In April 2010, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued a memorandum (“memo”) that altered the structure of the defense budgeting cycle, beginning with fiscal year (“FY”) 2012 budget. These changes were ostensibly made to offer more stability to the budgeting process, which prior to the memo involved a more complicated two-year budgeting process where major funding changes were supposed to be made in even-numbered years and smaller adjustments were supposed to occur in odd-numbered years. However, as then Deputy Secretary of Defense Willy Lynn stated, “everyone involved just ignored that second year.” 

The new rules replaced the two-year cycle with single-year budgets, which were intended to more accurately reflect current defense needs and budgeting realities caused by the economic slowdown. A second requirement of the memo, however, could have the unintended consequence of hindering DoD green building projects.

The memo requires that the Pentagon’s annual Program/Budget Reviews, or Future Years Defense Program (“FYDP”), to focus on a five-year period each cycle. Readers may recall my earlier post on the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), which among other things, prohibits the DoD from using appropriated funds to achieve LEED platinum or gold certification unless the Secretary of Defense can certify that the LEED project in question will result in no additional costs to the DoD, or if a cost-benefit analysis reveals that the project will produce a financial payback.

A potential concern to proponents of DoD green construction projects could be the imposition of a five-year “horizon” to determine the financial benefits of energy improvements or sustainable design features. While the NDAA does not specify a time window to be used in conducting cost-benefit analyses, defense officials may be discouraged (under Congressional opposition to seeking LEED gold or platinum certification) from proposing green projects that will have a payback period beyond the five-year FYDP cycle.

Related posts:

• Bibles Now Available For Green Building Regulation
• Define ‘Green’ Please
• California ‘Clean Car’ Rules Mandate Boost in Electric Vehicle Sales
• California’s Air Quality Plan to be Rejected by the EPA
• Empire State Building Becomes Major Buyer of Green Energy

Many people, including me, have noted that the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011, prohibits the Department of Defense (“DoD”) from using any appropriated funds to achieve the two highest levels of green building certification offered by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Program – platinum and gold.  The NDAA, however, does provide that the Secretary of Defense can certify a building under LEED gold or platinum standards if certification imposes no additional cost to the DoD, or if the DoD conducts a cost-benefit analysis of the project and there is a demonstrated payback for implementing energy improvements or sustainable design features.

More interesting, upon further reflection, is that the bill requires that by June 30, 2012 the Defense Secretary must provide Congress with a report on the energy efficiency standards the DoD uses for military construction and repair.  The report must include:

1. A cost-benefit analysis as well an examination of the return on investment and long-term payback of LEED, ASHRAE 189.1 and ASHRAE 90.1-2010; and,
2.  A new DoD policy on energy efficient construction based on the cost-benefit and ROI analysis.

 The methodology for assessing the "cost-benefit" and return on investment of the standards is not specified.  Given that life-cycle costing makes the ROI of energy efficiency and other green features much more attractive, the standard that is used will be significant.   

The proposed DoD "policy" could also be used by Congress as a model to impose on the other Federal agencies, which mostly use LEED-Silver as their building standard.

Look out for a debate in the middle of the year over whether LEED and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 should be scrapped from DoD (and potentially other agency) requirements because they fail the "cost-benefit" analysis. 

Related posts:

• DOD Budgeting Rules May Impede Green Building
• Congress Restricts LEED Spending
• Pentagon Says Warming May Affect Global Security and U.S. Missions
• Energy for the War Fighter: The Department of Defense Operational Energy Strategy
• Two Questions Every Wind Energy Company Should Ask Itself

It was a rough year for Congress. The Republican and Democrats, the House and Senate — no one could seem to agree.

Unless we are talking about green buildings.

In June, I reported on the Department of Defense Reauthorization bill that passed the House of Representatives. In the legislation, the Department of Defense was banned from pursuing LEED Gold or Platinum certification.

But would the Senate agree to a similar LEED ban?

As reported by Lloyd Alter at Treehugger, the Senate passed the House bill with an Amendment that did not mention LEED. Thus, the Senate passed the House’s LEED ban for DoD projects. You can review the messy details at Thomas.gov.

Here is the actual text of the LEED ban:

What is the intent behind the LEED ban? Is Congress concerned about the financial outlay for LEED certification? Or is Congress trying to reign in the design and construction of plush government buildings?

In fact, the intent of the LEED ban stems from a much more contested issue — the wood wars. One member of Congress explained that he supported the DoD LEED ban because he believes LEED inaccurately evaluates wood products:

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., helped lead the effort to place the language into the appropriations bill on grounds that the Pentagon needed to think more about building products’ green qualities over the course of their entire life–from the moment a product’s raw materials are extracted from the earth to when that product’s components are tossed out or, even better, recycled. This notion, called “life-cycle analysis,” has been gaining much momentum in the green building community. And on this front, some groups–including the Green Building Initiative program, a rival to USGBC’s LEED–have embraced life-cycle analysis.

“As the Department of Defense works to improve energy efficiency, it is important that its building standards be based on sound science and incorporate due process in their development and implementation,” Wicker said in a statement. “Standards should take into consideration the full life cycle of wood products, including the environmental benefits provided by our domestic reforestation programs. After completing this study, the Department of Defense should use credible standards that more accurately assess U.S. wood products.”

After reading that quote, I couldn’t help but think of the fateful vote this past year when USGBC members shot down a LEED credit that would have recognized alternative wood certifications. Under the existing LEED rating system, points are only allocated for wood products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

I don’t think I can overstate how important this LEED ban is for future green building policy. For example, the Navy was the first federal agency to adopt LEED certification when it did so in 2000. The Navy will have to rewrite its current LEED policies (or submit waivers for every project):

The Navy continues to aggressively pursue sustainable development; in May 2011, the Secretary of the Navy announced that all Department of the Navy Military Construction (MILCON) projects will be built to LEED Gold standards. For FY11 and FY12, applicable MILCON projects shall achieve sustainable design and construction equivalent to or above LEED Gold, with certain exceptions. For FY 13 and later, applicable MILCON projects will be required to achieve sustainable design and construction equivalent to, or above, LEED Gold.

The DoD could certainly decide to continue pursuing LEED Gold and Platinum certifications. But will DoD officials fight for LEED certification while other military programs are facing substantial cuts? This legislation will likely have a chilling effect not only on DoD green building projects but also on other federal agencies. Congress has clearly expressed an intent to not support LEED Gold and Platinum projects. Don’t be surprised to see agencies adopting the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) in lieu of LEED certification.

Do you think federal officials will be willing to ask for LEED waivers?

Article by Chris Cheatham, appearing courtesy Green Building Law Update.

Green Building Law Update is published to inform the construction and design industries about green building risks and legal developments. Launched in 2008, the website has served as a forum to discuss green building litigation, regulations, policy and trends.

Related posts:

• Congress Requires Department of Defense to Perform Cost Benefit Analysis
• Energy Programs Brace for Deep Spending Cuts After Debt Deal
• LEED “Pledge” to Replace LEED Bond
• Star Architect Gehry: ‘A lot of LEED Is Given for Bogus Stuff’
• Summer Reading for Green Building

Located in Stanford, California is the very well known Stanford University. Because the university resides in what is known as one of the largest “cleantech states” in the United States, being California, Stanford University does what it can in an effort to bolster California’s stance as the number one sustainable state, by making their campus much more sustainable for future generations to come as well as protect the environment. Stanford University has won quite a few awards and recognition for its sustainable initiatives, including second place in the list of Newsweek’s Greenest Colleges in 2011, recognition from the College Sustainability Report Card as Sustainable Endowments Institute Overall College Sustainability Leader in 2007 and 2009 – 2011, and top listed on the U.S. Green Building Council and Princeton Review’s Guide to Green Colleges in 2010 and 2011. Here are just a few of the sustainability initiatives Stanford University is taking on.

1 ) Stanford University Office of Sustainability. The Stanford University Office of Sustainability is dedicated to reducing the university’s environmental impact, increasing sustainability and preserving resources. The vision of the Office of Sustainability is to establish a much healthier and happier environment that will offer a plethora of opportunities to future generations. There are a number of principles the office follows, including advancing knowledge about sustainability, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, fostering land stewardship, conserving water resources, creating environmentally friendly buildings, encouraging alternative and more environmentally friendlier modes of transportation, minimizing waste, and purchasing sustainability in regards to services, products, and food.

2 ) Administration. The administration at Stanford University remains committed to sustainability via a formal plan and policy created by the Office of Sustainability, which manages all the campus-based sustainability initiatives as well as cross-functional working groups and specialized teams. The administration supports and sponsors a number of sustainability initiatives through a variety of sources, including a revolving loan fund and a green fund.

3 ) Climate Change and Energy. The objective of Stanford University is to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from the 1999 levels by the year 2020. A number of energy efficient technologies have been installed throughout Stanford’s campus, including energy monitoring devices. There are also a number of products that encourage the community at Stanford University to conserve energy. Stanford University also generates some of its own electricity using solar hot water systems and photovoltaic solar installations.

4 ) Food and Recycling. Stanford University commits 30 percent of its annual food budget for all campus cafeterias to the purchasing of local products, including many organic products, such as fruits and vegetables. There are also a few campus gardens where Dining Services is able to get some of their product from. Some of the eggs that Stanford University buys are confinement free. The university also purchases sustainably produced seafood and meats, and fair trade sugar, chocolate, and coffee. Students and faculty, staff, and administration receive discounts on their meals and drinks if they use reusable bags and reusable mugs. All pre-consumer and post-consumer food scraps wind up being composted rather than being thrown out.

5 ) Green Building. All new buildings being erected on the campus at Stanford University needs to meet LEED Gold Certification standards as set up by the United States Green Building Council. At Stanford’s campus, the knight Management Center is looking to meet LEED Platinum Certification. A number of other buildings are already meeting Gold and Silver Certification statuses. Throughout the campus, a number of recycled water management systems as well as storm water management technologies have also been established to further increase the sustainability of buildings.

6 ) Student Involvement. Students who attend Stanford University are able to select sustainability themed residential dormitories. The Stanford University new student orientation provides information on a number of green efforts that are going on throughout campus. There are a number of student-led groups dedicated to sustainability. There are also two main competitions held every year throughout campus aimed at reducing energy, waste, and water usage.

7 ) Transportation. More than 50 percent of all faculty, staff, and administration commute to Stanford University through sustainable means of transportation. The university provides a number of sustainable transportation options, including preferential parking as well as monetary initiatives to all employees that choose to carpool to work. There is also a ride matching programs for those who want to take part in the carpooling efforts. Employees are also provided with free access to all public transportation options while students get high discounts for the use of public transportation. The university also provides free shuttles to locations throughout campus, a bike sharing program, as well as a car sharing program.

8 ) Students for a Sustainable Stanford. Students for a Sustainable Stanford was established in 2000 to encourage the building of green buildings throughout the campus and to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions at Stanford. It is one of the most well known environmentally focused student groups at Stanford University. There are a number of subgroups for this group that focus on different issues regarding sustainability, such as climate and energy, environmental justice, a water group, and Zero-Wasters, which focuses on resource awareness and looks to improve recycling and reusing throughout campus.

9 ) Green Living Council. The Stanford University Green Living Council looks to engage students across Stanford’s campus that increases a culture whereby sustainability is integrated into every single aspect of daily campus life, including energy efficiency and recycling. The Green Living Council looks to engage students and convince them to switch to more sustainable habits without having to sacrifice a lot of make any big, drastic changes to their lives.

10 ) Stanford Community Farm. The Stanford Community Farm is located along the western side of Stanford’s campus and takes up one acre. This acre includes a large fruit plot, a number of individual plots, and communally-managed student plots. All students are allowed to visit the farm, where food and flowers are grown organically. The farm also holds a number of community workshops throughout the year about organic gardening and how to do it.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• The U.S.’s Greenest Colleges
• Road-based Charging Network Could Charge EVs While They Drive
• Event: Explore Sustainable Innovation in Sweden and California
• Colleges Going Green Despite Falling Endowments, Study Says
• New Battery Uses Seawater and Freshwater to Produce Electricity

When you think about a “green” building, you probably don’t picture a centuries-old National Historic Landmark that’s lined with columns and made of thousands of tons of granite.

Well, maybe that’s about to change. I'm pleased to announce that the Treasury Building – which dates back to the 19th century and is located right next door to the White House – received Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) at a ceremony today in our historic Grant Room.

According to the USGBC, the Treasury Building is believed to be the oldest building in the world to receive LEED certification. The fact that the home of much our nation’s financial history has achieved this distinction for environmental leadership really adds new meaning to the term ‘green’ building.

LEED is a leading international standard for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings. The Treasury Building received its LEED Gold certification based on a number of green construction and operation features, including:

•Increasing the use of natural day lighting to reduce energy consumption;
•Establishing sustainable cleaning and landscape programs;
•Developing and implementing advanced control and management of the heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems;
•Conducting waste stream audits to benchmark recycling programs and identify opportunities to maximize material conservation;
•Creating a green procurement program for materials, equipment and services purchased
•Increasing occupant space utilization;
•Augmenting alternate transportation means; and
•Establishing enhanced utility metering for improved systems management

These improvements are paying big dividends. Not just for the environment, but also for the Department’s bottom line – because going green saves green for taxpayers. Project results, which are producing an estimated $3.5 million in energy and lease cost savings annually, include:

•A 43 percent decrease in the use of potable water
•A 7 percent decrease in electrical usage
•A 53 percent decrease in the use of steam
•The addition of 164 additional workstations within the building

The fact that we’ve been able to achieve those types of results is particularly significant given the unique historical and architectural features of the Treasury Building.

The Treasury Building is more than two city blocks long and was constructed over a period of 33 years between 1836 and 1869. The east and center wings – which comprise the oldest portion of the structure – were designed by Robert Mills, architect of the Washington Monument, and were built between 1836 to 1842. It’s the third-oldest federal building in Washington D.C., after the White House and the U.S. Capitol, and was named a National Historic Landmark in 1972.

We’re proud of the improvements we’ve made around the Treasury Building – both big and small – to help reduce our environmental footprint and save taxpayer dollars. They’re part of a broader Administration-wide effort, which includes President Obama’s recent $2 billion commitment to energy upgrades of federal buildings using long term energy savings to pay for up-front costs, at no cost to taxpayers.

But Treasury’s environmental initiatives represent just a few of the steps we’ve taken to cut waste and improve efficiency.

•We’re continuing to transition to electronic payments for federal beneficiaries and retirees, which will save more than $500 million over the first five years. That also has a significant environmental benefit by converting approximately 135 million paper check payments to electronic payments per year.
•Last week, Vice President Biden and Secretary Geithner announced that the United States Mint is suspending production of surplus Presidential $1 Coins for circulation, which will save at least $50 million annually over the next several years.
•The Department’s work to increase e-filing of tax returns will save more than $100 million over five years.
•A set of projects we’re implementing to consolidate IT services will save an estimated $125 million over five years.
•Earlier this year, Treasury received “green” ratings across-the-board on its energy and sustainability scorecard from the Office of Management and Budget and White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Of course, we’re not satisfied with those initiatives alone. And, moving forward, we’ll continue to work to identify additional ways to save money for taxpayers and improve our Department’s environmental efficiency. (As you might be able to tell, we’re pretty competitive when it comes to our environmental sustainability efforts here at Treasury.)

For now, though, receiving LEED GOLD certification is a certainly welcome achievement and represents the culmination of a lot of hard work by a number of dedicated public servants here at the Department.

At Treasury, green is our favorite color – but we’ll take gold!

Dan Tangherlini is Assistant Secretary for Management, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Performance Officer, and Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Related posts:

• Stimulus Shows More Green Funding Means More Jobs Per Public Dollar
• US Treasury Releases ARRA Guidelines on Grants in Lieu of Tax Credits
• Purple Wind Turbines Could Protect Winged Wildlife
• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• New CleanTechies Bookstore: find books, read reviews & order online

For much of 2011, my focus has been the Destiny USA project. This should not come as a surprise to readers who waded through my thirteen posts on the topic. I had planned to not write about the Destiny USA project again. But then I came across a press release while I was at Greenbuild:

Destiny USA in Syracuse Aims to be America’s Largest LEED® Gold Certified Commercial Retail Project; More than 100 Tenant Retail Spaces to Also be Certified

As you may recall, the Destiny USA project received over $200 million in tax-free financing through the federal government’s Green Bonds program. In exchange for the financing, the developer of the project promised, among other things, to get LEED certification and rely on massive amounts of renewable energy. The IRS is now investigating the project because it appears the renewable energy systems were never installed.

I think it’s safe to say the Green Bonds program was a failure. But there is another policy issue that bothered me that I have not previously touched on.

Did the US Green Building Council act appropriately in assisting the Destiny USA project?

As I was reading the Destiny USA press release, one passage caught my eye:

“This project is important to me and to USGBC,” said Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO & Founding Chair, U.S. Green Building Council. “Not only is it in my backyard but it will also be a showcase in the community for what can be done with green building and LEED. The visitors who walk through the Destiny USA doors every day will learn about the importance of green building and be able to see today’s latest green building strategies in action.”

For those looking for an argument that LEED should never be used in regulations or law, I present to you Exhibit A:

• The Destiny USA project has to get LEED certification as a condition of a federal law.

• The USGBC is a non-profit entity responsible for the LEED rating system.

• The USGBC CEO states the project is important to him and his company because it is located in his hometown of Syracuse, New York.

If a federal official displayed this type of favoritism for a project, he would be removed. Litigation would certainly ensue challenging the procurement process.

If LEED is going to be used in law, whether it be through incentives or mandates, then the USGBC and its CEO should not get to play favorites with projects.

Of course, this is not what is happening. And this type of conflict of interest and favoritism could undermine the credibility of the LEED rating system and of the green building movement.

Article by Chris Cheatham, appearing courtesy Green Building Law Update.

Green Building Law Update is published to inform the construction and design industries about green building risks and legal developments. Launched in 2008, the website has served as a forum to discuss green building litigation, regulations, policy and trends.

Related posts:

• Star Architect Gehry: ‘A lot of LEED Is Given for Bogus Stuff’
• LEED “Pledge” to Replace LEED Bond
• Copenhagen Climate Summit: Re-Think Expectations & Share Technologies
• LEED 2009 Focuses on Everyday`Human Impact’ of Sustainability
• Primer on LEED Credentialing

Contrary to common belief that nothing is really happening in green building at the Congressional level these days, I provide the following two counterexamples.

 An amendment to the Senate Appropriations Bill for Energy and Water introduced by Senators Wicker (R-MS), Boozman (R-AR), and Inhofe (R-OK) would essentially eliminate the use of LEED and Energy Star for DOE green building programs.  According to the NRDC:  

This rider would prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from using strong green building energy rating standards. The amendment limits DOE to using only green building standards that are developed and approved in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) rules. Such a requirement would effectively limit DOE to using only the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Green Globes building standards.The amendment would disallow the use of many other strong rating systems, including LEED, EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager, and EPA Energy Star Homes, which have substantially increased the number of environmentally-friendly buildings in our country.
 

In other news, Rep. Charles J. Fleischmann [R-TN-3] introduced a bill yesterday in the House H.R.3441 to repeal the Department of Energy’s home weatherization assistance program.  The DOE weatherization assistance program provides funding to states to weatherize the homes of low income households to make them more energy efficient.  According to the WAP website:

During the past 33 years, WAP has provided weatherization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households. Families receiving weatherization services see their annual energy bills reduced by an average of about $437, depending on fuel prices.  

According to a recent release from the National Association for State Community Services Programs, the WAP received $5b in funding from ARRA, which weatherized 534,208 low-income houses through August 2011. This made the WAP seventh out of approximately 200 federal programs funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) in jobs created or retained, with 14,090 jobs  for the third quarter beginning July 1 and ending September 30, 2011.

The bill is not yet available from the GPO, but it can be followed on Thomas through this link. 

Related posts:

• Obama Calls for Energy Bill, But No Mention of Cap and Trade
• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• China Introduces a Unified Grid Feed-in Tariff for Solar Power
• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Obama’s Chief Science Advisor Warns Congress Over Carbon Emissions

Houston is one of the major cities in Texas. As part of a state-wide effort to become more cleantech friendly, including the use of renewable energy and energy efficient products, Houston has been doing what it can to work toward sustainability. This includes making changes in buildings, throughout transportation, the city’s infrastructure, increasing renewable and secure energy supplies, and increasing environmental stewardship. Between the years of 2004 and 2007 for example, Houston reduced its total kilowatt per hour usage by 5.8 percent even has businesses and neighborhoods expand. Here are some of the highlights of what Houston has been doing.

1 ) Solar Initiatives. One of the main objectives in Houston has been to accelerate the overall deployment of solar power throughout the entire region. Houston is one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar America Cities. As such, Houston has been striving to accelerate the overall adoption of various solar energy technologies to ensure a more secure and much cleaner energy future. The Houston Advanced Research Center is in charge of the solar initiatives in the city. For example, there was a 100 kilowatt solar system implemented in the George R. Brown Convention Center that was funded by BP, Houston Endowment, and CenterPoint.

2 ) LED Traffic Lights. Like a number of other major cities throughout the United States, Houston has been looking to replace current traffic signals at over two-thousand intersections with energy efficient LED lights. By the year 2007, there were approximately 400 intersection lights changed, mostly throughout Houston’s downtown district. The rest were completed by 2009. The new lights would increase electricity reduction by 90 percent and the LED bulbs last seven years as opposed to one year. It has saved the city $3.6 million in annual electricity costs.

3 ) Green Building Programs. Houston has been instrumental in the acceleration of the market transformation of green buildings through private sector partnerships and leadership. In June 2004, for example, the mayor passed the Mayor’s Resolution whereby all new buildings in the city and all major renovations to existing buildings needed to be LEED certified. In another example, the group Houston Hope helps to ensure that new and existing homes meet Energy Star standards, which will lower the utility bills for many families.

4 ) Residential Energy Efficiency Program. Houston has implemented a “neighborhood by neighborhood” program for energy efficiency that targets low income homeowners and helps them to reduce their net energy consumption. In more than ten neighborhoods around the city, more than five-thousand homes have been properly weatherized, allowing for up to a 20 percent energy reduction during the summer months. There is an Agencies in Action program that allows for more comprehensive retrofits for homes, including new, energy efficient appliance replacements while recycling old appliances.

5 ) Fuel Efficient and Clean Vehicle Initiatives. Houston has been looking to lead the way in the migration toward hybrid vehicles to drastically increase the amount of cleaner emissions as well as fuel efficiency throughout the roads. The city had a goal to ensure than 50 percent of its non-emergency administrative fleet, which is around 2,800 vehicles, is energy efficient. Currently, there are over 500 hybrids in the fleet, including Toyota Priuses and Ford Escapes. By the year 2011, the Houston Metro is looking to make a purchase of one-hundred hybrid buses to increase the total to just fewer than 450 in the fleet. By the end of 2008, this number was up to 142.

6 ) Million Trees Initiative. One of the main sustainability projects Houston had was its Trees for Houston project to increase the number of trees that are planted as well as sustained throughout the city through a strong private – public partnership. Between October of 2008 and January 2009, the city planted 100,000 trees and put aside $750 thousand in a budget to maintain them. By 2010, there is over 930,000 trees planted throughout the city through a partnership that includes Greater Houston Partnership, Apache, and Trees for Houston.

7 ) Diverting Waste from Landfills in the Area. The city of Houston implemented a large recycling program aimed at diverting certain types of waste from landfills and sending them to recycling centers. Houston has earmarked the potential to divert approximately 150 thousand tons of waste annually, which is around 20 percent of total waste from landfills in the area. The city has set up a number of composting and mulching facilities throughout all the quadrants of the city to take in and process the waste.

8 ) BP Alternative Energy North American Headquarters Moved to Houston. In October of 2008, BP America made a statement that Houston, Texas was to become the headquarters of their BP North America Alternative Energy center. “Houston is a global centre for the energy industry and it is now emerging as a global centre for new and alternative energy technologies,” said Robert Lukefahr, President of BP Alternative Energy North America. “Locating our group in Houston will position this team in the heart of the power industry and supports BP’s long-term commitment to the Houston area.”

9 ) Houston Recognized as a Leading Purchaser of Green Power in the United States. In January of 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), made the announcement that Houston appeared at the top of its list of the 25 largest purchasers of green power. Houston received this award by creating a number of energy saving initiatives that also resulted in a number of cost savings. At the time the award was given, Houston was purchasing enough alternative power to meet a total of 20 percent of its electricity needs across operations. Former Houston mayor Bill White (2004-2010) said, “Purchasing green power helps our City become more sustainable and cost-effective, while also sending a message that supporting clean sources of electricity is both a sound business decision and an important choice in reducing harmful emissions.”

10 ) Houston Renewable Energy Group. In 1999, the Houston Renewable Energy Group (HREG) was established with the objective of educating the area about renewable energy. The purpose of the HREG is to “Further the development of renewable energy and related arts, sciences, and technologies with concern for the ecological, social, and economic fabric of our community and states. This shall be accomplished through the exchange of ideas and information by means of meetings, publications, and public displays. HREG shall serve to inform public, institutional, and governmental bodies and seek to raise the level of public and government awareness of its purpose.”

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Electric Car Charging Stations Coming to Heart of Oil Country in Texas
• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights
• Texas a Lone Star in EV Charging Infrastructure
• Record Wind Generation Tests Texas’s Transmission System
• Making Homes Greener in Austin, Texas

One of the very first green building legal conundrums may be resolved.

The Washington Business Journal reported on October 31 that legislation will be introduced in Washington D.C. that will create an alternative to the much maligned LEED bond requirement in the D.C. Green Building Act of 2006.

Under the Act, as currently written, as of January 1, 2012, all new construction greater than 50,000 square feet must obtain LEED certification. Under the proposed legislation, developers will be permitted to make a binding “pledge” that LEED certification will be attained:

Under the pledge route, if a new building fails to be certified LEED within two years of receiving its certificate of occupancy, the developer would be penalized $7.50 per square foot for buildings under 100,000 square feet, and $10 per square foot for buildings larger than 100,000 square feet.

Notably, the D.C. Council proposed to create an alternative enforcement mechanism instead of correcting the D.C. Green Building Act’s many flaws. Two prominent surety associations outlined these flaws in a white paper for the D.C. Government. The associations suggested that LEED bonds would be made available if the legislation were to be corrected.

For design professionals and contractors working in Washington D.C., the LEED Pledge will mean more onerous contract terms. If developers can be penalized up to $3 million for not achieving LEED certification, these same developers will require guarantees of LEED certification from design professionals and contractors. Don’t be surprised to see penalty provisions in contracts that mirror the LEED pledge penalty.

What do you think of the LEED Pledge?

Article by Chris Cheatham, appearing courtesy Green Building Law Update.

Green Building Law Update is published to inform the construction and design industries about green building risks and legal developments. Launched in 2008, the website has served as a forum to discuss green building litigation, regulations, policy and trends.

Related posts:

• What do Hurricanes, Earthquakes and LEED Bonds Have in Common?
• Star Architect Gehry: ‘A lot of LEED Is Given for Bogus Stuff’
• LEED 2009 Focuses on Everyday`Human Impact’ of Sustainability
• Primer on LEED Credentialing
• Empire State Building Becomes Tallest LEED Structure in U.S.

I have spent just over a year thinking about the International Green Construction Code (IgCC).  I know it has been one year because I received my first copy of the code at Greenbuild 2010.  My conclusion today about the code is no different than it was one year ago: 

The IgCC is unnecessarily confusing. 

Take, for instance, the IgCC’s basic setup — it’s two codes in one.  Apparently, trying to figure out one set of building codes is not enough.  Within the IgCC, jurisdictions have the option of adopting either the IgCC code or ASHRAE 189.1.  Yes, I know that that sentence does not make sense, but it is correct. 

Other aspects of the IgCC create more confusion.  Not only does it include mandatory code provisions, but it also contains electives that can be selected by a jurisdiction and a project team.  Why would the code writers have included electives in a mandatory building code?  One theory I have heard is that the code writers wanted to mimic the elective credits in the LEED rating system.

I support the creation of a green building code.  Too many jurisdictions were mandating the LEED rating system as a de facto building code.  The IgCC was an attempt to fill that void with a system more appropriately suited to a building code.  However, the current version of the IgCC will create unnecessary confusion that will result in the following: 

• Building inspectors will struggle to learn to enforce a complicated building code that changes with each project depending on the electives selected.  This will result in inconsistent building code rulings.
• Design and construction professionals will have to comply with different building codes depending on the jurisdiction.  This means that professionals may have to learn more than one building code to do work in two adjacent communities. 
• Insurance and surety companies will struggle to ensure the risks associated with confusing green building codes.  I have already heard one large insurance company state that the adoption of green building codes will change the standard of care for design professionals going forward. 

What do you think of the International Green Construction Code?  

Article appearing courtesy greenbuildinglawupdate.com

Related posts:

• The Green Building Code is Too Confusing
• Inside Baseball No More-Why the Building Code Adoption Process is Critical To Sustainability
• Green Building Code Recruited for U.S. Army
• Are Green Building Codes The Only Answer?
• Bibles Now Available For Green Building Regulation