The Waxman and Markey Climate Change bill has to be finalized by 25^th of May on Memorial day 2009. The House is considering climate change legislation authored by a key subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). President Obama has said this is, “a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact”.

The Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft provides for an economy wide cap & trade program: The cap reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Offsets, (project based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets does not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provision for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through allowance set-asides.

Waxman does not yet have support from House Republicans or moderate Democrats like Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who are opposing the bill. Opposition concerns whether to give away or auction the permits to manufacturers, utilities, and other industrial sectors in a U.S Cap and Trade Emissions Trading scheme. The U.S is coming up against the same opposition from industry and parochial interests that the Europeans came up against, when they decided to give away the majority of permits in the early years of the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU-ETS). The U.S was originally highly critical of the Europeans for going down this path.   Al Gore has gone on the front foot calling for unity from the democrats on Climate Change against the resistance of some democrats wanting to protect local industry. Similar to the results of the EU-ETS, we found with the Carbonflow carbon game emission reductions were achieved even with giving away the permits in the first period. So, whatever the House decides on auctioning versus giving away permits that should not block the Draft bill’s passage through the house.

Some believe that Speaker Pelosi will make the House vote on a version of the Markey bill with 254 House Democrats, but important House Democrats like Mr. Dingell may make a similar case as House Republicans, that the bill should be opposed because of the higher energy costs for consumers.

The approach taken by the Waxman-Markey bill does not alleviate the problem whereby household consumers will pay higher energy costs because the regulatory approach to energy efficiency and renewable energy is insufficient. Under the bill energy efficiency and renewable energy is proposed to be achieved through regulation by establishing a renewable electricity standard, a low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances and additionally further standards for vehicles, stationery sources and fuels.

According to  Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, BOMA International, The Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Green Building Council and the California Business Properties Association, regulation does not achieve the result intended as, “Building codes typically affect only new construction, because existing buildings are “grandfathered” and new code requirements apply only to substantial renovations, which is  hugely problematic. Existing buildings account for the vast majority of real estate sector GHG emissions. Government incentives are helpful but inadequate and unreliable because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years”.

Simon goes on to say that, “in the world of Climate Change regulation, there are two major classifications of GHG emission sources - direct and indirect. Direct sources release GHGs directly into the air, like power plants and other smoke stack industries. Indirect sources are activities that consume what the direct sources produce, like buildings that consume electricity produced by power plants. The conventional wisdom among regulators globally is that market-based programs, like cap and trade, should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. This generally forecloses the possibility for green building projects to generate carbon credits, despite their cost-effectiveness. As a result, a valuable incentive for voluntary GHG reductions is lost, the low-hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency in buildings goes unpicked, and industrial (direct) sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing Climate Change and make it less politically feasible to accomplish”.

Not only do, Cap and Trade Green Building carbon credits provide a much larger funding source that could partially finance energy efficiency improvements if buildings are allowed to participate, they also actually benefit poorer communities by upgrading the existing building stock with energy efficient and renewable energy technologies at a much more accelerated rate as the private sector is incentivised from the price of carbon to go out and do projects on a large scale, providing whole districts and building owners with clean technologies funded by the credits. Regulatory approaches just take too long to retrofit the existing building stock and leave people stranded with high energy bills.

House moderate Democrats and Republicans correctly say ordinary people will incur higher costs of energy over-time because most people will not have had their homes and small businesses upgraded with clean technologies and they know the subsidies to poorer communities for energy costs will be short-lived and once removed all Americans will be left with higher energy costs. A householder or small business faced with a doubling of energy costs from USD 100 - USD 200 a quarter would probably just pay as there is not enough incentive to go out and retrofit the house nor do they have the trades expertise to do it.

The better outcome is that Green Building Carbon Credits are allowed and business, construction companies, project developers, engineers, architects do energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects using the funds from the credits and create the Green jobs President Obama is talking about.

In short proposed subsidies to less well off Americans waste money that should be going into making all American homes energy efficient and creating green jobs.

Policy-makers can encourage voluntary reductions by structuring carbon markets in a way that allows parties to convert their GHG reductions into carbon credits that they can sell to regulated sources to offset their emissions. Under the current plan the U.S would be in the anomolous situation of accepting international carbon offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy but not accepting it domestically. This makes no sense. Domestio Green building offsets would allow regulated industries an alternative way to comply with regulatory obligations by letting them choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing Green Building offsets from others who were able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This reduces the overall cost of Climate Change regulation by letting the free market exploit lowest cost GHG reductions.

Green Building carbon credits would be more transparent as they would have to be independently validated and verified, and open to public scrutiny, whereas money going to government agencies for programs may well end up being used on things other than greenhouse gas reductions projects. Even the double-counting issue can be managed as companies like Carbonflow, multi-party software designers for the carbon industry can easily retire end use building credits back to the Cap.

I believe however, if the house was not to get too hung up over auctioning or giving away permits in the first phases and secondly, to introduce Green Building Carbon Credits, it could solve all the problems that beset the Draft Waxman-Markey bill before the House on Memorial Day.

Renewable Energy seems to be one of the big winners in the U.S. Stimulus package. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, an economic stimulus package with tax and spending provisions totaling nearly $800 billion, was signed into law on February 17. The act contains a number of tax provisions that provide significant value to companies and individuals that are focused on producing renewable energy or reducing energy use through efficiency. By extending, modifying and enhancing several renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives, the stimulus package creates many opportunities for taxpayers to get paid for going green according to an article in Greener Buildings.

In Washington, The U.S. Interior Department said it has created a special task force to speed the development of renewable energy projects on federal lands. “More so than ever, with job losses continuing to mount, we need to steer the country onto a new energy path,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The government is on the right path from the point of view of creating employment. According to a study, Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S and Colorado by The American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, Colorado, and published on Climatebiz it found that,

“U.S. RE and EE in 2007, generated $1,045 billion in sales and created over 9 million jobs – including $10.3 billion in sales and over 91,000 jobs in Colorado. The U.S. RE and EE revenues represent substantially more than the combined 2007 sales of the three largest U.S. corporations - WalMart, ExxonMobil, and GM ($905 billion) before the melt-down. RE and EE are growing faster than the U.S. average and contain some of the most rapidly growing industries in the world, such as wind, photo-voltaics, fuel cells, recycling/re-manufacturing, and bio-fuels. The study further noted the importance of policy settings to the industry and said that, with appropriate federal and state government policies, RE and EE could by 2030 generate over 37 million jobs per year in the U.S. – including over 600,000 jobs in Colorado. The study goes onto report that the stronger the policy settings the stronger the job creation potential from RE and EE”.

Mr Salazar has said that, “We will assign a high priority to identifying renewable energy zones and completing the permitting and appropriate environmental review of transmission rights-of-way applications that are necessary to deliver renewable energy generation to consumers. We have to connect the sun of the deserts and the wind of the plains with the places where people live.” Furthermore, “the task force will identify specific zones on public lands where the department can act rapidly to create large-scale production of solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy”.

I have a concern about this approach, which is that although creating large-scale renewable energy projects on government land, maybe more administratively easier, it may lead to local opposition to fields of solar collectors and wind farms. I think the application of this policy should be integrated into communities in a more subtle way.

I have suggested that rather than create renewable energy parks, the better concept is take an integrated approach and create entirely sustainable communities, which I described on this blog - “Convert the suburbs to Sustainable Communities and Bank the Credits”  - In this post I was also suggesting that energy efficiency, sustainable water and waste management be included in the mix of energy solutions such that whole communities could become entirely sustainable. Put another way it involves a move away from the monoculture approach to development and requires the adoption of strategies that mimic nature, based on bio-diversity.

On another blog on Multiple Crises, which concerns sustainable agriculture, I have drawn on the work of Dr Lietaer who takes up the notion of bio-diversity for the banking system. I am applying it to renewable energy systems and I believe that that the more diverse the renewable energy systems are the more resilient the community will be.

The conceptual breakthrough, which applies to all systems whether they be energy, financial or agricultural systems identified by Bernard Lietaer and his colleagues, “takes its evidence from balanced, structurally sound, and highly functioning eco-systems is that that all complex systems, including our energy, monetary and financial ones, become structurally unstable whenever efficiency is overemphasized at the expense of diversity, inter-connectivity and the crucial resilience they provide. The surprising systemic ‘a-ha’ insight is that sustainable vitality involves diversifying systems”.

The interior department is in a good position to do this as it manages one-fifth of the U.S. landmass and over 1.7 billion offshore acres. It needs to create diversity at the core of the sustainable communities it wishes to create and not make the same mistakes with the new renewable energy solutions that we made with the old ones.

California’s Green Building Regulations, take effect on  July 1, 2009. The Green Building Regulations require a 15% reduction in overall energy use, which is equivalent to achieving the LEED® silver rating for new construction, below gold and platinum standards. The Green Building Regulations only set a floor, not a ceiling, and do not prevent municipalities, such as cities and counties, from enacting more stringent standards than the state or in my opinion would not prevent allowing more aggressive offsets to be undertaken within a U.S. Cap and Trade system. This would give financial incentives in the form of carbon credits for larger reductions than the baseline Green Building Regulations as the cost increases with greater reductions, the first reductions are often the easy things to do like changing light bulbs.

Aris Evia, LEED® AP and David Heckadon, LEED® AP of Gordon and Rees based in San Francisco are very active in the Advocacy for Green Buildings

The State of California Building Standards Commission (”Commission”) adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (”Green Building Regulations“) to apply to all new construction statewide. Prior to California’s adoption of its Green Building Regulations, the standard for green and sustainable buildings in California and across the nation was and is still set by the U.S. Green Building Council (”USGBC”) through its Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (”LEED®”) levels of building certification. According to the USGBC, buildings nationwide account for 70% of electricity consumption, 39% of energy usage, 12% of potable water consumption, 40% of raw materials usage, 30% of waste output and produce 39% of associated greenhouse gases (”GHGs”) like chlorofluorocarbons (”CFCs”), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (”HCFCs”), and carbon dioxide (”CO2″).

The LEED® standards for rating new construction, existing buildings and commercial interiors are, from highest to lowest: platinum, gold, silver and certified. The LEED® rating system is based on the achievement of a certain number of credits, or points, towards LEED® certification: the higher the points, the more prestigious the rating. California’s Green Building Regulations are the approximate equivalent of achieving LEED® silver rating for new construction. The LEED® ratings will still remain the most applicable standard for nationwide market transformation in construction of both office buildings and homes, because they encourage and accelerate global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria. However, California’s Green Building Regulations are just another example of California leading the charge on green and sustainable construction.

California’s Green Building Regulations are an important piece of the state’s ambitious goal to reduce the state’s CFCs, HCFCs, CO2 and other GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 as required by Assembly Bill (”AB”) 32, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, authored by then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D - Los Angeles). Last October 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1058, authored by Assembly Members John Laird (D - Santa Cruz / Monterey) and Ted Lieu (D - El Segundo), which would have established green building construction best practices and made them an official statutory part of the California Public Resources Code.

The Governor’s veto message to the Legislature stated that he supports green construction standards and shares the goals of AB 1058, but believes that building standards should not be in the state’s statutes, but instead set by the Commission, presumably because the Governor desires a more phased approach to green building regulation and to inject more public participation into the lawmaking process.

California’s Green Building Regulations, which are 60 pages long, do not take effect until July 1, 2009. These standards will remain voluntary until the Commission completes its work on mandatory regulations which it hopes to have in place by late 2010 and early 2011. The highlights of the Green Building Regulations are set forth in the following goals:

• 15% reduction in overall energy use for all new construction by employing such strategies as solar energy, Energy Star-certified appliances, highly-reflective roofs, and elevators and escalators that move only when passengers are present;
• 20% reduction in water use for all new construction through low-flow toilets, waterless urinals and dual plumbing for potable and graywater;
• 50% reduction in water use for landscaping by utilizing such approaches as native plants, drip irrigation systems, and bioswales; and
• Use of environmentally sensitive materials like eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, acoustical wall and ceiling panels, and other recycled building materials.

The Green Building Regulations also identify various site improvements, i.e., parking for hybrid vehicles and improved and comprehensive storm water plans. Importantly, the Green Building Regulations do not specify how to make the reductions, but instead, suggest a variety of green and sustainable construction practices. In practice, a LEED® Accredited Professional (”AP”) may be in the best position to advise construction companies as to green and sustainable construction practices, because a LEED® AP has demonstrated a thorough understanding of green building practices and principles and is a building professional with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward the LEED® certification process.

The Green Building Regulations only set a floor, not a ceiling, and do not prevent municipalities, such as cities and counties, from enacting more stringent standards than the state. For example, San Francisco’s recent Green Building Ordinance is the approximate equivalent of achieving LEED® gold certification. Also, in April 2008, the City of Los Angeles became the largest U.S. city to enact mandatory green building standards for private development. The City of Los Angeles’ mandatory green building standards program applies generally to new development and remodels of non-residential development over 50,000 square feet, or 50 residential units, and requires compliance with the criteria for a LEED® Certified rating.

The most common argument against green and sustainable building practices are the upfront costs of implementing such measures and using such materials. However, supporters of green building respond that although a building may cost more to build on the front end, the sustainable building will perform better, i.e., consume less energy, be more water-use efficient, etc., thus leading to a greater return on investment (”ROI”) and a higher net operating income (”NOI”) associated with the building.

Another major issue with green building initiatives is that they inject yet another layer of risk into construction projects, and raise new issues for developers, builders, and design professionals. Perhaps the most obvious and immediate issue is whether California’s Green Building Regulations will elevate the standard of care for an architect or an engineer. A corollary of this issue is whether developers, builders and design professionals will expose themselves to more risk when they promise to deliver high-performance green buildings. From a contractual point of view, developers, builders and design professionals are now faced with the issue of whether to include and incorporate language into their contracts to require them to design and construct a sustainable building. Indeed, although green and sustainable building practices are an easy rallying point and have made important strides in recent times, the green building movement has raised the stakes and created new and still developing issues that the construction and real estate industries must now face.

The Australian ETS and U.S. Cap and Trade should include soil carbon and energy efficiency offsets

In Australia, Malcolm Turnbull announced the Opposition Government’s Green Carbon Initiative on Saturday 24^th of January at the young Liberals Convention in Canberra.The Turnbull plan for combating climate change is basically a two pronged approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Firstly it involves “a comprehensive bio-carbon strategy investing in the health of our landscape, restoring soil carbon by reversing over-grazing and excessive tillage, embedding CO2 in bio-char (charcoal fertilizer), tree planting, and re-vegetation” and the second prong is to “dramatically increase energy efficiency, especially in buildings”. This plan has the support of globally renowned Scientist Tim Flannery on the use of soil carbon as a major way to draw down existing carbon from the atmosphere.

(more…)

At a press conference Friday January 16th, President-elect Barack Obama, said he was pleased, “that Congress “has moved quickly to consider his plan”, which “stresses the urgency of a renewable-energy economy”, a key measure that he believes will drive the stimulus package.

The Senate handed Obama a big political victory on Thursday 15th of January by voting to release the second half of the $700 billion bailout package. The Senate voted 52-42 against a resolution that would have barred Obama from using the roughly $350 billion remaining in the program. Obama has called on Congress to take “dramatic action” on his economic aid package as soon as possible, warning that a failure to do so would have devastating long-term consequences for the nation”.

His plan involves creating jobs in the green energy sector as a key part of his platform to jump-start the economy. He talked of companies hiring staff during the melt-down in the wind and solar industry. This was not picked up in the transcripts but I heard him stress, the importance of the private sector creating jobs in green businesses and noted that this sector is growing, whilst jobs are declining in just about all other sectors. He also indicated that government can only do so much and the private sector, the clean tech sector needed to move into the vacuum created by the melt-down.

Obama said, “we’re looking to create good jobs that pay well and can’t be shipped overseas. Jobs that don’t just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to be on the cutting edge in the long term”.  Obama plans to “double the production of alternative energy within three years improve the efficiency of federal buildings and homes”.

It was mentioned only briefly but the green jobs agenda serves many political objectives from reducing dependence on foreign oil, to bailing out the economy and simultaneously reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. We will see what how congress reacts to the plan.

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama and his campaign team, excellent job! Now, we need to look at the team going forward. Who will be in his line-up is of great interest.

Jim Wolfensohn, ex-director of the World Bank, made a comment yesterday that the most important thing, President Elect, Barack Obama needed to do was to appoint a b-partisan and seriously competent team to deal with energy security, climate change and the economy. The cabinet position of Secretary of Energy is to my mind the most important responsibility in the cabinet as it impacts on policy in all three areas.

Barack Obama as he said he would do is reaching across the aisle to the Republicans on Energy, a wise move and two possible names are of interest for Secretary of Energy, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and adviser James Woolsey to the McCain Campaign.

Governor Schwarzenegger passed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and his comments a month ago, “We’re sending a strong message to our federal governments that states and provinces are moving forward in the absence of federal action, and we’re setting the stage for national programs that are just as aggressive”, signals perhaps the extent of this bi-partisan approach that was being hatched behind the scenes.(www.ghgblog.com)

If Arnold Schwarzenegger was appointed, the WCI would most likely influence the blueprint for Federal action on a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme. However, during the campaign a bidding war emerged on US Climate Change legislation such that the Democrats and Republican positions were far stronger than any legislation in the world including California and Europe. If either campaign position was adopted the US would truly be leading the world in the post 2012 Kyoto world.

If James Woolsey, was appointed the Republican position on the proposed US Cap and Trade legislation could become the new democratic position, which is a very acceptable position with a Cap of 60% on greenhouse gases. The Woolsey plan anticipated getting legislation through the Senate, taking account of influential Republican coal states like Virginia and includes initiatives to appease coal -fired power generation by way of allowing more carbon capture, nuclear energy and 15% domestic offsets, which would mean energy efficiency was included and an allowance for agricultural offsets to create jobs in rural farming.

The Woolsey position was very practical as it allowed for gradual staging of the auctioning of permits.Either way both Republicans, Arnold Schwarzenegger or James Woolsey would be very interesting candidates to the position of Secretary of Energy.

Other names for Secretary of Energy include lobbyist Philip Sharp, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana and Senator Jeff Bingaman, the current chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Further names include: Jason Grumet, Elgie Holstein, Robert, Sussman, Todd Atkinson and Heather Zichai.

See the Hill at www.thehill.com