hopes builders, cities, and towns will act on their own to exceed these measures. If California is to meet the stringent emission reduction standard set out under AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (a 30% reduction by 2020) changes in the building code are essential. Studies have shown that buildings are responsible for 30%-40% of the emissions produced in the US, and they consume up to 70% of electricity generated. Accordingly, some environmental groups see the voluntary codes as a weak solution to this pressing issue. See the Sierra Club comments at http://sierraclubca.blogspot.com/2008/05/weak-green-building-rules-make-bad.html. Many cities throughout California, including San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego and Los Angeles, however, have already acted to incorporate green building measures into their respective building codes. For example, starting in 2009 San Francisco will require all new small scale residential construction to achieve a total of 25 points under the GreenPoint rating system, and by 2010 it will require all high rise residential projects and commercial buildings over 75 feet in height to achieve LEED silver certification.  The question remains weather builders in other California cities and towns will utilize the voluntary standards before they are required. Some builders are already taking the code seriously and suggest industry insiders need to get up to speed on the new codes as soon as possible, and most industry groups such as the AIA and the US Green Building Counsel applaud California’s forward looking initiative.

Link to USGBC Counsel Comments: http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6579525.html?q=California+Voluntary+Green+building+codes;

Link to AIA: http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek08/0725/0725n_code.cfm.

The California Green Building Blog will follow the contractors and towns that choose to implement and require additional green building standards, and any further changes to the building codes to incorporate green measures, so please check back with us frequently in order to stay on top of this exciting emerging issue!

 

« Previous Page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers