Testimony on Bill 17-06, Buildings – Energy Efficiency and Environmental Design
County Council – June 20, 2006
Energy efficient and environmentally benign building design is an idea whose time has finally come. U.S. Energy Information Administration statistics show buildings and their industry-produced building materials as the largest energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting sector, responsible for a whopping 48% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions annually. Some Council members heard Al Gore speak on June 15, and you recognize our need to act quickly on many fronts to avoid global catastrophe.
On June 5, the U.S. Conference of Mayors voted to work toward making U.S. buildings carbon-neutral by 2030. They called for immediate steps to cut fossil fuel demand for new buildings by 50% each 5 years. The American Institute of Architects, now partnering with the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Programs, is telling architects that building energy consumption can be reduced by 50% to 80% through design changes at little or no additional cost. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has published a guide for constructing green homes. The NAHB's National Green Building Conference and the USGBC's International Green Building Conference and Exposition attract mainstream home builders. We’re seeing more and more conferences offered by local and regional green building programs, and architecture schools are expanding their offerings to address growing demand for sustainable design courses.
My point is that since Nov 13, 2003, when the Council’s T&E Committee was briefed by reps of the Maryland Green Building Program and the Montgomery County Department of Public Works on the benefits of green buildings, building green has become both recognizably more urgent and more main stream.
The Sierra Club commends Council President Leventhal for putting forward a bill so the discussion of green buildings in Montgomery County can advance. We strongly feel, however, that given the seriousness of the situation and the fact that building green is no longer such a stretch, we can and should take a larger step than this bill provides.
1. If Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City can require at least a Silver rating for new buildings, we can certainly require not 20 points, but the 26 necessary for the minimum LEED certification. Incentives might then be used initially to move builders toward the Silver standard, and later toward the Gold standard.
2. Since we want to be sure that energy efficiency is addressed, it would be advisable to include an energy prerequisite as the LEED rating system does, e.g., ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004. Otherwise the point requirements might be nearly all met using location and features already required under other regulations. Maryland energy code requirements do not produce the energy efficiency that we need.
3. It was disappointing to see county buildings tucked in there with this very low standard. I thought you had already agreed that any new county buildings would meet basic LEED standard at least, and possibly the Silver standard. County buildings should set the standard and raise the bar. Make them Silver at least.
4. It is hard to believe that after Clarksburg, legislation would leave compliance up to the builder, without inspection. We insist that DPS have staff trained and dedicated to audit projects and certify completion according to the approved green plan.
5. We urge a bonding requirement sufficient to discourage changes of mind mid-construction.
6. Builders may protest that green elements add enormous cost to a project. According to a report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force dated October 2003, a trend of declining costs associated with increased experience in green building construction has been experienced in Pennsylvania, Portland, and Seattle. In Seattle, the premium to construct LEED Silver buildings dropped from 3-4% initially to 1-2%. The premium for LEED Gold buildings was found to be less even than Silver!
Information from this same report can be found in Appendix A of the MNCPPC memorandum dated January 9, 2004, Private Sector Incentives for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Mark Pfefferle’s memo offers an explanation for the small additional cost to go green, at least as far as energy efficiency is concerned: double pane, gas-filled, coated windows may be more expensive than standard windows, but then the heating and cooling equipment can be downsized for cost savings, and the radiators or convectors under the windows can be eliminated, opening up additional floor space for other use. Natural daylighting can be increased since the windows won’t get as hot, which means less electric lighting is needed. Proper site orientation may cost nothing at all.
7. Green design must be required from the very earliest concept of the project, since it will involve site design as well as building design. Comprehensive early planning is key also to keeping costs down.
8. I see no incentives in this program for builders, just for owners of buildings, who may be eligible for energy tax rebates if they go on to purchase renewable energy. We suggest considering expedited review or other incentives (NOT density bonuses) for achieving the Silver standard or higher within three years of the effective date, assuming the LEED energy prerequisites mentioned previously are included. After three years, the bar could be raised to incentives for reaching Gold and above.
9. Finally, considering the American mania for renovation, requiring energy efficiency and other environmentally beneficial elements in major renovations presents an enormous opportunity that we should explore.
The message in everything I have read about green buildings is that a builder’s best interest lies in greening his design model now, before history passes him by. Once changed, the model will only get easier and less expensive as he becomes more proficient. After all, in earlier times, buildings did not have plumbing, electricity, or heating or cooling systems. Builders adapted to the new reality that buildings must have running water, lights, and climate control. It is time to adapt again. Putting requirements into code has the advantage of leveling the playing field among builders.
My web research found a 2004 listing of Platinum and Gold LEED certified buildings: 14 Platinum, 89 Gold. And lest one think these are all in California, Oregon, or Massachusetts, the list includes buildings in Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and others.
You are working hard to overcome perceived inertia. But this ball is already rolling! Please give it the strong push our global situation--and Montgomery County’s role as an environmental leader--requires.
We look forward to working with you further on this initiative in connection with the Sierra Club’s nationally launched “Cool Cities” campaign, which promotes and builds on Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ “U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.” The campaign urges energy efficiency in buildings, greening the fleet, and switching to renewable energy as ways to achieve the climate protection goal.
Anne Ambler, Chair
Sierra Club, Montgomery County Group