Achieving Energy Efficiency Goals: Who Has the Responsibility?

Early this week, leaders from fifteen countries met to talk about international energy efficiency goals.

You would be forgiven for not noticing.  After all, if Obama himself isn't present, there doesn't seem to be much media interest--much less when the representative is Assistant Secretary Cathy Zoi of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--someone most people have never heard of. 

Let me be clear.  I applaud the cooperation and effort to coordinate funding and initiative behind specific projects to increase energy efficiency across the globe.  And frankly, efficiency is the low-hanging fruit that one would hope every country could get behind.  But the fact is, how much can these meetings truly accomplish?

After all, the inherent irony in a meeting to hammer out energy efficiency goals is that they tend to lead to results very inefficiently.  It requires a lot of flash and heat for muddied, imperfect, and sometimes non-existent results.  That is the nature and necessity of diplomatic and cooperative political action.  Again, it's admirable and, to some extent, necessary to go through these efforts.  But let's not get distracted. 

It's like Julie Urlaub from Taiga Company mentioned in our discussion of sustainability: we're all waiting for governments to come in from the top down to "fix" everything, when the real change is waiting to happen in each individual and business. 

After all, this is America.  Sure, governments can enact stricter building codes or offer incentives for good behavior, but at the end of the day, we own those homes and businesses that are using this energy--and it is up to us to make things better.



The Design Standard

I came across a great piece in Slate this morning that I think is emblematic of how people think about standards and codes. We in the green building community tend to think about standards in very technical terms. At heart, we're all wonk and we like to dive into the pros and cons of a given technology or point out the failings of a given building code or program.

But pull back and read this article; it's author, Daniel Gross gives us a a picture of how those who don't necessarily think about green building every day see the movement and see new regulations. While Gross is a proponent of stronger standards for the built environment and consumer goods, he also does a great job laying out all the arguments against tougher legislation or standards.

But what's lacking in his discussion of these standards is nuance, and while he's talking about how engineers will make better products if forced to (I agree), he also unconsciously raises the need for designers to step in and make better use if energy efficient tools. Take his discussion of CFL lighting...

"Fortunately, higher standards are on the way. The Bush administration set into motion the phasing out of incandescent lightbulbs—which is pushing more people to use more-efficient compact fluorescents and is pushing bulb-makers to make incandescents more efficient. The Obama administration is continuing the trend, with the Department of Energy issuing new standards for water heaters and the Environmental Protection Agency promulgating standards that require monitors to be more efficient."

And

"I was slow to install compact fluorescent bulbs. But when the energy-assessing Moldovan brothers did swap a bunch out, I adjusted. And, voilà, my electricity costs are going down."

There's an opportunity there for a lighting designer to help mitigate the negatives of CFLs with better specification and design. In short, reading this article reinforces what I think we intrinsically understand. People want change, but sometimes they need a nudge to get there. We as building pros need to make sustainable choices more appealing, because we alone stand as the mitigating force between higher energy standards and an unhappy public. 

Energy Reporting: Are You Ready?

Advisory Board member, Chris Hill, joins us this week to share what's on his mind.  You can find out more about Chris on the B2S team page.

I have discussed the issue of benchmarking and energy reporting on several occasions here at Construction Law Musings.  As the January 18, 2010 issue of ENR Magazine discusses, now cities and states are getting on board in a big way.

Washington, D.C. began requiring building owners to use the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager tool on January 1, 2010 and New York City passed a similar measure in December.  The D.C. law is the first to require mandatory public disclosure of energy performance.  Such disclosure will create a public database of energy performance data.

While I understand that this data and its reporting will create energy accountability in a way that non-disclosure of this data would not, the possibilities for misuse or uses that impact the construction world abound.  This energy reporting is a step beyond that of the LEED program in that the data is not just reported to the USGBC, but to a public database.  As such, the ease of access will impact contracts and contractors in an even bigger way than the USGBC requirements.

As I have stated before, the problem of human interaction with buildings, and the time horizons for such reporting, create potential contractual liability for general contractors and architects that must be addressed. These must be addressed even sooner than anticipated because of the governmental actions making these issues even more time critical.

The temptation here would be to rail against the governmental action taken with what are likely the best of intentions or to decide to ignore these issues.  However, despite my Eeyore like tendencies, I am fully behind the sustainable enterprise and would rather work to deal with the inevitability of such actions through the careful drafting of contracts and green leases, and the use of great companies like Build2Sustain.   The use of these tools and resources with the proper guidance  can properly allocate the risks among owners, contractors, architects and tenants in a way that allows for the careful yet steady move toward a more sustainable and energy efficient built space.

In short (if it is not way too late for such an introduction to this sentence), energy reporting is here to stay, we just need to learn to deal with the risks brought on by these new requirements to assure that the goal, sustainable building, will be reached.

White Paper Follow Up: Energy Legislation: Should You Keep Up Or Lap the Field?

Yesterday, we reported on New York City’s newly adopted energy codes and some of the changes in enforcement policy coming to the city. This is the latest in a string of initiatives here in NYC. My fair city isn’t the only one trying to catch up with the sustainable revolution, but I wanted to delve into the new codes as an example of why property owners should be ahead of the game, and not simply keeping pace.

As governmental regulations continue to catch up with the social and political demands for sustainability, we continue to see fluctuations in how local legislators deal with the issue. It’s important to remember that while legislators are vulnerable to the political whims of special interest groups and the latest poll data, larger market forces are not. In the interest of keeping our paper factually up-to-date, we would like to clarify a point made in “The Financial, Legal and Socio-Economic Imperatives section.” Here we mentioned the proposal Mayor Bloomberg put forth requiring all owners of buildings larger than 50,000 square feet in New York City to perform energy audits every 10 years beginning in 2013, and implement efficiency upgrades with payback periods of less than five years. That legislation has changed a bit was passed last week. Here are the four primary initiatives (outlined yesterday, but presented here again for further discussion). 

Int. No. 564-A:Legislation that creates a New York City Energy Code that existing buildings will have to meet whenever they make renovations;

Int. No. 476-A:Legislation that requires large buildings owners to make an annual benchmark analysis of energy consumption so that owners, tenants, and potential tenants can compare buildings’ energy consumption;

Int. No. 973-A:Legislation that requires large commercial buildings (over 50,000 square feet) to upgrade their lighting and sub-meter tenant spaces over 10,000 square feet; and

Int. No. 967-A:Legislation that requires large private buildings to conduct energy audits once every decade and implement energy efficient maintenance practices. Also, all city-owned buildings over 10,000 sq ft will be required to conduct audits and complete energy retrofits that pay for themselves within 7-years.

See the entire text here.

As you can see in the points above, energy audits are back in but there is still no required retrofit. However, the city has closed a loophole allowed owners to perpetuate bad practices by renovating less than 50% of a given building or space. In the past, doing so would allow the project to bypass current energy code and be "grandfathered in." Now any retrofit or renovation must meet current energy code.

 The other point of interest in NYC’s legislation. Lighting is specifically targeted in Int. No. 973-A, see the following from the NYC press release:

In New York City, lighting accounts for approximately 20 percent of the energy used in buildings and roughly 20 percent of a building’s carbon emissions.  The legislation requires that lighting systems in commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet be upgraded to meet the requirements of the New York City Energy Conservation Code (essentially ASHRAE 90.1-2004).

The landscape of environmental legislation is constantly evolving, and we are likely to see more changes in the future. So what does this mean?

From our point of view it means property owners have one of two options. They can simply “keep up” with energy and environmental legislation as necessary or they “lap the field.” We believe forward-looking businesses striving to become the most effiecient will be least effected by political whim and will be positioned to make the most profit from their retrofits. "Middle of the pack" owners will not be able to make a differentiated offer to the market based on the energy effeiciency or sustainability.

Business owners need to be ahead of the curve in implementing cost saving, energy efficient solutions  because they reap competitive advantage. So whether you’re in NYC, or anywhere else you can enjoy a competitive market position despite the legislative climate of your district. The question you have to ask yourself is…do you want to do this on your terms, ahead of the curve, or on the government’s?