Green Building Law Blog

GBLB And Friends LIVE in New Orleans!

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:31:31 -0500

I am speaking at the Green Legal Matters conference in New Orleans, April 26-28, 2010 with many friends of GBLB, like Chris Hill of Construction Law Musings, Timothy Hughes of Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law blog and Scott Wolfe of the Wolfe Law Group. Come and join us, and eat some crawfish!

Targeted Incentives--Using Government Funds To Fill The Perception Gap

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:57:28 -0500

Yesterday, I wrote about Senator Merkley's new set of incentives to encourage green commercial building retrofits, and left you with the question of whether these new incentives will actually change behavior. An interesting article came out today on CNN.com which highlights a barrier to incorporating green building technologies into building projects:

Appraisals for newly built green homes do not fully reflect the cost of green technology, and the lower appraisal values mean buyers often cannot get the full financing they need from banks.

In essence, according to this articel, the cost of incorporating the green features is not covered by a commensurate increase in the purchase price, causing homeowners to avoid incorporating costly green technologies, even if they represent savings in the long run.

This is the perfect opportunity for designing a targeted grant or financing incentive. The government agency could look at the difference in the appraisal of homes without green technologies, homes with green technologies, the cost of those technologies and the ultimate payback, and design an incentive to make up the difference. A great example would be providing financing for green renovations at a lower rate than standard renovations. Unfortunately, most incentives are not designed around barriers to entry and cost data, but are essentially throwing some non-targeted amount of money at the problem without analyzing would be the best amount and struture to really change behavior.

Does Building Star Shine?

Shari Shapiro — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:50:57 -0500

Last week, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced S.B. 3079, the Building Star Bill, to:

To assist in the creation of new jobs by providing financial incentives for owners of commercial buildings and multifamily residential buildings to retrofit their buildings with energy efficient building equipment and materials and for other purposes.

In essence, Building Star provides rebates for retrofitting commercial and multifamily buildings in existence as of December 31, 2009 with energy efficient components, like insulation, window, doors, HVAC equipment, etc. the rebates are structured as follows:

For energy audits and commussioning studies--$.05 per square foot of audited or commissioned space or 50% of the cost of the audit or commissioning study.
For energy efficient building operations and maintenance training--$2000 per individual trained and certified
For service on space heating equipment--$100 per unit serviced
For service on cooling systems--$2 per ton of namepate cpacity of the serviced cooling system and 50% of the total service cost
For installation of qualified energy monitoring and management systems--the lesser of $.45 per square foot of building space covered by the system or 50% of total installation and commissioning costs
For upgrades of qualified energy monitoring and management systems--the lesser of $.15 per square foot of building space covered by the system or 50% of total installation and commissioning costs
For HVAC testing, balancing and duct sealing--$.75 per square foot of duct surface tested, balanced and if necessary, sealed

The Building Star incentives can be combined with other incentives, like the existing deductions for energy efficient buildings.

The Building Star program also provides for a loan program administered by the states to provide loans for energy efficiency upgrades.

So the question becomes, will this incentive program be significant enough to cause building owners to invest in these energy efficiency measures.

What The USGBC's Top 10 Green Building Legislation List Tells Us About The State Of Federal Regulation Of Green Buildings

Shari Shapiro — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:18:22 -0500

Last week, the USGBC announced its list of the Top 10 Pieces of Green Building Legislation in the 111th Congress. Top of the list were the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the Stimulus Bill, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as Waxman Markey. I have posted about these pieces of legislation extensively--here for Waxman-Markey posts and here for ARRA posts. So I was interested to see what the rest of the list had to offer in terms of overall perspective on Federal regulation of green buildings:

1. It's all about incentives.

Heaven forbid that Congress should force anyone to do anything. With the exception of Waxman-Markey, the bills selected by the USGBC are all incentive based, providing funds for energy efficiency, water savings, etc.

2. It's not very innovative.

There are only two bills on the list which I consider to be innovative or interesting. The Federal Personnel Training Act of 2010 (yet to be introduced) which focuses on training federal personnel to operate and maintain high performance buildings, and S. 1619, the Livable Communities Act of 2009 which seeks to establish an Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities and provides $4 billion in grants to incentivize integrated community planning and implementation of sustainable projects. I like the first bill because it recognizes the need to raise the skills of implementing federal employees to realize the benefits of high performance buildings, and I like the second because it recognizes the linkage between planning and sustainability.

3. Building Codes are not addressed.

Waxman-Markey, and its Senate counterpart The American Clean Energy And Leadership Act, both have some provision for creating a national energy efficient building code. The other bills, however, do not attempt to address the key policy lever of building codes to enhance sustainable construction and save resources. This is probably because of the enormous political fight involved, both in wresting control of building codes away from states and local governments, and with the private interests involved in the building industry.

America's Most Convenient Bank Goes Green

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:34:28 -0500

Frank Sherman, U.S. Green Officer at TD Bank sat down with GBLB to discuss TD Bank's announcement that it would be carbon neutral.

GBLB: What is the motivation behind TD Bank's green initiative?

Frank Sherman: Lack of Federal leadership leaves it up to private enterprise. Right now, the private sector is going to have to pull us through in the short term. Our green initiative is work we have been focusing on for a year and a half internally. The driver stems from TD Bank Financial Group in Toronto. Their senior leadership made the decision to become carbon neutral as a company. Their initial commitment early last year or late 2008 was to become carbon neutral by end of October of 2010. The US has follwed suit, and because the timing for the creation of TD Bank NA (the combination of Commerce Bank and Bank North) we were running a few steps behind.

GBLB: Were there any roadblocks to becoming carbon neutral?

Frank Sherman: We started analyzing the carbon neutral commitment over the past year, right at the time there was a lot of stress in the financial institutions. We had to look at "What is the impact this has on the company?" It made us try to really understand the company to figure out what can be achieved, to take action based on what we have done rather than just promises. It is as much a commitment going forward. We are fully aware that there is a lot we can continually do to improve, but you have to stake your claim and people can hold you accountable and we can hold ourselves accountable.

GBLB: What is TD Bank going to do going forward?

Frank Sherman: We are not doing anything now that is too far outside the norm for progressive corporations. We are making commitments to reduce carbon outputs. Given the trajectory we are on now, first and foremost is to reduce our carbon footprint and buying renewable energy credits and supporting renewable energy in US and Canada, and lastly to invest in carbon offsets.

We understand that we will always be judged by NGOs as not doing enough. It is not always useful to have a conversation when people think two different things. We accept the fact that others choose to go father or define environmental impacts differently. As we grow as a responsible corporate citizen, that is not to say we won’t take responsibility for secondary emissions. But, one step at a time was our way of approaching this.

GBLB: What sustainable projects are you looking into as an investment for TD Bank?

Frank Sherman: We are exploring how to balance the economics of buying carbon in quantity with investing in projects that effect our carbon footprints. For example, we bought a block of offsets from RGGI, we have balanced that with one landfill gas capture projects in New Jersey and a waste incineration project in Florida, both in areas where we do business. We are considering getting involved in projects protecting forests. We are looking at a potential carbon sequestration project in Pennsylvania. I look at carbon offsets as an investment project. We are looking to avoid emissions, and the investments we have made are ideally placed in the places where we do business.

We offset 203 million KwH, or 203,000 RECs. We purchased 31,000 metric tons of carbon offsets. That is based our 2008 greenhouse gas inventory. Our 2008 emissions equalled 121,000 metric tons of GHG emissions.

We measured our GHG emissions based on direct emissions of fossil fuels, electricity, fleet vehicles, fossil fuel impact of biz travel, leased space. We used a similar approach based on scope of emission we can control.

GBLB: What are you doing in terms of green building?

Frank Sherman: We identified green building as one way of addressing some of our sustainable goals right out of the gate. We began to thign about high performing green buildings as we started the process of reimaging our brand as America’s most convenient bank. We are doing all of our new branches green—but 2010 is a transition year with some in the pipeline. By the end of 2010 and going into 2011 we will be building green buildings almost exclusively.

Getting To Yes, Maybe--A Response From Jennifer Simon

Shari Shapiro — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:45:54 -0500

Jennifer Simon practices environmental law at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP. She focuses her practice on alternative energy project development, permitting, and O&M with an especial emphasis on offshore renewable energy projects. She maintains a blog on offshore renewable energy at www.offshoreenergy.blogspot.com

Yesterday, Shari suggested that Obama’s “last ditch effort” to enact a watered-down energy/climate bill is just not worth the effort. As Pennsylvanians, Shari and I both live in a state that has identified “clean coal” resources (like coal gasification) as renewable resources, so we know a thing or two about ineffectual climate policy. Given Pennsylvania’s apparently futile approach to climate change, I am not surprised that Shari is uncomfortable with President Obama’s proposed energy/climate bill. However, I would suggest that this bill could provide the foundation upon which a comprehensive legislative solution could be built.

Congress has been dithering around with potential climate legislation for more than half a decade while various government entities have questioned whether climate change science is accurate, whether regulations can be effected under current statutory schemes (e.g., the Clean Air Act), and whether the costs of regulation outweigh the benefits of saving life on planet earth. Meanwhile, emissions from energy generators, buildings, and mobile sources continue to rise and the predictions of dire consequences attributable to climate change continue to become direr and more imminent.

In the late 1970s, scientists announced that the dangerous thinning of the earth’s atmospheric ozone layer was due to anthropogenic causes, legislators and regulators were equally paralyzed by competing interests and apathy. But in 1978, EPA took an affirmative—if not remotely comprehensive—step by banning aerosol chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”). As social consciousness and international pressure increased, this initial regulatory ban on aerosol CFCs ultimately led to the U.S. signing and ratifying the 1987 Montreal Protocol—a far reaching and comprehensive international treaty which will likely yield statistically significant improvement over the next 50 years.

Climate change, like ozone depletion—or healthcare for that matter—is a hot button issue where legislative consensus is a near impossibility. But we need to start somewhere, don`t we?

Getting To Yes, Maybe

Shari Shapiro — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:17:58 -0500

According to EENews, the Obama administration is trying a last ditch effort to get a hybrid energy/climate bill passed:

President Obama is striving for consensus on a path forward that can deliver substantial greenhouse gas emissions reductions and satisfy concerns in the Senate about energy security. In an address to the nation's top CEOs at a Business Roundtable meeting scheduled for Wednesday, Obama is expected to discuss his energy plans. According to several sources, one of the proposals under discussion is to find ways to incentivize coal-burning power plants to switch to cleaner-burning natural gas.

Economywide cap and trade or carbon tax? Maybe not. More nuclear, probably and more "clean coal" investment, almost assuredly. So why pass this watered down, milquetoast version of a climate and energy bill?

There are times in lawyer's lives when they must adopt a different hat--after all the risk identifying and negotiating and hand wringing is over, there must be a signature on the dotted line. A lawyer must advise their client that the deal is as good as its going to get, that the settlement is worth the risk. Because no one can predict the future, there is no absolute guarantee that the deal that is struck in advance of events is as good as what could happen if events are allowed to unfold and decisions are made based on actual events. But dealmaking has value--it allows parties to have security and allows disparate parties to come to terms that are acceptable to all, if ideal for none.

But I wonder if this is that deal. Let's say Obama inks this settlement, shepherded on the Republican side by Senator Lindsey Graham. The question must be--Will the environment really benefit, not Did We Get Something Passed. Doing something is not always better than sticking to your guns and fighting on. The best lawyers--and politicians--know when the deal is as good as it's going to get. I don't think we're there yet.

What would you do to make your home more energy efficient for $57,000?

Shari Shapiro — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:22:24 -0500

A study out of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports:

As of 31 December 2009, according to data available to the Department of Energy, about 9,100 homes had been weatherized out of a planned 593,000

The pricetag for weatherizing 9,100 homes? Over $57,000 per home.

According to the Home Energy Saver website, sponsored in part by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, the average cost of the top 10 home energy upgrades is just $3,960, a difference of over $46,000 per home.

Part of me doesn't care. According to Keynesian thinking, just spending stimulus money and fast, it doesn't matter how, is key to stoking the economy. But there is part of me which envisions the thousands of additional homes which could have been weatherized had the government been more efficient in its spending.

Stinky Situations--The Corrosive Case Of Waterless Urinals

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:12:06 -0500

I have previously posted about the hazards of ossified building codes when confronted with new green technologies. Waterless urinals appear to showcase this issue dramatically. Last week, Chicago's city government announced that it was ripping out the waterless urinals installed in City Hall.

The problem is that Chicago's building code requires commercial buildings to use copper pipes in indoor plumbing. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specifically states that drainpipes for waterless urinals "cannot be made of copper pipe, which corrodes."

This has led to a stinky situation--"with the corrosion causing urine to build up in the wall behind the men's room."

Building codes are not the only issue which has plagued waterless urinal installation. According to the Philadelphia Business Journal, in Philadelphia's Comcast Center,

Philadelphia's Plumbers Union Local 690 did not want to install the waterless urinals because it would have required the laborers to do less work, according to published reports. As part of the compromise, the two sides have proposed that Liberty and city officials monitor performance of the urinals.

The compromise that was reached was that the Union installed piping in the walls that would allow for conversion to flush urinals if there are problems with the waterless ones.

When new technology meets old infrastructure--be it copper piping or entrenched union interests--the results can be...stinky. In addition to the stench, who pays for removing the urinals and converting to ordinary fixtures? What happens if removing the waterless fixtures makes a building lose its LEED status? Who is at fault for causing the waterless fixtures to fail? The installers? The architect? The owner/user?

The Renewable Energy Tax Code Wilderness--Production, Investment and Grants OH MY!

Shari Shapiro — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:40:32 -0500

I will make an admission. I took tax in law school, and, it was the academic equivalent of having my left arm sawed off without anaesthesia. Why? Mostly because things which should have been clear seemed hopelessly obscure. Now I deal with advising clients on incentives available for sustainable projects, and the tax code and I have had to battle to a stalemate. At least, I battle, and the tax code just sits there impentarably.

One of the features which is particularly difficicult is the relationship between 26 USC 45, which deals with tax credits for producing renewable energy (the "production tax credit" or PTC), 26 USC 48 which deals with tax credits for investing in renewable energy equipement (the "investment tax credit" or ITC) and the Renewable Energy Grant created by the ARRA. All three of these relate to businesses which have installed renewable energy technologies, like solar, wind and geothermal. It should be clear and easy to understand which ones apply to your business and what the incentive will be. As with all things related to the tax code, however, it is not.

I am going to attempt to clear up some of the obscurity, but, as with all information on this blog, it is for informational purposes only, not legal advice; and you should consult your legal and financial advisor to provide you with proper advice for your business.

FEDERAL RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVE CHART
Title	Applies to	Amount of Incentive
Production Tax Credit	Wind Biomass Geothermal Solar Small Irrigation Municipal solid waste Hydropower Marine and Hydrokinetic	1.5 cents per kW of power generated at a qualified facility for the 10 years beginning on the date the facility was placed in service AND sold to an unrelated person during the taxable year
Investment Tax Credit	Solar for heating, cooling, hot water, illumination or solar process heat Fuel cell Microturbine Geothermal Combined heat and power (cogeneration) Small wind Ground water thermal	30% of the cost of the "energy property" for solar and small wind, 10% for geothermal and other renewable sources
Renewable Energy Grant	Applicable property under Section 45 or 48	10% or 30% of the basis of the property, depending on the type of property placed in service during 2009 or 2010 or after 2010 if construction began on the property during 2009 or 2010 and the property is placed in service by a certain date known as the credit termination date

The incentives are mutually exclusive--The PTC and the ITC cannot both be taken, and they can be swapped for the REG, but you cannot take the PTC/ITC and the REG.

In plain english, it appears that the PTC is designed for renewable energy sources where the power is designed to be sold to others as a Renewable Energy Credit, and the ITC is designed for renewable energy sources where the power is used on-site. The Renewable Energy Grant allows companies which have invested in either type of renewable energy capacity to receive cash, as opposed to a tax credit, which is helpful particularly if the company has no tax liability or a tax loss.

There are some resources available to help you sort through this morass. The DSIRE database has quick summaries of available state and federal incentives. The Utah Clean Energy site has a nice summary of the renewable energy features of the ARRA. The DOE site has a useful summary of renewable energy incentives for businesses as well.

Will The Separation Of Powers Kill Climate Change Action? Call In the Green Deal Coalition

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:30:34 -0500

I promised a post on Obama's State of The Union, but in mulling over my response to the speech and several other events which have occurred in the days that followed, I realized that the issue which needs to be addressed is the degree to which the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the government of the United States will serve to delay or derail real regulatory action on climate change (and green building), even where a strong executive seeks to pursue these goals.

The only hope is for Republican and Democratic senators concerned about climate change to form a coalition with the Obama administration. This will require pressure from a new New Deal coalition--a "Green Deal" coalition of citizens, corporations concerned about the impact of climate change on their businesses, unions seeking new clean energy and green construction jobs, minorities seeking access to the middle class and political machines seeking a big win. If these factions can align behind climate change regulation, real legislative progress is possible.

Our government is one of limited, separated powers. The Executive Branch has only three real avenues of power--administrative, diplomatic and rhetorical.

Over the past few months, the Obama administration has been using the administrative tools within the delegation of executive power to boost climate change regulation. On December 7, 2009, The EPA made an endangerment finding with respect to greenhouse gases. On January 7, 2010, the SEC issued guidelines regarding corporate disclosure of climate change risk. On October 5, 2009, Obama issued an Executive Order requiring all federal agencies to assess their environmental impact, and setting aggressive green building requirements for federal facilities, followed on January 29, 2010 with an announcement pledging to reduce the federal government's greenhouse gas pollution by 28 percent by 2020.

Obama also used his diplomatic authority to forge an international accord at Copenhagen, however limited. All 55 countries, responsible for more than two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, submitted plans to curb their impacts as of 1/31/10.

Finally, using his rhetorical power, in Obama's State of The Union, he tied investments in clean energy to economic growth, and encouraged the Senate to pass a clean energy bill:

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

In short, Obama is doing everything within his delegation of authority to enhance climate change regulation. But, at the end of the day, the President cannot make laws. He cannot force corporations or citizens or even states to undertake major changes to their actions which would be necessary to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. He cannot withhold federal funds from states that fail to regulate or curb their own greenhouse gas emissions. Those powers remain exclusively with Congress. Only Congress can cap greenhouse gas emissions. Only Congress can tax greenhouse gas emissions. Only Congress can enact a national enegy efficiency building code, or compel states through withholding funds to update their building codes to promote green building and energy efficient practices.

In a system of separated powers, significant social change requires cooperation among the branches of government. So, with the partisan bickering in Washington and the recent election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, the chances of significant progress on climate change regulation have decreased. Only the Green Deal coalition can save us.

We're Back

Shari Shapiro — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:47:45 -0500

After the birth of my beautiful daughter, Sydney Annabelle, in December, I took a few weeks off. I will briefly recap a few notable green building law stories which arose while I was on leave, and I will pick up with the impact of the State of The Union address on Monday.

The scoops I missed:

ICC announced the International Green Construction Code will be released in March. The
IGCC will then go through another round of review, comments and public hearings in 2011 for the publication for the 2012 ICC Family of Codes. ASHRAE also announced Standard 189 (the ASHRAE code compliant green building standard) is due to come out soon, representing approximately 25% energy savings over ASHRAE 90.1 2007 according to Buildinggreen.com

New York City passed landmark green building legislation

The four major building-related elements of the legislation are: the creation of a citywide energy code; a benchmarking requirement; lighting system upgrades and tenant submetering; and required energy audits and retrocommissioning.

California adopted the nation's first statewide green construction code, but not without controversy. Some environmental groups moved at the last minute to prevent passage because it was not "green" enough.

Hawaii's mandate for solar hot water heaters went into effect.

The White House announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.

Whew! GBLB will be back to its usual twice weekly publishing schedule next week, and thank you for your readership.

A Look Back, A Look Forward and Many Thanks

Shari Shapiro — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:18:50 -0500

As my readers know, GBLB is on Maternity Leave until February 1, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to take a look back at the last year in green building, look forward to the next decade, and give a shout out to a few people and resources that are important to GBLB.

2009 In Green Building Law

What we saw...

Regulatory enhancement at the federal level--Through the Stimulus Bill, Executive Orders, administrative rulemaking and draft Climate Change legislation, the Obama administration and the 2009 Congress took action on green building regulation on the Federal level.

Regulatory degradation at the local level--From New York to London, localities which passed green building regulations have been scaling back their regulatory schemes due to economic distress.

Stimulation from the stimulus, but not as much as promised--Over $1.5 billion has been spent through the ARRA--also known as the stimulus bill--on green projects, but that is far shy of the total allocated funds, and much, much less than non-green spending.

What we didn't see...

More private lawsuits--We didn't really see a bumper crop of private litigation over green building projects. With so many developers, architects, etc. in financial distress, litigation is not high on the list of business expenses--not to mention suing judgment proof entities is a fruitless exercise. As the economy picks up, lawsuits may pick up as well.

2010 In Green Building Law

What we will see...

Conflict over addtional green building regulation and enforcement of existing regulations--as local governments continue to suffer with economic woes, there will be continuing debate over whether green building incentives are affordable, and whether green building mandates are stifiling development.

Potential for national building code regulation--If Climate Change legislation is enacted, it may contain national energy efficiency building code regulation. This will this be game changing for state and local green building regulation--the federal regulations may preempt state and local actions, and will also put new obligations on states and localities to develop and pass energy efficient building codes. Federal legislation on building codes may also open the door for a legal challenge regarding the federal government's authority to regulate this historically state and local area of regulation, especially if there are significant unfunded mandates regarding the development and enforcement of new building codes.

What we might see,..

More lawsuits--If the economy rebounds, and there is more money flowing in lending to real estate, more green buildings will be built, and that will lead to moe contracts, more defaults and more litigation. But that is a maybe for 2010--the credit markets need to loosen considerably before this becomes reality.

International climate change targets--Obama's efforts at Copenhagen to get an international climate change agreement may bring some international requirements into fruition over the next year. These would drive domestic policy changes, and green building policies will undoubtedly be a component of such regulatory schemes.

People We Loved In 2009

The GSA--The people at the General Services Administration were so open, cooperative and helpful in putting together our statistics for the Stimulus posts this year.

Chris Cheatham at Green Building Law Update--We co-authored a chapter on Green Building Litigation together for a new book on Green Building Law.

Professors Rob Fleming and Chris Pastore, co-directors of Philadelphia University’s Engineering and Design Institute, an interdisciplinary research center focusing on green materials, sustainable design and community outreach, and the hosts of a great radio show on sustianability, Ecoman and The Skeptic.

To my friends Scott Edward Anderson, also known as the Green Skeptic, Chris Hill atConstruction Law Musings, Stephen Del Percio at greenbuildingsnyc, Rich Cartlidge at Green Building Envirotrends, Tim Hilll, at VAConstruction Law and Mitch Swann for inspiring great green building law conversations all year long.

Finally, a big shout out to our fabulous green building law blog community members. Thank you for reading, commenting, and nominating us for the ABA Blawg 100.

Wishing you a happy new year and a greener 2010!

The 50% Rule or Why Emails and Statistics Don't Matter

Shari Shapiro — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:02:40 -0500

We have heard a chorus of voices over the past few days raising the moribund concept that climate change is not happening, and is some global liberal conspiracy to devalue oceanfront property in Palm Beach.

At the center of raising the hydrahead of the Palm Beach Conspiracy was the discovery of some emails from the University of East Anglia where climate change scientists were engaging in the age-old academic practice of arguing with one another. For a "pro" climate change perspective, Gawker explains the situation here, for an "anti" climate change perspective, the Weekly Standard provides this analysis.

I was guest lecturing at Princeton a few weeks ago, and I used the opportunity to propogate one of my favorite ideas--I call it the 50% Rule. It can be used to explain the Palm Beach Conspiracy, statistics about climate change, and as a means of deflating your brother-in-law's wild stories about catching a 45 foot trout during holiday meals. Here it goes--when you hear a statistic or a scandal or a wild trout fishing tale, assume the information is off by 50%. One-half. Then determine whether the information still matters. If your brother's trout was only 22.5 feet, not 45, that's still a mighty large fish. Similarly, with climate change, if scientists' statistics about sea level rise or drought are off by 50%, we are still looking at a serious problem. The result? We still need to do something about it.

With respect to the Palm Beach Scandal, Micheal Oppenheimer from Princeton on NPR explained it beautifully. The consensus of hundreds of scientists, using many different methodologies, all in competition with one another have reached a consensus that climate change is real and caused largely by man's actions. Even if 50% of the data is wrong or subject to bias or manipulation, that is still hundreds of the world's best scientists coming to a consensus (which if you have ever had two scientists in a room is a feat in and of itself) coming to the same conclusion.

Finally--here are the choices. Assume climate change is not real, and roll the dice on droughts, wars, starvation, dependence on foreign oil, continued economic stagnation and incalculable human suffering. Assume climate change is real, take action, create new jobs, industry, reduce pollution and human health risks from carbon emissions in general, reduce dependence on foreign fuel regimes and potentially keep polar bears from extinction. Strikes me as not much of a choice.

Green Building Law Blog Chosen For ABA Blawg 100 And Other Amazing Happenings This Week At GBLB

Shari Shapiro — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:01:41 -0500

It has been quite a week over here at GBLB. On Tuesday, GBLB was selected as one of the top 100 best law blogs of 2009 by the American Bar Association Journal. We were thrilled to be honored!

You can vote for GBLB to win the best of the "Practice Specific" blogs here. Voting closes on December 31!

As if Tuesday weren't exciting enough, I also had my second child, Sydney Annabelle Shapiro, weighing in at 6 lbs., 6 oz. at 2:51 p.m. e.s.t. Mom, baby and blog are all doing well. As for dad, we'll have to check back in a little bit.

To the entire GBLB community, thank you for your support and enthusiasm this year, and see you in 2010!

Shari

MSNBC Appearance Discussing Stimulus Money For Green

Shari Shapiro — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:59:01 -0500

Many of my readers have requested a clip of Green Building Law Blog's appearance on MSNBC discussing the amount of stimulus funding going to green projects. The link is below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34016904#34016904

How Green Is Your Stimulus--Year End Check In On Green Spending Under The ARRA

Shari Shapiro — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:25:28 -0500

In July, I wrote an analysis of the “green” spending in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act—ARRA, also known as the “stimulus bill.” I concluded that as of July the spending on green programs accounted for only .28% of the total allocation for those programs in the ARRA-- $33.2 million had been paid out for green stimulus programs, and an additional $307 million in public transit dollars.

So…where are we four months later? More money has been paid out--about $1.5 billion--but it pales in comparison to the $83.8 billion paid out in tax benefits as of 11/06/09, and spending on non-green projects.

Here are the stats in detail:

Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy--Department of Energy

As of 7/17/09 the Department of Energy had paid out $264,457,144. $16,796,000 had been awarded for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, of which $3,189,150 had actually been awarded. BOTTOM LINE IN JULY: $3 million

As of 11/06/09, the Department of Energy had paid out $1,346,197,498. $16,796,000 had been awarded for energy efficiency and renewable energy, of which $10,651,341,856 had actually been awarded, and $347,779,891 paid out. BOTTOM LINE IN NOVEMBER: $347.8 million.

Increase from July: $344.8 million.

High Performance Green Buildings--General Services Administration

As of 7/17/09 overall the GSA has paid out $12,743,040. of available $656,418,268 of which $6,807,468 has been paid out for federal buildings, which includes high performance building projects. According to the GSA, $4,500,000,000 was appropriated by Congress, $318,750,279 obligated to date (contracts awarded) and $230,771 outlayed to date (work completed & paid).

As of 10/06/09 overall the GSA has paid out $333,444,141, of which $67,324,333 been paid out for federal buildings, which includes high performance building projects.

Public Transit--Department of Transportation

As of 7/17/09 the DOT has paid out $773,662,175 of a total available $22,188,399,591. For rail and other transit funding, including Amtrak, obligations of $3,921,784,326.72, outlay of $306,918,718.00 (this includes state block grants). BOTTOM LINE IN JULY: $307 million in public transit funding outlaid as of 7/17/09.

As of 10/30/09 the DOT has paid out $5,551,384,466 out of a total available $30,514,836,708. For rail and other transit funding, including Amtrak, obligations of $7,539,142,781.45, outlay of $824,343,952.21 (this includes state block grants). BOTTOM LINE IN NOVEMBER: $824 million in public transit funding outlaid as of 10/30/09.

Increase from July: $517 million.

Everything the EPA Is Doing--Environmental Protection Agency

As of 7/17/09, EPA has paid out $30,515,805 of the $5,713,481,497 it was allocated. Assuming that all that the EPA does is in some way green related, and this is a big assumption on my part, as much of the EPA funds have been dedicates to water resources and cleanup of hazardous sites, that adds another $30 million. BOTTOM LINE IN JULY: $30 Million

As of 11/06/09, EPA has paid out $365,636,685. Assuming that all that the EPA does is in some way green related, and this is a big assumption on my part, as much of the EPA funds have been dedicates to water resources and cleanup of hazardous sites, that adds another $366 million. BOTTOM LINE IN NOVEMBER: $366 Million

Increase from July: $336 million.

So?

The overall spending—i.e. money that has been paid out for green projects—in the first 10 months of 2009 amounts to over $1.5 billion. This is not nothing, and a vast improvement from the summer. On the other hand, $83.8 billion has been paid out in tax benefits as of 11/06/09, and allocation on highway infrastructure by the Department of Transportation alone was $20.2 billion of which $3.7 billion has been paid out.

**A word about methodology--all of the above statistics were gleaned from Recovery.gov , the Recovery websites of the individual agencies, and my personal agency contacts. For the DOT recovery site, go here. For the GSA recovery site, go here. For the DOE recovery site, go here. For the EPA recovery site, go here. There is a wealth of information available, and I welcome any input or different statistical or mathematical analyses from the Green Building Law Community.**

Shari Shapiro On MSNBC

Shari Shapiro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:49:08 -0500

I know, I said I was going on maternity leave, but before I do so, I will appear on MSNBC tomorrow, November 17, 2009 at 2:30 E.S.T. to discuss green spending through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. My original post on this topic is available here.

Maternity Leave

Shari Shapiro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:09:03 -0500

The time has come where I can no longer sit comfortably at my desk, meaning that Green Building Law Blog is going on maternity leave. I expect to post sporadically over the next couple of weeks until the baby arrives, and be off completely for December and January. Thanks to all my loyal readers and have a very happy holiday season.

All the best,

Shari

Shari Shapiro Appears On Ecoman And The Skeptic

Shari Shapiro — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:29:13 -0500

Professors Rob Fleming and Chris Pastore, co-directors of Philadelphia University’s Engineering and Design Institute, an interdisciplinary research center focusing on green materials, sustainable design and community outreach, host a great radio show on sustianability, Ecoman and The Skeptic. I will appear on today's program at 11 am EST. You can listen to the show here.