The dirt is raked. The grass is mowed. The lines are chalked. And the high-efficiency field lights are ready for action.

Yes, Major League Baseball’s Opening Day is almost here. And as this joyous day arrives across the country, more stadiums than ever before are integrating energy efficiency and renewable energy into their playbooks.

Last week, a number of professional teams in the northwest United States launched the Green Sports Alliance (GSA). Members of the GSA, which include the Seattle Mariners and Portland Trailblazers, will work with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation and Portland State University to identify and adopt environmental initiatives to measure and reduce their impact on the environment.

Moving forward, the GSA will encourage all sports franchises – and their venues – to measure their environmental impacts and seek ways to reduce them.

In the Twin Cities, two newly built stadiums have already gone to great lengths to reduce each building’s energy profile. The Minnesota Twin’s Target Field and University of Minnesota’s TCF Stadium have achieved significant energy savings.

The Minnesota Twins went to great lengths to build a highly efficient ballpark. In fact, Target Field was awarded LEED Silver Certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, only the second LEED-certified professional baseball stadium in the United States. TCF Field, which also achieved LEED Silver certification, was the first ever college or professional stadium to achieve such an honor.

The Twins and their design partners teamed up with Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program to identify and select a “designed-in” energy conservation potential for new ballparks. This unique program offers our energy expertise to encourage energy efficiency in building design and construction practices.

With the help of Xcel Energy, the team investigated more than 100 energy efficiency alternatives related to the building envelope (windows), lighting and mechanical systems, in order to reduce the building’s energy profile.

At Target Field, they incorporated a variety of unique energy and natural resource saving measures, such as high-efficiency field lighting (which also saves nearly $6,000 a year), capturing (and re-using) “wasted” heat from a nearby waste-to-energy facility, and low-flow urinals, dual-flush toilets and aerated faucets, which will save an estimated 4.2 million gallons of water annually.

Hopefully this trend will continue to catch on, as many new stadiums are in the process of being built. For now, I’m just excited for the new green season to begin!

Article by Tim Laughlin, appearing courtesy Xcel Energy Blog.

Related posts:

• Are Women Greener Than Men?
• World Energy – Where Are We Going?
• Sustainable Building: Win Up to $5M in Greener House Contest
• Solar Thermal Installation Brings Green Energy to Woodstock, Ontario
• UN Report Says Economic Growth and Sustainability Critically Linked

I covered the messy breakdown of the Carousel/Destiny USA project in Syracuse earlier this week.  In short, the Destiny USA project was selected as a green "demonstration" project under the 2004 Green Bonds program.  $255 million in tax exempt bonds were issued on behalf of the project, the revenue of which was supposed to be used to implement the green features of the project.  As of now, none of the green features have been implemented, and the developer has intimated that even if the project is fully built out, the green features will not be included.  The IRS will have to decide whether to rescind the tax exempt status of the bonds for failing to meet the green requirements.

I have written at length about creating effective green incentives and regulations (see my Regulating Green Series here).  For me, the most interesting part of this debacle is what it reveals about a major green incentive program.  The Green Bonds program was developed as a part of the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004.  In theory, the program was intended to: 

 finance environmentally friendly development. The objective is to reclaim contaminated industrial and commercial land (brown fields), and encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources.

Although the goals of the Green Bonds program were clearly noble, as I see it the program was doomed from the start. No market rate project in 2005 could have met all of these requirements.  Thus, the proponents of the projects had reason to overstate the green components of their projects to access $2 billion in tax free capital for the projects. 

According to the IRS Guidance (available here) $2 billion in AAA tax exempt bonds were authorized by the Federal government to be awarded to four demonstration projects.  To qualify for the bonds, the four projects in aggregate had to:

1. Reduce energy consumption by more that 150 megawatts annually compared to conventional generation;
2. Reduce daily sulfur dioxide emissions by at least 10 tons compared to coal generated power;
3. Expand by 75% the domestic solar PV market in the United States as compared to the expansion of that market from 2001-2002, which was 14.424 megawatts (which means an aggregate increase of approximately 11 megawatts, or an average of almost 4 megawatts of PV power per projects);
4. Use at least 25 megawatts of fuel cell energy generation.

In addition, each project had to be at least 1,000,000 square feet or 20 acres and: 

1. At least 75% of the square footage had to be LEED certified;
2. The wood had to be certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the American Farm Tree System;
3. Reclaim a brownfield site

Beyond the green features, the projects also had to create at least 1000 construction jobs and 1,500 full time equivalent jobs. 

In addition to the requirements of the Green Bonds, the Destiny USA project entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA (available here and summary below from Syracuse.com) committing to: 

1. Using green building design, construction and operation principles to obtain the highest levels of certification from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
   program;
2. Retrofitting more than 100 construction vehicles with diesel particulate filters and using clean fuel, which will reduce emissions by nearly 85 percent;
3. Implementing techniques to reduce idling of vehicles during construction
4. Becoming partners in EPA’s Energy Star and WaterSense programs,
   which require the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances;
5. Using over 3,000 tons of coal ash in place of using newly-manufactured Portland Cement, which will reduce greenhouse gases by over 3,000 tons.
    

As a policy measure, the green bonds were destined to be ineffective.  For a green incentive to be truly beneficial, it needs to set out goals that stretch its recipients to higher levels of sustainability, but not so pie-in-the-sky that they create an incentive to greenwash their projects.  This is a tough balance to strike.  Doing so requires that the regulatory bodies have a good understanding of the state of the green market that they are looking to incentivize. It is not enough to throw public money at any project claiming to be green.  The result is projects like Destiny USA, which give a bad name to green building and public financing of green projects. 

By contrast, good investment in green projects can bring real benefits.  I analyzed the investment of ARRA funds in green projects.  Per public dollar, these investments were among the most efficient ways of creating jobs of all of the ARRA money spent. (See my analysis here).  As Congress debates the value of continuing public investment in green projects and renewable energy, the debate must not only be about whether, but how, the support will be crafted and implemented.  The road to green is paved with good intentions. 

Related posts:

• Maybe We Should Rethink LEED Laws
• Could Solyndra Happen To Green Building Policy?
• Taken for a Ride on the Carousel: Failed Green Project Sets Stage for Suits
• Green Bond Project Failing To Meet Commitments
• Time to Pay the Piper: Evergreen Solar Must Repay (Some) Tax Incentives

In October 2010, Henry Gifford filed a lawsuit against the United States Green Building Council alleging, essentially, that the USGBC had fraudulently represented the performance of LEED buildings, and doctored study results to support their claim that LEED buildings performed more efficiently than standard construction. Yesterday, Henry Gifford filed an amended complaint (you can download the amended complaint here). 

The original suit was filed as a class action, and included claims against the USGBC for illegal monopolization and false advertising.  I posted that these issues would probably not pass legal muster.  The class action could not be certified (see my post here) and the suit did not establish that the USGBC was a monopoly (see my post here).

 There are several changes to the new complaint:

1. It has been boiled down to essentially a False Advertising and Consumer Fraud Act case under Federal and New York State law.
2. It is not a class action.
3. The monopolization claim has been eliminated.
4. Several new plaintiffs have been added, including an architect, an engineer, and a "speciali[ist] in moisture barrier design and mold remediation."

The essential claims as alleged in the factual section of the Amended Complaint are that the USGBC has misrepresented the energy efficiency of LEED buildings, and that the LEED certification is not a verification of the actual energy performance of the building. 

From a legal perspective, I believe that the Amended Complaint is still riddled with a fatal flaw–the plaintiffs probably do not have standing. 

In alleging a violation of the Lanham Act, the Federal act prohibiting false advertising, the Amended Complaint states:

USGBC’s misrepresentations have an will continue to deceive consumers, voters, taxpayers, developers, municipalities and legislators at the local, state and federal levels.

However, fraud requires "reasonable reliance" on the false statements. The difficulty here is that, although more plaintiffs have been added, they are still not plaintiffs that were "duped" by the USGBC’s representations.  The claims alleged by Gifford are really claims rightfully brought by people who have been harmed by spending too much on LEED buildings, or LEED accreditation.  In essence, Gifford has not eliminated the standing problem that doomed his class action. 

The Amended Complaint is also rife with hyperbole, which diminishes its credibility.  For example, with respect to a study on the performance of LEED buildings:

The self-selection bias is so obvious, it’s about as reliable as using breathalyzer tests of drivers who volunteer to be tested as a gauge of how many people drink and drive.

See Amended Complaint at Paragraph 32(b).

Despite the fact that Gifford’s lawsuit is probably flawed by reason of lack of standing, as revised the Amended Complaint may be enough to survive a Motion to Dismiss.  In that case, discovery will proceed, which will open the internal communications of the USGBC to public scrutiny. 

As with the kerfuffle over the emails among scientists studying global warming, this may muddy the waters and slow the progress of green building, even if the claims against the USGBC are eventually proven to be unfounded.   

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.

Related posts:

• But Is There Fire: If LEED Is A Fraud, Why Aren’t Developers Suing?
• Motion to Dismiss in USGBC Lawsuit Raises the Question: Who is a USGBC Customer?
• Judge Dismisses Gifford Claims Against USGBC
• Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against USGBC
• Do Not Pass Go: Why The USGBC Is Probably Not An Illegal Monopoly

Director Michael Nash has traveled the world collecting evidence demonstrating the human face of climate change from Tuvalu to the Pentagon, addressing the grim reality of the challenges we face.  Whether man made or natural climatic shifts are causing the most recent temperature shifts, extreme climatic events and a rise in sea levels are visibly affecting people across the world, today.

In fact we have witnessed the strain of merely 300,000 climate refugees from Hurricane Katrina in the United States first hand; one can only imagine how 50 million climate refugees would strain governments across the country.  Not yet an officially recognized status by the UN, it is estimated that there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2011.  Due to increased flooding, storm events, drought and desertification, civilizations are again engaging in nomadic type movements for survival.

The documentary focuses on underdeveloped and third world countries where climate change serves as a threat multiplier for their already stressed populations.  South Pacific countries are already looking to purchase land to migrate their populations to higher ground.  It is estimated that Tuvalu will be the first country to disappear from the map.  The conflict in Darfur, labeled by most as an ethnic battle, may actually be our first major climate conflict as water scarcity in the region adds to the fight for resources after the drying of Lake Chad.

What will happen when Asian rivers, serving as the primary clean water source, fed by disappearing Himalayan glaciers begin to dry.  Food scarcity from drought, flooding, freezing or salt water intrusion will drive food prices up.  Displaced residents, again primarily third world residents, may not be accepted by many nations.  Who will take them in?  Depletion of water, arable land, non-renewable energy sources will all lead to more conflict.  Who will fight?

Climate Refugees is truly a must see for both new and old to the environmental movement, or maybe better phrased a movement to save human race.  Climate Refugees serves as a resounding call to press for attention by world leaders and as soul food and inspiration for those fighting the good fight to keep advancing the mission of the sustainability.

Not yet commercially available, if you are interested in viewing Climate Refugees, look for a screening near you on their website.  Over the next two weeks (Jan 20-Feb 2) US Green Building Council Chapters, led by the Emerging Professional committees, are participating in a nationwide screening effort with over 20 locations.  Miami and New York City were the first locations and kicked-off at packed theaters in both cities.

Related posts:

• Advances in Solar Design to Provide Power for Cell Phones
• Pentagon Says Warming May Affect Global Security and U.S. Missions
• Wal-Mart Will Deploy Thin-film Solar Technology at Some Stores
• Book Review: World on the Edge
• UK Body Wants an Alternative Energy Revolution

2010 was a historic year for the General Services Administration (GSA). With a portfolio including 350 million square feet of public buildings, 200,000 federal vehicles, and a flow of goods and services throughout government totaling $95 billion, GSA has the capacity to impact every corner of government in every region of the country. In 2010, President Obama set a bold agenda for GSA to change the way the government does business by:

• Creating jobs and supporting American businesses by leading the Federal government to a sustainable future;
• Identifying sustainable products ranging from vehicles to cleaning products that will reduce the Federal government’s environmental footprint and save millions of taxpayer dollars; and,
• Laying the framework for an emerging clean energy economy.

GSA delivered. Here’s a look back at 2010 and a look forward to 2011:

Established the Federal Government as a Leader in the Sustainable Building Market

In order to meet President Obama’s goals of a 28% reduction in Federal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020 and a net-zero-energy building requirement by 2030, GSA began sustainable construction and retrofit projects around the country, employing 500 businesses and creating jobs in all 50 states. Moving forward, all GSA construction projects will achieve at least a LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for GSA’s use of cutting-edge and sustainable design and technology.

Reduced Carbon Emissions and Saved Taxpayer Money by Greening the Federal Automobile Fleet

After President Obama called for a 30% reduction Federal vehicle petroleum use by 2020, GSA doubled the Federal government’s hybrid fleet, replacing 22,000 of the least fuel efficient cars and trucks with more fuel efficient vehicles, including almost 9,000 hybrids. The increase in fuel efficiency will reduce Federal petroleum consumption by over 20 million gallons of gas, saving taxpayers almost $65 million over five years.

Used Government as a “Green Proving Ground” for Innovative, Sustainable Technologies

GSA is the government’s “green proving ground,” where new sustainable technologies and systems can be tested and best practices can be brought to the market. Because GSA owns and operates buildings in every climate and most altitudes in the country, GSA has a unique position as a test bed for learning what works — and what doesn’t — in green and sustainable building. GSA is installing solar panels, geothermal wells, chilled beams, advanced lighting and metering systems, and vegetative and reflective roofs across the nation, providing projects that develop skills and create local green sector architecture, engineering, and construction jobs.

Incentivized Sustainability for Companies Doing Business with the Federal Government

More than 60 companies enrolled in the GreenGov Supply Chain Partnership and Small Business Pilot, a voluntary collaboration between the federal government and its suppliers to create a greener, more efficient supply chain. GSA and the Council on Environmental Quality will jointly host a year of trainings for these businesses to learn how to develop GHG inventories and take steps to reduce their GHG emissions. GSA will use data from the program to develop contracting incentives for all companies bidding to do business with the Federal government to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Equipped All Government Agencies to Measure and Reduce Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions

President Obama called on all Federal agencies to measure their GHG emissions by January 30, 2011 and submit plans to reduce those emissions. GSA created a free, web-based Carbon Footprint Tool for Federal agencies to use in completing their comprehensive GHG inventories, including carbon emissions, water usage, GHG emissions related to commuting, and the return on investment agencies can expect from adopting sustainable lighting, technology solutions, and other products. The Carbon Footprint Tool gives every agency the ability to quickly identify areas for GHG emissions reduction so they can set reduction targets and monitor their progress year after year.

A Look Forward

GSA’s progress toward a more sustainable government in 2010 will have lasting impacts. Construction and retrofit projects will proceed around the country, continuing to create jobs and positively impact the economic recovery in every state. GSA will continue to accelerate the addition of hybrid vehicles to the Federal fleet, saving taxpayer dollars. And GSA will continue to pursue bipartisan solutions that support American businesses, create jobs, and leverage the purchasing power of the government to drive a clean energy economy.

Article by Martha N. Johnson, Administrator of the General Services Administration

Related posts:

• Forum on Federal Leadership in Sustainable Building
• AHRI defeats the City of Albequerque, Complicating Matters for Local Governments
• Instructions for Implementing Sustainable Locations for Federal Facilities
• More Alternative Energy, Says UN Chief at Energy Summit
• Winning the Clean Energy Future in Communities Across America

In April 2009 the U.S. Green Building Council launched LEED v3. Prior to this upgrade, any professional seeking to achieve LEED AP status had a choice of only three exam tracks: 1.) New Construction; 2.) Commercial Interiors; or 3.) Existing Buildings. Upon successful completion of the accreditation exam, you received a single encompassing designation as a LEED AP. There was only one exam necessary, and there were no prerequisites beyond being a professional in some field related to real estate and development. Today however, under the new credentialing formats, there is a 2-Step process before a professional can obtain the LEED-AP designation.

Step 1: Green Associate
The first step requires that a person interested in becoming LEED accredited first meet the criteria listed online for becoming a Green Associate. If you meet these requirements, you are eligible to sit for the Green Associate exam. A Green Associate is considered to have the basic overall knowledge of the LEED certification process, but they do not have any specialized knowledge. The eligibility requirements that one must meet to take the Green Associate exam are far more relaxed than the LEED AP requirements. Essentially, you must prove that you are a professional in a field related to sustainability. It is quite broad. You would need to get letters (from employers/clients/etc.) verifying that you do in fact work in a sustainability profession, then send them in to the GBCI for approval. It is all part of the application process to verify eligibility to sit for the exam. The GBCI website provides a detailed step-by-step guide outlining the credentialing process.

Step 2: LEED-AP with Specialty
Step two, becoming a LEED-AP entails more stringent prerequisites namely, in order to be eligible to sit for the LEED-AP exam, you must have worked on a LEED certified project within the last three years. If you do not meet this requirement, the highest level of accreditation you can achieve is the Green Associate designation. But if the LEED-AP requirements are met, you may sit for both exams at once but note, that in order to become a LEED-AP, you must still first successfully complete the Green Associate exam track as well.

If the person seeking accreditation does has the required experience on a LEED project, professionals are required to select a specialty under which they wish to become accredited. The specialties are referenced as, LEED AP:

1.) Neighborhood Development (ND)
2.) Building Design and Construction (BD+C)
3.) Interior Design and Construction (ID+C)
4.) Homes
5.) Operations and Maintenance (O+M)

According to the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), the new variations show differentiation in a growing and competitive industry, and they allow for varied levels of specialization.

Exam prep workshops, webinars and reference guides are available to view or purchase online on the USGBC website. Professionals who completed the LEED exams prior to the 2009 changes, are in essence grandfathered into the new program. They retain status as LEED AP without having to go through any additional re-testing or completing continuing education credits. LEED AP’s completing the exams prior to the 2009 switch are given a 2-yr window during which they may choose to select a specialty. The enrollment period ends in the fall of 2011. For example, a professional who had taken and passed the LEED for New Construction v2.2 exam before April 2009 will never lose their LEED AP status, but may elect to update their enrollment by selecting a specialty, such as LEED AP, BD+C. The upgraded status will however require either continuing education or re-testing in order to be maintained.

Just as the LEED certification process has become subject to stricter requirements and post-certification checks, so too has the accreditation process.

Article by Patrick Bello, appearing courtesy Green Building Law Blog

photo: Alex France

Related posts:

• Boom Time for LEED Green Building Ratings
• LEED “Pledge” to Replace LEED Bond
• Star Architect Gehry: ‘A lot of LEED Is Given for Bogus Stuff’
• LEEDing the Way: What to Expect On the New LEED 3.0 Exam
• Commercial Energy Use – Sustainability and Profitability Go Hand in Hand

Another Bad Week, Or a Really Good One? Good news grows as slow as a tree, but bad news spills as fast as a broken oil main. That seems to be the lesson from this week as BP, the U.S. government and an armada of ships and volunteers tried but mostly failed to contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Though BP had some success at slowing the spigot, oil is pooling in the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta and resides at unmeasured quantities in the deeps. There it has joined the Loop Current with a probable next stop in Florida.

Meanwhile, 1,500 miles north, an equally momentous event drew little attention: an agreement to curtail or end logging on 72 million acres of Canada’s boreal forest, an area roughly the size of France. An unlikely consortium of logging companies and Greenpeace agreed to halt the chainsaws altogether for three years in an area as big as Montana, and to develop a sustainable-forestry program for the remainder. The accord might be the forerunner to permanent protection for an area that encompasses two-thirds of Canada’s logging concessions.

The Week’s Best Green Ideas: This week, GreenTech TV took a look at how Rush University Medical Center has become one of the greenest hospitals in the country. Read

Part 1 and Part 2.

At Cleantechies, Chuck Colgan told California building owners, brokers and managers how to prepare for AB 1103, a California law that asks for 12 months of energy-consumption records when a building is sold, re-leased or financed.

Triple Pundit produced a field guide to the three organizations that can help a company develop a framework for its energy use: The Climate Registry, the US EPA Climate Leaders program, and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Also, the U.S. Green Building Council advised President Obama how his administration can make America’s buildings far more efficient without asking permission from those squirrelly congressmen.

Too Hot? Bring Your Own Water. Last month was the warmest April in recorded history, according to the United Nations. If you’d like to contemplate this alarming news from the shores of Walden Pond, carry your own hydration — the city of Concord has become the first in the country to ban plastic water bottles.

Will Nissan Leaf You Out? Pre-orders for the hit Japanese electric car reached 13,000 this week, a thousand more than Nissan planned to make. If you’d rather not crash the dealership, wait ’till next year and rent one from Hertz.

Quiet Excitement: At Infineon Raceway in California, the TTXGP race pitted electric motorcycles against each other in the first — and the quietest — race of its kind.

Price Check, Aisle Nine: At the Lightfair International convention in Las Vegas, Sylvania, Toshiba and Philips debuted their new LED bulbs for use in home lamps. Each bulb, as well as General Electric’s, will retail by early 2011 or sooner, for $40 to $60. Also, at the National Hardware Show, Honeywell announced that its $6,500 home wind turbine would arrive at Ace Hardware stores by August.

A Tweet that Really Matters: Populations of 150 North American bird species are plummeting as their habitat is destroyed. Could one source of their salvation reside as an app on your phone?

Article by David Ferris appearing courtesy Matter Network.

photo: uscglantareapa

Related posts:

• Clean Energy “Ideas Train” Departs from Germany
• Second-largest Palm Oil Company Commits to Preserving Valuable Forest
• NASA Map Illustrates Height of Global Forest Canopies
• Brazil OKs Forest Clearing for $17 Billion Belo Monte Dam Project
• Sustainable Forests Grow But Large Areas Remain Unmanaged

Several interesting CleanTechies articles on LEED have covered the topic from different angles — this one will add a new perspective by giving  a commercial example (and make a strong case for going green).

What is LEED?

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The certification is given based on an exam facilitated by the Green Building Certification Institute on behalf of the US Green Building Council (USGBC). Multiple structures and projects are eligible for LEED certification and each is judged based on a set of criteria. LEED ratings are available for New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell (total building minus interior), Homes, Neighborhood Development, Schools and Retail. Points are given in six categories including: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Innovation & Design Process. Based on the score a structure receives, it will receive a label which allows an easy understanding for just how many of the LEED features the project incorporates.

LEED scoring was recently updated from version 2.2 which scored projects out of a total 69 points to version 3.0 which scores based on a total of 100 points. The score required to achieve different LEED levels is shown below:

LEED v2.2 – Certified 26 – 32, Silver 33 – 38, Gold 39 – 51, Platinum 52 or more
LEED v3.0 – Certified 40 – 49, Silver 50 – 59, Gold 60 – 79, Platinum 80 or more

LEED Platinum is the highest score a project can achieve and hence the most costly to obtain.

The Need for LEED

The LEED standard was introduced in response to what many felt was a lack of sustainable planning in construction. With a lack of regulation in the construction industry and devoid of a standard to try to achieve, builders had no large motivation to create low-impact, sustainable buildings. LEED allows the features of construction to be quantified which gives builders, architects and ultimately decision makers the ability to say, “I want a structure that meets a certain sustainable requirement.”  A great multimedia timeline for the history of LEED is available on the USGBC’s website and is titled, “15 Years 15 Stories.”

What can LEED do for you?

A long running debate has centered on the cost-benefit of achieving LEED certification and how much the different levels of LEED actually matter. Certainly, a simple review of the scoring system will show that the building owner can pay to install bicycle storage and changing rooms as this will result in 1 LEED point but how will that result in more revenue to the owner? Is even this minimal cost worth achieving LEED Gold over LEED Silver? Some say LEED certification and levels do not matter at all and only add to the cost of a building but others such as Chris and Amber Marie Bently who recently spent 3 years remodeling their Bently Reserve Building, a LEED certified structure, in downtown San Francisco disagree. Their remodel of floors using wood from old whiskey barrels, reuse of building materials and upgrade in HVAC’s which lowers tenant energy costs all combine to give what the Bentlys feel is a competitive advantage over nearby commercial space. This has led to a higher than average occupancy rate and a sense of pride in the Bentlys that they can promote environmental standards as a good business practice. But what type of tenants are they attracting?

Tenancy in a LEED certified building

As with every other commercial structure, The Bently Reserve Building (Core & Shell) and the tenants (Commercial Interior) are LEED rated separately. However, the Bently’s require that each tenant in the Bently Reserve Building outfits their office space at a minimum of LEED Certified. Current tenants fall along the LEED spectrum but one firm, The Energy Foundation, whose mission is to assist in the transition to a sustainable energy future by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, would not settle for less than LEED Platinum. In fact, The Energy Foundation is the first commercial space in San Francisco, and one of only thirteen worldwide, to receive LEED-CI Platinum Certification from the US Green Building Council. A walk through The Energy Foundation rewards the visitor with a naturally bright, open space where almost everything used from the furniture, flooring and ceiling panels to the fixtures is made of recycled or renewable materials and is meant to minimize energy use and easily recycle or biodegrade at the end of its useful life. The conference table built of alternating wood and retired solar panels was particularly striking.

Turning “Green” into Greenbacks

While the Bentlys feel strongly about the environment and enjoy a considerable level of satisfaction over their triple-bottom-line building. Does the reward outweigh the risk? According to Mrs. Bently, the answer is, yes. “We feel owning a LEED-Certified building gives us a competitive advantage in the market even during such an economically difficult time.” Not only does the building draw environmentally conscious tenants, the commitment to sustainability also entices many organizers of conferences, seminars and retreats to utilize the Bently Reserve meeting rooms. Time will tell if their competitive advantage remains strong or dissipates as more commercial owners seek LEED certification but in the mean time their determination to go green is helping these commercial owners to feel good about their building, their tenants and their future prospects.

Related posts:

• LEED “Pledge” to Replace LEED Bond
• Green Building Code Recruited for U.S. Army
• Empire State Building Becomes Tallest LEED Structure in U.S.
• Primer on LEED Credentialing
• Maybe We Should Rethink LEED Laws

If the headline doesn’t get you, the price tag might: $500 million.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was in Memphis last week to announce five grant competitions, totaling $500 million, to fund projects that will prepare workers for green jobs in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries.

Sharpen your pencils. Four of the contests are aimed at training workers through various national, state and community outlets, according to Solis:

• Energy Training Partnership Grants;
• Pathways Out of Poverty Grants;
• State Energy Sector Partnership and Training Grants;
• Green Capacity Building Grants.

Competition No. 5, for State Labor Market Information Improvement Grants, will fund workforce agencies to point people to careers in green industries.

The grants, of course, will come from the federal stimulus package, aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

More details are in the Federal Register (.pdf) and at the Department of Labor Web site.

Contests can bring out the best in people, so let’s see who wins.

Any predictions? Is this the best way to spend $500 million on green jobs?

Related posts:

• Data, Apps, and Maps: Working Toward a GreenGov
• Training Veterans for the Clean Energy Economy
• Where Are The Green Jobs For Women?
• Clean Diesel Program Is Clear Success, Says US EPA
• Can Women Take on Men in Demolition and Construction?

I wrote earlier about the US Green Building Council’s LEED AP (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional) certification program.  LEED is a 4-tier rating system for high-performing buildings that encourages a systemic approach to sustainable design.  Historically, most LEED APs were architects, mechanical engineers, and other niche green building professionals.  With the demand for green buildings and sustainable design booming, an increasing number of professionals are becoming LEED AP certified (more than 75K and climbing rapidly). For about $650 and a lot of focused studying and serious dedication, you too can become a LEED AP.

Becoming a LEED AP is one way to establish your CleanTech street cred if you’re transitioning from high tech or other industry, but it’s not the only professional certification available.  Other professional certifications are available from the Association of Energy Engineers, including:

• Certified Energy Manager (CEM) – what I’ll highlight in this post
• Certified Sustainable Development Professional (CSDP)*
• Certified Carbon Reduction Manager (CCRM)*
• Certified Green Building Engineer (CGBE)
• 9 others focused on Air Quality, Power Quality, Lighting Efficiency…you get the picture

* These two are new and sound pretty cool.  I’ll cover these in a subsequent post.

The AEE takes their certification process very, very seriously — much more than the USBGC, which has an increasingly rigorous process for LEED APs.  Clearly, they don’t want their brand tarnished.  So, what is that brand, and what does it mean?

Simply put, the designation CEM, which stands for Certified Energy Manager, recognizes individuals who have demonstrated high levels of experience, competence, proficiency, and ethical fitness in the energy management profession. By attaining the status of CEM, you will be joining an elite group of 6,000 professionals serving industry, business and government throughout the U.S. and in 22 countries abroad. These high-achieving individuals comprise a “Who’s Who” in the energy management field.

Sounds good to me.  So what does it take to even be eligible to become a CEM?

• A four-year engineering degree or architecture degree. Or a P.E. with at least three years experience in energy engineering or energy management.
• A four-year business or related degree, with at least five years experience in energy engineering or energy management.
• A two-year technical degree, with eight years experience in energy engineering or energy management.
• Ten years or more verified experience in energy engineering or energy management.(Note: Letters of reference and verification of employment must be submitted.)

Sounds serious.  Is that all?  Not really, and unlike the LEED AP process, you can’t pay some money, study real hard, pass a test and presto!  No, the AEE makes you fully document your energy-related work history and personal references several weeks before you even register for the exam.  Here’s what it takes to become a CEM:

The Application Form provides an organized method for documenting professional and educational background, achievements and community service.
The Personal Data Form is divided into the following three parts:
Division I – Education
Division II – Professional Registration (i.e. PE, Registered Architect)
Division III – Experience and Activities in Energy Management
The applicant is requested to list on the Application Form all pertinent information in these categories for evaluation by the CEM Board.

The two areas of evaluation shall receive points as follows:
Application Form Data Maximum Score 1050 points Minimum Score Required 700
CEM Examination Maximum Score 1040 points Minimum Score Required 704
Total Required: Maximum Score 2090 points Minimum Score Required 1404

To be awarded the CEM designation, candidates must achieve the minimum total of 700 points on the CEM Application Data and minimum score of 704 points on the CEM examination individually for a total not less than 1404 points.

Get that?  You have to have a minimum profile score of 700 or it doesn’t even matter what you score on the exam.  The good news is that exam, if you’re qualified to take it, is open book.  You have to pass 3 mandatory* sections, then pick and pass 8 of the remaining 14 sections.

1. *Codes and Standards
2. *Energy Accounting and Economics
3. *Energy Audits and Instrumentation

1. Electrical Systems
2. HVAC Systems
3. Motors & Drives
4. Industrial Systems
5. Building Envelope
6. Cogeneration & CHP Systems
7. Energy Procurement
8. Building Automation and Control Systems
9. Green Buildings, LEED and Energy Star
10. Thermal Energy Storage Systems
11. Lighting Systems
12. Boiler and Steam Systems
13. Maintenance & Commissioning
14. Alternative Financing

I was seriously interested in becoming a CEM, but now, not so much.  I’m delighted with my LEED AP certification and appreciate how the training has got me thinking more holistically about sustainability.  I’m eager to learn more about the new AEE categories (Sustainable Development and Carbon Reduction), though I imagine prospects have to clear the same high qualifying hurdles as aspiring CEMs.  Either way you go, you need to stand out in a tremendously crowded job market if you want to get noticed — especially if you’re transitioning to CleanTech from another field.

Related posts:

• Will Washington’s Clean Tech Spending Spree Pay Off?
• The Spirit Of The Law–Is Baltimore’s Proposed Project Green?
• Latest Renewable Energy Jobs in Solar and Wind Energy
• The 10 Best Universities for Studying Cleantech
• Three Cleantech Finds at SXSWEco