January 5, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: Energy, Government Mandates, Green Building
This article was written and submitted by Chris Birk
D.C.’s Green Building Dilemma
By Chris Birk of www.suretybonds.com/edu
When it passed in 2006, Washington, D.C.’s Green Building Act was heralded as an innovative way to incorporate green efficiencies into private and public building projects.
But not everyone was thrilled, especially surety companies — the industry that issues bonds that guarantee work and protect taxpayer and private dollars. Three years later, there’s still a bit of a battle brewing that could jeopardize the course of green building in the District of Columbia and perhaps beyond.
At issue is the idea of a “green” performance bond. In general, performance bonds are a standard risk-management tool and a part of most building projects across the country. They basically guarantee that a contractor performs the job up to code and contract.
Usually, these are the standard fare — surety underwriters examine a contractor’s finances, experience, cash flow and ability to get the job done. Then, they examine the contract to see what specific industry standards are supposed to be met. If everything fits, the surety typically issues a performance bond.
But green building introduces a new, scary wrinkle for surety companies. A contract that demands a contractor achieve a certain degree of efficiency — say, for a decline in carbon dioxide emissions or water efficiency — likely requires certification by a third party, like the U.S. Green Building Council.
That raises immediate red flags for a surety. They’re on the hook financially if a contractor fails to perform. The question is, can they be liable if a contractor fails to achieve the necessary level of energy efficiency — if, for example, carbon dioxide emissions aren’t eliminated to the required level.
That’s a major reason why most surety companies refrain from bonding a contractor when a contract requires specific energy efficiencies or any type of third-party certification.
But that’s the law as written in Washington. The new regulation, which takes full effect in 2012, mandates that projects that fall short of green building standards have to pay claims into a city fund dedicated to green building.
Needless to say, the surety industry has been up in arms over the provision.
After months of back and forth, industry leaders and D.C. officials are working on a compromise while re-examining the law’s language. A public hearing regarding the issue was slated to be held on Dec. 14.
Without a compromise, contractors and project developers in D.C. might have to shoulder more risk than ever before. And that could have serious repercussions for building, not just in the District but across the country.
— The EBS Team —
November 24, 2009
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy
Tags: Cap and Trade, Energy, Green Building
As debate heats up around the proposals for clean energy legislation in Congress, one of the main points of contention is the amount of money it will cost. More specifically, everyone wants to know how the average American household will be impacted by the respective energy bills in the House (Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Act) and the Senate (Kerry-Boxer’s Clean Energy Jobs and American
Power Act). This article will investigate the change in energy prices one can expect from legislation that could be passed within the coming months, and try to sift through the wide discrepancy in figures that are being tossed around. Then some recommendations will be presented as to how energy usage can be reduced, to preempt any anticipated rises in cost.
How much will it cost?
How much more money per year should a typical American household expect to pay if clean energy legislation were to pass? Depending on where one gets their information from, this figure varies hundreds of dollars!
It helps to learn where the information is coming from. Analyzing the House’s proposal, the U.S. Government’s Environmental Protection Agency found that, “the overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).” Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost to be about $175 per household. On the other hand, an August report by the conservative Heritage Foundation claims that “a typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs” after the passage of Waxman-Markey.
Although it may be difficult to agree on how many more dollars Americans can expect to pay from clean energy legislation, nearly every study concurs on one fact – we can expect energy prices to increase in the future with the passage of a clean energy act. For anyone in the country paying utility bills, from homeowners to property managers to retail owners, this means they can expect to see their electricity prices rise.
So what should we do? Fight legislation?
Hardly. Aside from ecological and health arguments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global climate change, there would be catastrophic impacts on the world’s economy were we to proceed at our current pace of fossil fuel consumption. In fact, most scientists argue that we need to take much more drastic and strict measures at combating climate change than even the more ambitious proposals worldwide are suggesting – meaning many feel that the House and Senate acts would not go far enough in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, fighting any attempt at curbing greenhouse gas emissions (such as stymieing clean energy legislation or not participating in international climate talks) is near-sighted and irresponsible, because of the enormous toll we would be placing on our future’s environment and economy. The current House and Senate proposals may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction – so let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A better solution: Energy efficiency!
A better solution: start using less electricity and less energy as we make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The best way to do this is by reducing energy demand and using energy more efficiently. How does one do that?
A good place to start is with an energy audit of a building, which analyzes the energy usage of a building and recommends measures to improve efficiency. These are often done for free or at a discounted rate by a utility company. Another option is to hire a certified Home Energy Rater, who typically use high-end equipment to thoroughly diagnose a building’s efficiency. It is up to the user to implement the recommend improvements once the audit is complete.
Another recommendation is to have the systems of the building commissioned. Commissioning entails hiring a commissioning agent to come inspect elements of the building – such as the HVAC system, lighting, water heating – and make sure they are all operating at maximum efficiency and as they were intended to do. Then the agent will make the adjustments to correct any deficiencies and have the systems running at optimal performance levels.
For a larger building or commercial space (such as an office or retail store), one can attempt to implement an overhaul in operations and management that will demand less energy use by the individuals occupying the space. There are several programs that exist which provide guidelines for instituting these changes, which include such recommendations as switching to more efficient appliance to informing building occupants about energy-saving techniques.
In any approach, it is important to use the tools and information available and put them to use. Whether this is the latest in IT or simply common sense that should be shared, applying intelligence to our system of energy consumption will reap huge rewards.
—The EBS Team—
February 4, 2009
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Uncategorized
Tags: Energy, energy, Energy Star, Green Retrofit, sustainability
So I never like to give away trade secrets but it isn’t like this puppy should be locked away in some vault – it really isn’t all that secretive. And besides our proprietary information involves a much much more conclusive approach to sustainability (just kidding we use this calculator all the time!)
You wouldn’t believe it but there are so many tools out there people can use to analyze what “greening” strategies can do for your life, health and bank account. Below is just one of those strategies … oh and several of my opinions of course
LED ROI Calculator
This tool is quite powerful and here is why:
1. LED’s are better than CFL’s – especially for new construction. When implementing a lighting plan for your new office, building or home you need to be spec’ing for LED. Below are a few links that may be helpful when trying to understand how incadescent, CFL, and LED’s work. They are quite different and you should read up on the differences. Financially they make sense over the long term – big time sense!
2. CFL’s are terrible choices in the long run but like everything we need a game changer – the government implemented the ban of incandescent bulbs which is great -we are going to save bundles and gobbles of money but destroy our oceans and poison our children in the meantime. This law is about as smart as the government saying lets all put lead paint on our walls or lets insulate with asbestos. The fact is that mercury has been phased out of thermostats yet we’ve all the sudden decided its ok to re-implement its use in every lighting fixture in America. Sounds good to me!
3. LED’s last for over 6 years – that is if you leave them on 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week – THAT IS SIX times longer than CFL’s are rated for. Did I forget to mention they use half the energy a CFL does.
Another quick note we often forget – 94% of the energy an incandescent bulb uses is lost as heat. LED’s don’t get hot!
Seriously take a look at this calculator and tell me they are fiscally irresponsible and I’ll tell you your crazy.
The numbers make sense, the color rendering and lumen output make sense, the dim ability (not all CFL’s can dim) features and spotting possibilities make sense yet our government mandates something that doesn’t. What a f–ing surprise – although it was the Heckuva Job, Bushie guy who designed the ingenious plan. I mean you can’t blame a Texan for trying right. . .
Until next time – change out those incandescent s already would ya!
–The EBS Team
December 18, 2008
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Uncategorized
Tags: Energy, Energy Star
The Huffington Post has this great article that speaks volumes to energy efficiency and a great way to battle the United States current economic situation.
Please click here to read the plan that Architecture 2030 has helped devise and hopefully they’ve masterminded a way out of this crisis we’re in.
December 8, 2008
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Green Building, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized
Tags: Energy, Green Building
President-elect Barack Obama presented an optimistic future for green building in his weekly radio address, yet the current state of the economy is clearly impacting green building. 
While he proposes an investment into energy efficiency and infrastructure in the economic recovery plan, I wonder how the recession is currently affecting this industry. A recent article in the National Real Estate Investor highlights some of these impacts, recognizing both the credit crunch as well as the current low price of fuel. While the future appears to be more promising partly because of Obama’s economic recovery plan, green building is clearly taking a hit from the recession. How have builders, homeowners, architects, etc. noticed the economy impacting green building? How has the residential side of green building been affected?
Recent Comments