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.

 

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 1, 2010

Green Conference June 10 For Contractors and Subcontractors

Posted by Steve Sacks under Conferences / Conventions / Events, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The USGBC-NCC is putting on a really nice conference, GreenerBuilder 2010, for contractors and subcontractors.  The event will have a number of educational sessions, as well as over 500 registered attendees so far.  There should be some good networking, as a number of top producing general contractors have signed on as sponsors.  Also, the breakout sessions look to include beginner and advanced information such as pricing green bids and implementing industry-specific new technologies.

The conference is June 10 from 11 am to 7pm.  Tickets are $125.

For more information, click here

 

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 30, 2010

Ensuring High Performance Buildings Meet Expectations, Part II

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Risk Transfer, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

As discussed in Part I of this post, LEED version 3.0, first implemented in June 2009 includes enhancements that place greater emphasis on closing the gap between performance expectations and actual performance.  These measures were likely included partially in response to studies focusing on performance of LEED buildings that illustrated a potential for large fluctuations in meeting projected performance levels. Performance is primarily based on energy and systems modeling, and one study of existing LEED buildings found that although LEED buildings are higher performing than regular buildings, the actual performance measurements deviate as much as 25% from projected levels.

Version 3.0 introduces several new elements which will work to close the gap between expected and actual performance. Buildings can now gain more points under both the LEED energy efficiency credits and measurement and verification credits, which include greater emphasis on commissioning, post occupancy monitoring and validation of energy use.

One key component to performance monitoring is that the USGBC now mandates that buildings provide post occupancy data on all LEED-certified structures. Buildings must provide the USGBC with post-occupancy water and energy bills, even if the building changes owners. The USGBC plans to collect and analyze this data to determine areas which need the most improvement and in turn to address these areas in subsequent LEED versions. Data collection is taken seriously, the USGBC has posted the following statement on its website:

“CERTIFICATION MAY BE REVOKED FROM ANY LEED PROJECT UPON GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE MPR.  IF SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE OCCURS, REGISTRATION AND/OR CERTIFICATION FEES WILL NOT BE REFUNDED.”

MPRs, minimum project requirements, were newly introduced with version 3.0 and require each project to meet certain specified criteria including compliance with environmental laws and providing the energy and water use data referenced above.  If a building’s owner fails to provide this data to the USGBC, the building’s LEED certification MAY be revoked.

The USGBC has not stated that once the building’s data is received and analyzed, if it is not meeting performance criteria, its certification will be revoked. As written, it seems that certification can only be revoked by failing to provide the data itself. We will need to wait to see how this new element plays out upon completion of more 3.0 projects. Maybe in the future the USGBC will take the more drastic step of de-certification for failure to meet projected performance if confirmed by data collection.

Obviously, green building will never be as prolific as it seems destined to be if buildings fail to perform.  The USGBC’s recent changes, along with the actions taken by the BSC and ASHRAE (discussed in Part I of this article) are huge steps in the right direction. This nascent emphasis on actual building performance is a trend that will increase significantly as green building continues to gain traction and a larger percentage of LEED buildings’ post-occupancy performance can be tracked and analyzed.

Stay tuned to the California Green Building Blog for new information on this topic.

 

March 22, 2010

Ensuring High Performance Buildings Meet Expectations – Part I

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

It seems that green building made it to primetime in 2009. Not only are individual projects embracing third party rating systems, the past few years has also seen a meteoric rise in popularity of codifying green as hundreds of cities and towns across the country adopted green elements into their building codes. And, just this January, California became the first state to mandate a state wide green building code.

Despite the hype about the use of sustainable building methods, actual systems performance of green buildings is sometimes neglected and often overlooked. This is because much of the energy and building systems post-occupancy performance evaluations are based on pre and mid construction modeling and calculations. People have finally seriously begun to ask the question: are green buildings meeting their performance expectations?

If a building does not perform as promised, it not only fails to deliver, it could lose its marketing edge, lose its tax or government incentives, and could even be faced with a lawsuit over these failed expectations. Thankfully, this was also the year that these concerns began to be concretely addressed. California’s Building Standards Commission (BSC), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineer’s (ASHRAE), and the US Green Building Counsel (USGBC) all placed greater emphasis on building performance by including heightened commissioning and mandatory post-occupancy performance evaluations in their rating systems or mandates.

California’s new “CALGreen” building codes place emphasis on the typical areas such as site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, air pollution, and materials and resources, but also include the often under emphasized requirement of commissioning. Commissioning is added assurance that all the building’s subsystems for HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire/life safety, and building security are operating as intended by the owner and as intended by the building architects and engineers. It is a key element in achieving reduced energy levels and ensuring a high performance green building. The BSC recognized this and included in the CALGreen building codes a requirement for a pre-construction commissioning plan as well as the mandatory preparation of a commissioning report recommending post occupancy commissioning and systems operation training.

Another major recent development is ASHRAE’s newly released Standard 189.1, published in conjunction with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and the USGBC. The ASHRAE standard was developed with the intention that it will be adopted and incorporated into building codes. Standard 189.1 increases energy savings over the prior commonly used Standard 90.1. It requires that measurement devices with remote communication capability be installed to collect energy consumption data. Energy subsystems like the building’s HVAC system, or elevators are also required to collect and store data if the subsystems collective load exceeds specified thresholds.  Data must be collected daily with hourly energy use profiles and must be retained for at least 3 years. This will assist building owners and operators as well as local jurisdictions meet their sustainability targets and is intended to complement LEED and other existing green building rating standards.

Finally, the leading market based rating system developed by the USGBC, LEED, released a new version 3.0 last June which includes enhanced commissioning requirements placing further emphasis on building performance… Stay tuned for part II of this post 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.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers