Environmental Building Strategies is pleased to announce the addition of two members to our team.

Justin Moresco is a licensed professional engineer with 4+ years experience in the green building and construction industries. His engineering experience has focused on existing buildings, from working on LEED certifications to the seismic evaluation of dozens of structures. Before focusing his career on green building more than two years ago, he worked for one of the country’s leading structural engineering firms. Justin is a widely published author on the topics of green building and corporate sustainability, and his articles have appeared in Sustainable Industries Magazine, Reuters.com, NYTimes.com, and BusinessWeek.com. He is currently a board member of the Northern California Chapter of the nonprofit Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Justin is working as a consultant to EBS on a project-by-project basis. His efforts with EBS will focus on Energy Star certifications and LEED EBOM projects, as well as other engineering services.

Justin graduated from University of California at San Diego with a bachelor’s degree in structural engineering and received his master’s in civil engineering from University of California at Berkeley. He also completed a post-graduate diploma in journalism from the London School of Journalism. Justin first became interested in green building and sustainability while he was living in Ghana, West Africa.

Igor Barer is a Mechanical Engineer with a professional background in estimating and managing design-build projects for new construction and energy retrofits for existing buildings. He brings 11+ years experience in the construction industry to the EBS team. His diverse expertise includes biomedical and research facilities, medical facilities, educational facilities, data centers, museums, and commercial buildings. As a LEED Accredited Professional, Igor’s consulting knowledge includes Indoor Air Quality Management/Testing as well as both Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning. Igor is a member of ASHRAE (Americans Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) and the Building Commissioning Association.

Igor is heading up the commissioning division at EBS and is also working with Justin to expand the engineering services we provide. He hopes to expand his role to included MEP coordination and construction management in the near future.

Igor is a graduate of Moscow State University of Food Industry with a degree in mechanical engineering.

With these two additions to the team we have established ourselves as a one-stop-shop for anything related to green building.

— The EBS Team —

I recently attended the West Coast Green conference in San Francisco and came out enthused and confused.

I was enthused about the progress the green buildingindustry is making. That over 14,000 people from all over the country came to learn about the new innovations in green building is huge for an industry, which in many ways, is in its infancy.

I listened to speakers from all sides of the business, real estate experts, government officials, green building consultants, and contractors to list only a few. They all provided interesting insights on where the industry was and should be going and a bit about it how it was going to get there.

There were also more numbers thrown around than a mathematician could handle. The amount of the money that was being directed to the industry from the stimulus bill, CO2 reduction goals, energy efficiency performance goals, and more and more goals.

One thing I didn’t hear enough of was specific ways to connect money to goals. People were so excited to learn that the government was finally sending money their way they forgot to ask how it would actually be implemented and with what oversight.

After the opening remarks I decided to spend the next three days focusing on one thing, how to get actual changes implemented. I decided to break down this task into two areas. First, I would focus on how conferences like this could teach and encourage people to start changing the built environment to stop negatively effecting the natural environment. Secondly, I wanted to know how to get money to these newly educated people to carry out the ideas they learned.

Interview with an Environmental Consultant

To figure out how conferences like West Coast Green affect change I decided to talk to a presenter who led a session at the conference. Matt Macko is a principal at the San Francisco based green building consulting firm Environmental Building Strategies. He led a session titled Deep Retrofits of Commercial Buildings along with Jose Guevara, Property Manager at Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc.

CleanTechies: What was your talk focused on?

Matt: I discussed the potential to flip the current green building conversation from its current state, littered with defensive reactionary discussions mostly focused only on conservation, to one where we work on the offensive to create demand in the marketplace around sustainable decision making. I targeted some economic and financial evaluations that a handful of firms are providing their clients as highlights of the quality work being done in the sustainability industry.

CleanTechies: What were the three most important things you think people got out of your talk?

Matt: People walked away with an understanding that demand must be created to tip the marketplace in order to meet our GHG goals. They also left with a better understanding of the financial value that can be derived through intelligent sustainable decision making. Lastly, they should have walked away understanding that investing in energy efficiency is as at least as lucrative if not more profitable than investing in Google.

CleanTechies: How do you think people will use the information you gave them to improve the green building industry?

Matt: I hope to generate more intelligent conversations around how we value “green.” If I had one main objective to relay it would be that we have the tools to prove the value of sustainability but we are just not doing a good enough job to date. I hope from there people will find ways to carry the message along and encourage others to join the movement.

CleanTechies: What is the focus of your firm’s work and how are you trying to change the conversation?

Matt: My firm focuses on making the business case for sustainability. We are a consultancy that uses tools such as discounted cash flow and energy models to prove the value of energy efficient decisions to our clients. Many of our clients come to us looking for efficiency through the LEED process. Our development of the LEED EDGE tool has helped several firms realize significant efficiency gains through making the LEED Certification process easy and virtually paperless.

Why I was confused?

Throughout the three days, and from almost every person I talked to, people had an encouraging outlook on the future of green building. They cited the mass amounts of money headed its way and they mentioned the new standards mandated by the government as proof that green building is here to stay.

One of the most exciting talks I heard was Panama Bartholomy’s talk on “Greening Existing Buildings: The Biggest Piece of the Low Carbon Puzzle.”

In it he mentioned the importance of the existing building retrofit market on reaching all of the carbon emissions goals being sent down from the politicos in Washington and Sacramento. He also outlined where some of the stimulus money was headed, but very little about how exactly it was going to be used or who was in charge of oversight.

I wouldn’t call it lack of foresight but clearly the infrastructure is not ready for all the money flowing in, though there are signs of life. Panama mentioned one specific financing optioned that would encourage homeowners to improve their home’s energy performance. PACE districts allow homeowners to implement energy efficient measures with no upfront cost to them. They pay for the measures with increased property taxes, which should be more than offset by the resulting energy savings.

Some recent success.

Joe Biden recently announced his contribution to the movement. He asked the Council Of Environmental Quality, earlier this year, to come up with a study on how the government could guide the development of a home energy efficiency retrofit market. They produced the “Recovery Through Retrofit” report. It offered several recommendations: more access to information for homeowners, more transparent and accessible financing, and a plan for worker training.

All these things are necessary and important but this report fails in going far enough in its scope. It doesn’t hash out any programs or concrete plans on how to bring all of its recommendations to fruition.

The “Retrofit Ramp-Up”, a program recently drawn up to fund retrofit programs, has started receiving applications for qualified projects to receive funding but this program also has its flaws. It helps facilitate funding but only for those who go looking for it and have the knowledge and expertise to get it.

Compare this approach to the one the government has taken with auto industry. The government does not offer funding to improve average MPG of automakers’ fleets to meet more stringent standards; instead they mandate the new standards. Why couldn’t the government take more of a hard-line approach, similar to this example, with the existing home and building retrofit market? I like the idea of money going to the right people but couple that with some mandated standards that have teeth, then everyone will be forced to see what they sometimes are too stubborn to realize, that green building can save them money.

My solution.

California already has a leg up on most states and could act as an example for the nation to follow. State government officials could begin by using the power of AB 1103 to get  ENERGY STAR scores for all commercial buildings in the State.

The “Recovery Through Retrofit” report also called for an ENERGY STAR program for homes to be created, which could provide later structure to update this solution.

After compiling all of the ENERGY STAR scores, the government could mandate and directly fund the retrofit of the worst buildings, possibly the lowest 10% of ENERGY STAR scores. These buildings would then go through an energy audit where the best energy conservation measures could be identified.

Payback could be formulated in either of two ways. Either the government could get paid back with the energy savings resulting from the increased efficiency or they could increase property taxes and have the building owner get the energy savings, similar to PACE districts. In both cases retrofits would be mandated, but the key is that these changes would not cost a dime in the end.

Energy savings in these wasteful buildings would be very high and would easily pay for the retrofits within a couple of years. The government could then use the projects as an example of the potential of the industry, further enticing interest and generating new projects. These projects would also create numerous jobs. Connected to the program would have to be a mandated education curriculum to get contractors up to speed on how to implement the upgrades. This education would further improve the future of the retrofit industry by increasing the stock of qualified workers.

— The EBS Team —

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 —

This is an excerpt of a recent article written by Jared Friedman for CleanTechies.com, a leading clean technology blog. It features an interview with Matt Macko, an author of the new LEED V3 EBOM exam.

LEEDing the Way: What to Expect On the New LEED 3.0 Exam
By Jared Friedman

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Matt Macko who helped develop the new LEED exam and is a principal at Environmental Building Strategies about his role in the creation of the new exam.

As part of his daily work, Mr. Macko consults with clients who are interested in obtaining LEED certification for their building or who desire to use green building techniques and/or build as sustainably as possible.

Mr. Macko was selected to help develop the new LEED exam for a number of reasons, including his desire to advance the industry and his work in helping his clients understand the most important concepts and options for their projects. His commitment to the industry is obvious; he is a LEED Accredited Professional, RESNET Energy Rater, Certified Energy Plans Examiner, Certified Green Building Professional, Certified Sustainable Building Advisor and Chair of the Bay Area LEED Users Group (BAyLUG).

CleanTechies: What has changed in the new exam?

Matt Macko: The new LEED AP or LEED AP + Specialty is much different than its predecessor. Beginning with the commitment, skill, and diverse knowledge required to pass the exam, followed with the need for project experience, as well as a commitment to 30 hours of Continuing Education, and 4 hour time slot needed to sit for the two-part 200 question exam.

CleanTechies: What about the people who already have LEED AP under the old exam?

Matt Macko: The current green building climate necessitates that there be a distinction between professionals and their certification and accreditation criteria. As a result of these industry changes, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) and Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) are representing their stakeholders in the green building community such as architects, engineers, and construction workers, by ensuring the LEED AP is an appropriate representation today’s green building professional. It is important to note that we in the professional “green” world demanded these changes and the responses to Job Task Analysis surveys showed GBCI what was important to its stakeholders. The USGBC and GBCI responded by making the changes listed below:

- If you do nothing and/or don’t wish to be an AP+ Specialty you retain your LEED AP.

- If you sign up for the Credentialing Maintenance Program (CMP) and follow the Disciplinary policy guidelines, you will become a LEED AP+ specialty, joining the new regime.

- Once you sign up for the CMP, if you took the original AP exam under the New Construction Track you will automatically be “mapped over” to the new LEED AP BD+C (Building Design and Construction) – The same is true for Commercial Interiors; you will be automatically “mapped” over to the LEED AP ID+C (Interior Design and Construction) designation. The same is true for Existing Buildings; you will be automatically “mapped” over and have the LEED AP O+M (Operations & Maintenance) designation.

- All of these changes were to begin August 1, 2009, at which point a LEED AP had two years to switch over. Thereafter, a $50 fee is required to maintain your AP+ Specialty status.

CleanTechies: Why the need for a new exam?

Matt Macko: GBCI has publicly stated that the changes to the exam system reflect the rapid advances in green building technology and practice in the marketplace. Therefore, the new exam system will help ensure that LEED professionals have the latest knowledge and understanding of green building practices AND that their proficiency is recognized.

CleanTechies: What is the style of the new exam?

Matt Macko: The new exam handbook emphasizes three hierarchical cognitive levels of questions. They are Recognition Items, Application Items, and Analysis Items. GBCI defines these levels as:

Recognition Items: These items assess a candidate’s ability to recall factual material that is presented in a similar context to the exam references.

Application Items: These items provide the candidate with a novel problem or scenario that the candidate can solve using familiar principles or procedures described in the exam references.

Analysis Items: These items assess a candidate’s ability to break the problem down into its components to create a solution. The candidate must not only recognize the different elements of the problem, but must also evaluate the relationship or interactions of these elements.

CleanTechies: What type of questions will show up on the new test?

Matt Macko: A test taker should expect questions that will demonstrate knowledge in relation to each of the three hierarchical levels mentioned a moment ago. Analysis items will test the ability of a person to analyze scenarios, breaking down the LEED elements and investigating the possible synergies that exist. This context of question breakdown did not exist in previous Candidate Handbooks.

CleanTechies: There are many new categories of LEED professionals, what material is specific to each credential?

Matt Macko: The AP+ Specialty will be a person who has an advanced depth of knowledge in green building practices and specialization in a particular LEED Rating System such as Building Design and Construction (BD+C) or Operations and Maintenance (O+M). The AP+ Specialty exam and designation is representative of an individual who has passed the exam and possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in the design process, to support and encourage integrated design, and to streamline the application and certification process.

The LEED Green Associate is a person who possesses the knowledge and skill to understand and support green design, construction, and operations. The LEED Green Associate exam is designed to measure your skills and knowledge against criteria developed by Subject Matter Experts and to assess your knowledge and skill to understand and support green design, construction, and operations. This exam is most appropriate for anyone entering the world of green building as well as someone who supports the LEED system.

The LEED AP + Specialty exam is designed to measure and assess the candidate’s skills and knowledge of green building science, the LEED Rating System, and the certification process as set forth in the most recent Job-Task Analysis that was conducted by GBCI during the 3rd quarter of 2008.

CleanTechies: What are some study materials a candidate should use?

Matt Macko: In addition to the stuy materias listed in the candidate handbooks, I would recommend studying sustainability and the principles of green building. Understanding green building holistically will benefit a test taker greatly.

— The EBS Team —

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—

With the recent surge in money going towards renewable energy research and implementation, many people are forgetting a key factor in reducing our impact on the environment: energy efficiency.

Utilizing renewable energy in your home or commercial building is great, don’t get me wrong, but before this expensive option is employed, you should first look at the efficiency of your home or building’s energy systems.

If your building wastes energy, you should prioritize improving this aspect and use the money that you had set aside for a renewable project to accomplish the task.

Once you have collected enough savings from the efficiency retrofits, you can look to implement a renewable energy generation system. By following this succession your system can be sized accurately, and your benefit to the environment, the ultimate goal of all these measures, will be significantly better.

Benefits of Energy Efficiency

In the United States, buildings use 72 percent of electricity consumption, 39 percent of energy use, and produce 38 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

If we, as a nation, are looking to decrease our C02 emissions and conserve energy and electricity, we should look no further than the existing buildings in our country.

Recently, as new construction projects have been on the decline, the opportunity to retrofit existing buildings has been increasing. There is vast potential for energy savings in these buildings, which makes them prime project candidates.

A study done by a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist claimed that commissioning all of the nation’s commercial buildings would yield the greatest energy savings per dollar spent of any option, including wind and solar energy production. Commissioning involves fine tuning a building’s existing energy systems to improve performance and eliminate wasteful energy use.

After commissioning the building, and saving tons of CO2, energy and money, you can determine what systems need retrofitting.

The fact that commissioning alone has the potential to save the most energy per dollar spent just shows the prospective savings that upgrading a building’s energy systems would create. In the near future, all existing building upgrades should be green focused, as it not only makes environmental sense but economic sense as well.

The same Lawrence Berkeley study claims that $30 billion dollars in energy costs and 300 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions can be saved a year by existing building retrofit projects with paybacks of one year or less.

Renewables

Let’s be honest, renewable generation doesn’t always make economic sense. This is why federal, state and local municipalities have set up generous rebate and tax credit systems to offset the costs. Even with these savings measures, many solar and wind projects have long paybacks.

Take San Francisco, for example. On top of the 30 percent federal solar rebate and the California Solar Initiative rebate (currently at $1.10 per watt for commercial and residential solar installations), San Francisco offers a $1,500 rebate per kilowatt up to 10 kilowatts.

With all of these rebates you are still looking at 10 to 15 years or more to recoup initial costs. Ten years is not bad, but compare this to energy efficiency retrofit projects, which typically have paybacks of one to five years and produce significant energy and cost savings, and it doesn’t seem to make monetary sense to choose solar installation first.

What does make sense is to evaluate and implement efficient upgrades into your building or home and then look to install renewable energy generation down the line. That way, when you do implement the photovoltaic cells or wind turbine they can be smaller, less ambitious projects that still produce the same percentage of your buildings energy use as was initially desired.

If you use 30 percent less energy after the retrofits, you can make the renewable installation 30 percent smaller.

Success

There has been some success in getting government money to the energy efficiency sector. On September 14 the Department of Energy announced that it would allocate $454 million from the stimulus bill to a new program called “Retrofit Ramp-up.”

The initiative will save $100 million dollars a year in energy savings, according to the Department of Energy. It’s initially focused on whole-neighborhood efficiency retrofit programs that will produce significant cost effective solutions, especially ones that incorporate both public and private buildings.

The department’s hope is that these projects will provide successful sustainable business models for the rest of the country to follow.

The program provides funds to states, U.S. territories, counties, cities and Indian tribes to improve energy efficiency in the building and transportation sector. These entities have to fill out documentation explaining their project and how it will improve efficiency in their community. The applications are then reviewed by the Department of Energy and accepted or declined based upon the merits and potential energy savings of the project.

This is one of several programs funded by the stimulus bill that can be applied to energy efficiency retrofits. There is also a specific appliance upgrade program for residences that is quite comprehensive.

The future

The future seems extremely promising for all the green industries as many policy makers are starting to jump on the sustainable bandwagon. My hope is that the energy efficiency sector does not get overlooked. It may not be as flashy or exciting as renewable energy production but it is equally important. It is also a great place to start improving our eco-friendly practices and it is where money should begin funneling to first.

Once improvements are made in this sector it will be easier to move forward with renewable energy generation, especially small-scale on-site generation. As many buildings start to follow this model, the public will see renewable energy as a more viable and inexpensive solution to our current environmental situation.

In addition to energy savings, the energy efficiency sector has the potential to create a huge number of jobs. At a time when unemployment is rising above 10 percent in many states, job creation is exactly what our country needs. Estimates are that the existing building retrofits market is likely to be a $400 billion dollar industry, and it only makes sense.

Wouldn’t you move forward quickly with a project if you knew it would pay for itself in five years or less? Considering a huge portion of the existing 5 million commercial buildings in the United States could undergo retrofit projects and each project would employ construction workers, engineers, architects, project managers and planners, this industry alone could ignite job growth nationwide.

In light of the recent CO2 reduction benchmarks that are being pushed by President Obama (which will hopefully be more robust after the Copenhagen Conference), we need to act now. If the future of energy production is rooted in the success of renewable generation, the means to get to that end is energy efficiency retrofits.

— EBS Team —

How the Stimulus Impacts Green Building
Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:55pm ED
By Jacob Arlein
I don’t know if it is Obama or Al Gore but the US government is starting to understand the need for sustainability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama in February to stimulate the sagging US economy. By injecting $690 billion to improve infrastructure…

The previous article that was posted on this blog, written by Jacob Arlein, was recently picked up by a variety of blogs and newspapers including Reuters. Here is the link to the Reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenBuildings/idUS389286768020090909. This is a testament to both the strength of the article and the recent surge in interest from mainstream media sources, and subsequently the average reader, about green building.

— The EBS Team —

In another bold move by the president, he recently uttered the words LEED when referring to a Certification for the White House.  Is this even possible?  I mean I realize it is, but can we just take a step back for a minute and reflect on where we came from and what was happening in this country two years ago?

The test below is republished from greenerbuildings.com who posted the news on Sept 14th 2009.  It’s funny… I didn’t see the Wall Street Journal mention anything about it…

“Going far beyond the organic vegetable garden and playground made from recycled materials, President Barack Obama intends to get the White House LEED certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

That’s the word from an article on Sierra Club’s Green Home website. From the article:

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) spokesperson, Christine Glunz, says the effort to get the White House to LEED certification includes energy and water systems as well as waste. She believes it is vital to consider toxicity and life-cycle when making purchases for facilities. CEQ is looking to reduce the carbon footprint of the White House by implementing computerized energy management systems, automatic light sensors that turn off in unoccupied rooms and low-flow water valves. Paints and sealers with low or no volatile organic compounds (VOCs), biodegradable cleaners and recycled equipment will all be used by White House groundskeepers and engineers, according to a White House spokesperson. Window films that will lower UV rays and save energy will also be added.

According to an article on the National Geographic website, any leftover materials from White House renovations and demolitions will be donated to local reuse organizations. If President Obama continues to enforce such eco-friendly changes throughout his term, he will be on the right track to making the White House more of a “green house,” proving with a LEED certification that he can lead Americans to a greener world.

We regularly report on the benefits and importance of retrofitting existing buildings as one of the keys to cutting the country’s energy dependence. Even if greening the White House itself would have just a small impact on the nation’s capital, its symbolic importance would be considerably greater.”

The EBS Team

I don’t know if it is Obama or Al Gore but the US government is starting to understand the need for sustainability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama in February to stimulate the sagging US economy. By injecting $690 billion dollars to improve infrastructure the authors hoped to create millions of jobs pulling the US out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Interspersed within this $690 billion dollars is $60 billion for green projects of which $45 billion is going specifically towards energy related programs. Within this $45 billion most will go directly towards the green building industry with some additional monies going towards large scale renewable energy production.

Whether in the form of a tax credit, grant, or subsidy, federal money is becoming more available to offset costs of greening your home or building. The breakdown of the important areas is as follows:
• $300 million for the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program and the ENERGY STAR® program.
• $6.3 billion from the US Department of Energy for energy-efficiency grant programs, including $3.2 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants and $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program.
• $4.5 billion for greening federal buildings.
• $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
• $4.5 billion for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to modernize and improve the electricity grid.

On the residential side, the stimulus bill has expanded existing tax credits and created new ones that cover a variety of upgrades to make your home more energy efficient. New doors, windows, insulation, boilers, air conditioners, and furnaces all qualify for a 30% tax credit that is capped at $1500. This means that if you purchase and implement any of these materials or systems that meet energy efficient guidelines you can offset 30% of the cost by applying for a tax credit. In addition, renewable energy production that homeowners employ also qualifies for a 30% tax credit, but with no cap. Geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, wind energy production and solar panels are all included in this group. The $300 million dollars for Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program and ENERGY STAR program will go towards home appliances that have been certified efficient by ENERGY STAR. This money will come in the form of a cash rebate.

The commercial building industry will also see a large sum of money coming their way. This includes $3.2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, which can be applied for by counties, cities and even Indian tribes to develop and implement projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions in their communities. The $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program will be sent directly to State energy offices to be used for similar purposes at the state level. California has already mandated that all its state buildings be LEED Silver Certified so a good chunk of the money that California will receive will likely go directly to that endeavor. The $4.5 billion dollars allocated to greening Federal Government buildings will be focused on improving energy efficiency of all General Service Administration buildings.

The Weatherization Assistance Program is a less well known but equally effective and important aspect of the stimulus bill. The Program allocates money to improving building envelopes of low-income housing. This will not only improve the lives of tenants hit hardest by the economic downturn but also greatly improve the energy efficiency of this traditionally terrible building type. The Program seeks to lower energy costs for tenants and reduce energy drawn from the grid from low income communities.

On top of these programs $22 billion has been allocated to the Department of Transportation to improve public transportation. The aim of this money is to not only improve public transportation but also expand it in hopes of increasing its popularity and thus reducing vehicle emissions. $6 billion dollars has also gone to the EPA for cleanup of hazardous sites, revitalization of watersheds and a variety of other projects that are focused on improving destroyed natural features. The EPA is distributing this money to states based on proposals that the states have supplied on projects that are good candidates.

If you are confused by all of this you are not alone. Unfortunately, like most federal government acts the stimulus bill is massive and very hard to follow. It takes an expert to figure out where money is going and how to get it. Beyond the confusion there are several negative aspects to the stimulus bill especially concerning how the money is allocated. Most of the grants are being funneled through state governments. While this is the easiest way to go about distributing the money it is definitely not the most accurate or efficient. When the states receive the money they are often spending it how they want and not for its intended purpose. Take for example a large chunk of money supposedly going towards a program to improve and “green” schools. The states are taking this money and then using it to pay teacher’s salaries. Now I am not saying this is a terrible thing but stimulus money slated to improve buildings should not be used to balance state budgets. Additionally another hefty sum from the bill is going towards nuclear and clean coal technology. Both of these industries are not considered renewable because both are riddled with environmental problems, and consequently should not be included in a bill focused on improving the environment. Lastly, the money is slow to come. Little by little dollars are trickling to states and communities and if the desired effect of this bill was to shock the economy back into a more healthy rhythm money is going to have to come faster.

On the positive side, this bill is a leap in the right direction. As the most comprehensive and lucrative sustainability bill in history, it sets a serious standard for the United States government and its people to follow. No longer can we be complacent of wasteful actions that are detrimental to the environment. Although no amount of money is enough to reverse the harm we have already done, $60 billion dollars is a good start. Compared to the oil industry, which receives and estimated 15 to 35 billion dollars a year, it is a bit lacking. This huge sum that supports one of the worst industries, in terms of its detrimental effect on the environment, shows the vast potential of capital which can and hopefully in the future will be steered toward the recently booming green industries. Already the amount of “green collar” jobs is on the rise and the green building industry has become increasingly popular. When the economy improves and the stimulus money really starts flowing green building will no longer be a fanciful option but a mandated norm.

—The EBS Team—

The biggest obstacle in the adoption of green materials is a lack of understanding of how to look at materials. Our old method of “price first, features second, appearance last” is short sighted and explains how we put ourselves in this environmental catastrophe.

The primary thing one must understand about green materials is to realize it is not black and white issue. There is no one perfect green material. All materials have both positive and negative environmental attributes. The key is in understanding which of these will benefit your specific project.

For example, many people will ask me if concrete is a “green” material. They want a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But the real answer is not so black and white.

If we look at the good things about concrete:

* durable, (technically) recyclable, natural, non-offgassing, made from natural sand, stone, and water, and
* we can see it casually appears to be a green material.

But on the other hand, the bad thing about concrete is it’s chief ingredient, Portland Cement. Portland Cement is mined out of the Earth, heated to intense temperatures and as a by-product this releases tons of greenhouse gas. Suddenly, the green concrete you hoped for is a potentially bad source of pollution.

So how do we resolve this? How do you take a complex issue of concrete and look at it in a black-and-white way?

Perhaps you remember a few years ago, when dolphins were getting caught in the tuna fishing nets. There was a large outcry among consumers, “Don’t buy tuna! It is killing the dolphins!” After all, dolphins are cute and deserve to be protected. (The tuna, I guess, were not cute enough for saving.)

With the news of Flipper dying in a tuna net, the public responded and tuna sales plummeted. The industry changed seemingly overnight. What would otherwise be a complicated issue of marine fisheries, agriculture and industry was reduced to the beautifully black and white dictum of “Don’t buy tuna!”

So getting back to our example of concrete. How do we make concrete appear to be a black and white issue?

If the main problem with concrete is its content of Portland Cement, we can replace up to 50% of that Portland Cement with a material called fly ash. Fly ash is a by-product of the coal industry. It is typically buried in a land fill where it seeps mercury into our water table. By putting it into our concrete mix, it turns out the fly ash makes the concrete stronger and more workable.

Is concrete a green material? Fly ash concrete is a green material.

This is how you make something into a black and white issue. This is the process you must go through with every material in your building.

Is wood a green material? FSC-certified Wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council is a green material.
Is steel a green material? High recycled content steel is a green material.

Ask yourself these six questions when looking at any material:

1. Where did this material come from?
2. What are the by-products of its’ manufacturer?
3. How is the material delivered and installed?
4. How is the material maintained and operated?
5. How healthy are the materials?
6. What do we do with them once we are done with these materials?

This is a shorthand approach looking at the entire lifecycle of a material.

(For more information on green-materials certification programs, visit Web sites for the Forest Stewardship Council, Green Seal and Scientific Certification Systems.)

—The EBS Team—