February 17, 2011
First ever mobile post, so excuse the brevity.
Mayor Lee will sign the proposed ordinance into law tomorrow.
WHERE: Adobe headquarters, 601 Townsend
WHEN: 10 A.M., Friday, February 18, 2011
I wish I could be there, but I’m out of town.
Congrats, San Francisco!
For our comprehensive analysis, please click here
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…)
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 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.
August 12, 2010
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.
June 2, 2010
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
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…
April 22, 2010
Geof Syphers is the Chief Sustainability Officer at Codding Enterprises, developer of Sonoma Mountain Village, a One Planet Communities development in Rohnert Park, California that aims to be close to net zero…as a village!
We’ve written about Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO) before. Click here to review that post. Now, as an Earth Day special, please enjoy the interview I conducted with Geof a few days ago. Click here for the full text, or just click on the “Interviews” tab at the top of this page.
The thing that makes the interview so relevant to Earth Day is SOMO is a One Planet Community. This means that if every community on the planet lived like the residents in SOMO, we would only use the resources available on one Earth. As it stands now, if everyone on the planet lived like the rest of the United States, we would need multiple Earths to support our lifestyle! (Click here to take a fun, albiet non-scientific, quiz to check your sustainability footprint).
So, Geof, and the group at Codding are onto something. Enjoy the information in the interview, and have a great Earth Day!
February 9, 2010
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…
Building Green RSS Feed
Steve Sacks