Resources on Green Regulations

Today's post seeks to answer a question which I have received numerous times--where do I go for information on green building regulations. The answer is simple--there is no one place. I keep my eye peeled for announcements by municipalities--see new ones in Portland--http://www.cleanedge.com/story.php?nID=3570, West Hollywood--http://www.buildinggreentv.com/keywords/green-building/1068, and Baltimore--http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil.com/detailreport/?key=3289.

But there are a few resources which have lists of relevant laws and regulations:
A favorite resource of mine is DSIRE's list of incentives and regulations, available here http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?State=ca&CurrentPageId=1&EE=0&RE=1.

Another is Smart Communities Network--http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/buildings/gbcodtoc.shtml. The Smart Communities list is nice, if a little dated.

The USGBC has a list as well, which is hard to find directly on their website--http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=76&#12.

Certain cities and states list their incentives and regulations in a user friendly fashion, especially Seattle--http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/OurProgram/PublicPolicyInitiatives/DevelopmentIncentives/default.asp.

Chicago has a nice website with green resources--http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName=Chicago+Center+for+Green+Technology&entityNameEnumValue=161.

I would advocate that the Council of Mayors or similar organization should create a resource which consolidates green building regulations of various municipalities in one place. For now, I will try to be on the look out for more lists and keep up to date on green building laws as they come to my attention.

Economic Value of Sustainable Communities

Individual green buildings are important, but the long term goal should be to develop sustainable communities. A new report by the Price of Wales' foundation demonstrates the economic and social value of walkable, mixed use and mixed income communities. The report is available here http://www.princes-foundation.org/index.php?id=8.

Among the most interesting analyses is a comparison among new urbanist communities in different supply and demand markets. The report concludes that the new urbanist model "appears to provide the greatest value enhancement where development is taking place in a moderate demand market." However, it records a 30% premium for the new urbanist community in a high supply market, which may be an even more important conclusion.

I Want Hillary Clinton's $50 Billion

On Monday, Hillary Clinton reiterated her proposal to "establish a $50 billion 'Strategic Energy Fund' that would create a research agency focused on reducing the threat of global warming." Among other things, Clinton proposed "spending $1 billion a year to improve energy efficiency in schools and other public buildings." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/24/clinton_proposes_1_billion_green_building_fund/

According to the Boston Globe, Senator Clinton proposed paying for the initiative by taxing oil company profits. "Oil companies...would face a choice: invest $20 billion in alternative fuel technology and build cleaner refineries or pay taxes on some of their profits."

As I have said many times before, the government's spending power is a powerful thing, and I support the Senator's plan. And I am also in favor of creating a economic system under which the true cost of petroleum products is included in the price, including taxes and environmental impact.

But I am concerned that I haven't heard anything about changing the investment in infrastructure. The government must not only stop subsidizing the oil companies, but must also decrease investment in highway building and increase investment in alternative transportation mechanisms to reduce our oil dependency. It is absurd that it takes 1.5 hours and $100+ to travel 94 miles from New York to Philadelphia by train.

The presidential candidates need to examine the built environment and build a comprehensive plan, including legal and economic components, to address the global warming/sustainability issue

Leonardo DiCaprio Needs Me

I read in today's Inhabitat that LEONARDO DI CAPRIO to Build “Eco-Town” in Kansas. It appears that the actor is filming a 13-part reality series about creating an environmentally sustainable community in Greenburg, Kansas which was devastated recently by a tornado. I wonder whether Leo and friends have sufficiently taken into consideration the legal issues facing the development of an ecologically sustainable community.

1) Has Leo considered the zoning code of the town? As many of you are aware, zoning may make it impossible to have a town which does not depend largely on automobile transportation due to prohibitions on the mixing of uses. The zoning code may also prohibit the use of green technologies, like photovoltaics or waterless urinals. The zoning code also must ensure that future building endeavors are done sustainably, by at least providing for mixed-use development and facilitating green buildings, and preferably by requiring environmentally friendly building techniques and typologies.

2) Has Leo analyzed whether the building code prohibits the use of green technologies or mandates the use of environmentally unfriendly products, like certain fireproofing and insulation materials?

3) Has Leo interfaced with the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment? Has he analyzed the state and local environmental laws he may encounter when doing large scale rebuilding?

4) Has Leo considered the risks associated with sustainable development and adequately provided for insurance of the new projects in the event of loss?

5) Has Leo developed effective short and long term public transportation plans, interfacing with the Kansas Department of Transportation?

I am waiting for Leonardo DiCaprio's call.

More environmental concerns with green projects

Green Wombat had a nice piece today on wrangling over the rights to build wave power plants. http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/07/pge-san-francis.html

The use of wave power will undoubtedly threaten coastal environments. I blogged last week about the high output solar plants being developed, which would require power lines through park land. Some legal compromises will need to be made between current environmental laws and the proliferation of new power plants.

What Happens In Las Vegas...

Although what happens inVegas is supposed to stay in Vegas, what has happened to tax incentives for green building in Las Vegas could spell trouble for the rest of the nation as state and local governments use tax incentives to encourage green building.

In 2005, the Nevada legislature established sales tax exemptions and a property tax exemption -- worth up to 50 percent of the property value for up to 10 years -- to projects that qualify under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. Projects meeting the silver level of certification were eligible for a 35 percent property tax break.

Two years later it became clear that so many projects qualified for exemptions that the state budget was going to be severly impacted. There was a good deal of legal hand wringing while it was determined whether the tax break could be repealed. On May 3, 2007, the Nevada legislature voted to put the breaks on hold. On May 14, 2007, the governor vetoed the suspension bill. http://vegaspundit.typepad.com/vegas_pundit/files/greenvetodocs.pdf

On June 4, a compromise bill was passed. According to the Nevada Appeal, "AB621 preserves substantial tax breaks, between 25 to 35 percent in property taxes for up to 10 years, but requires that developers meet higher standards for energy efficiency. The breaks also do not apply to money owed to school districts. The bill also gets rid of sales tax exemptions on construction materials provided by the 2005 law." http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070604/ELECTIONS/106040094&SearchID=73287969383746

More politics, more lobbying, and the the tax panel is now set to consider a proposed regulation to implement the new law on Aug. 6. According to at least one commentator, the new law is likely to have as large loopholes as the original one. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/commentary/2007/jul/18/566616784.html

So what happened here? Clearly the idea was a good one--use the government's fiscal levers to encourage green building. But hurrying to implement a law before the implications could be thoroughly investigated may have done more harm than good. Now the lawmakers are having to find a way to scale back the incentives, and crushing any further progress for green building intiatives in Las Vegas for some time to come. And there are few places in the country who need to be concerned about conservation--especially water conservation--more than Las Vegas.

I believe that this is only the first legal explosion in the green building area--there are so many new laws and regulations being passed as government bodies seek to jump aboard the green building bandwagon. Financial incentives for green building have a surface appeal--they don't mandate anything, so opposition is generally limited, and they can be counted as "doing something" about environmental concerns. But all incentives are not good incentives--the key is for governments to develop careful, measured incentives by asking two key questions: what will the full fiscal impact be and will the incentive cause changes in behavior which could not be acheived by other, less costly methods. Governments cannot abdicate their responsibility to make good, effective laws which will encourage and enable green building for decades to come by passing easy, ill-thought-out tax breaks.

Kudos to Wells Fargo Bank

Today Wells Fargo Bank announced that "it has surpassed the $1 billion mark in loans for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified buildings. " according to the Milwaukee Business Journal. See full article here http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/othercities/eastbay/stories/2007/07/16/daily47.html?b=1184558400^1494032