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 10, 2010

Friendly Reminder, Webinar Series Starts Wednesday, May 12

Posted by Steve Sacks under BIA / Building Industry Association, Build It Green / Green Point Rated, Building and Design, Building Operations, California Green Builder / Building Industry Institute, Editor's Note, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Speaking Engagement, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Hi All,

A friendly reminder that I am presenting in one of three great webinars presented by the State Bar of California.  The webinars will be on May 12, 19, and 26.  If you can’t make these dates, you can register by the date of the event, and listen any time in the three months afterward.

The first webinar is “Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Sustainable Master Planning” I will discuss alternatives to LEED and the many factors interested parties should consider when designing and developing sustainable buildings and neighborhoods.  Jeff Conner (Conner & Associates), Matt Burris (CTG), and Patricia Chen (Miles Chen Law Group, P.C.) will join me  in a roundtable discussion that will discuss LEED as well as other ways to develop a sustainable project (i.e. ICC, GreenPoint Rated, or independent assessment).  Each approach requires unique planning and permitting.  More information can be found by clicking here.

Our webinar is the first of a series.  There are two more webinars that are really worth checking out.  The first is , “Sustainable Development: Charting a Course to a Sustainable Future Through CEQA Compliance and Effective Climate Action Planning – Demystifying AB 32 and SB 375″ and the second is “Sustainable Development: The California General Plan Law and General Plan Updates: The Future of Sustainable Development”

We hope to catch you online at these events!

 

May 4, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 1

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

In December, 2009, a task force convened by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, issued a report on the steps necessary to make existing commercial buildings more efficient.  (Click here for the full report) It’s not as comprehensive or technical as reports one expects from the specialists and experts that comprise the task force, but it is a good policy report. Why am I slightly “cool” on the report?  It’s no fault of the task force.

The reason is because it’s a policy report, and until the policies are enacted, the report is just hot air blowing in December. (Cue sly grin for “hot air” pun).  The reason this post is coming up now, however, is not only the fact that I’m finally getting around to it, but also the fact that Mayor Newsom seems to be as well…(getting around to the report, that is).

San Francisco has arguably the best green building track record of any city in the United States, so if anyone can enact the recommendations, San Francisco can. As you will read below, Mayor Newsom is reportedly going to propose enacting one of the recommendations into law.  Before addressing the proposed law, let’s look at how the task force recommends we fix the existing commercial buildings.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, the task force recommends following the California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (CEESP).  CEESP sets a goal of zero net energy for new (and some existing) residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030. Regarding existing buildings in San Francisco, the task force believes the CEESP goal could be achieved with a 50% reduction in all existing building energy use by 2030.  That amounts to a 2.5 % reduction in energy use every year . . . daunting, but doable.

The task force report uses four general “themes” to suggest meeting and exceeding CEESP:  1) maximize transparency, 2) partner with the private sector, 3) attract game-changing capital, 4) lead by example.  I will address each of these in turn, but don’t worry, I only address number 1 in this post. The rest will wait for Part 2.

1) Maximize Transparency:  The task force recommends the disclosure of energy performance for all existing commercial buildings.  Sounds pretty good, right?  Well, the requirement to disclose energy efficiency in commercial buildings has been law for some time now.  AB 1103, enacted in 2007, with requirements set to trigger in 2009 (delayed until July 2010), requires “electric and gas utilities . . . to maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service.”  And the utilities must provide those records to property buyers, tenants, or investors.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, the mayor will propose a similar requirement shortly, but with the added bonus that the energy consumption data would be available to the general public.

This idea sets off a slew of potential legal issues, and here’s one: From a transaction side, a lease now has new potential incentives and benchmarks.  If a tenant reduces energy consumption over a series of years, that could be worth a bonus from the landlord because it makes the property more valuable from a public relations standpoint and also from a re-sale re-lease perspective.  On the contrary, a landlord may simply require that a tenant improve energy efficiency every year, and set penalties if they fail to meet the benchmarks.  A successful business relationship will find a middle ground, but these are certainly new bargaining chips.  Just think we haven’t even entered the world of cap and trade…

Lets also remember there is no current penalty for failing to increase efficiency.  The rest of the task force recommendations rely on private help and public leadership.  Is that enough? I’m not so sure…

Stay tuned for Part 2….

(Editor’s Note: check out the Institute for Market Transformation – a great resource I found in researching some of this post.)

 

April 22, 2010

Happy Earth Day! Sustainable Community Interview Special!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Interview, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Photovoltaic, Solar, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

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!

 

March 17, 2010

Efficiency Efforts Insulate Windows In Empire State Building

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Green Economy, Innovators, Make Money, Materials and Manufacturing, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Serious Materials, a California-based company, just announced an agreement with Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI) to “super-insulate” over 6,500 windows as part of a $13.2 million energy efficiency retrofit program for the nearly 80 year-old Empire State Building.

Note, I wrote they will “insulate” the glass, not replace it.  According to Sustainable Materials, here’s how it works:

“The existing glass of the building’s 6,514 double-hung windows will be removed from the window frames, separated, and cleaned in the processing space. New super-insulating IGUs [Insulating Glass Units] will be produced using the old glass panes, new spacers, suspended coated film, and special gas fill [argon-krypton gas mixture]. The IGUs will be re-installed into the existing window frames.”

These efforts alone will directly reduce energy costs by over $400,000 per year, and the remarkable fact is Serious Materials is using the old glass!

The Empire State Building project is a model of what needs to happen across the nation.  Old buildings are highly inefficient, and provide the greatest opportunity to gain real energy savings.  The Empire State Building plan calls for eight separate measures in lighting, insulation, electricity controls, HVAC, and tenant training and incentives.  Once all measures are complete, the Empire State Building retrofit team predicts a 33% reduction in cooling load, and a reduction of peak energy load by 3.5 megawatts (yes that’s just the reduction).  The retrofit team also predicts a 38%reduction in total energy use and an eventual energy cost savings of $4.4 million / year.  How about that for ROI?

Click here to find out more regarding the Empire State Building’s eight measures

Click here for the press release from Serious Materials

Editor’s note: Don’t miss tonight’s Clean Tech Event at McCormick and Kuleto’s. Click here for more information

 

March 4, 2010

AB 510 Signed By Governor Schwarzenegger! (Part 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

March 1, 2010

Clean Tech Event – San Francisco March 17

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

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

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

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

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

Click Here For More Information And For Reservations.

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

 

February 23, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

February 9, 2010

The Grass Is Green And So Is The Stadium

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers