The incandescent light bulb was simple. A general service light bulb came in two basic flavors frosted or clear. From there the only other option was power consumption. 25, 40, 60, 100, 150 watt options ran the gambit for most people. The 60 watt frosted A lamp is still the most popular light bulb sold in the United States. Those days are changing as the US joins to the EU is phasing out the Thomas Edison's invention. That said, the market for CFL and LED replacements to these lamps is a confusing one for many consumers. The Federal Trade Commission is looking to change that.

You'll notice the label looks very similar to that used on our food labels. That choice is intentional, the idea is to give consumers a label they are used to reading that can be adopted quickly. Unfortunately, the period for public comment has closed, but I wanted to raise this as an example of simplifying sustainability. Introducing new technology often adds choice and can confusion. This labeling system represents an effort to make it easier for consumers to choose a lighting source that will inherently use less energy than it's incandescent counterpart. 

What's your take? What other initiatives have you seen out there geared toward making sustainable choices easier to make? What other consumer education campaigns have you seen out there.

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?