Over the past 10 years, US political leaders have played only a minor role in the global carbon offset market, changing their views about climate change and global warming with each new administration. Once a forerunner of the Climate Change Conference held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, the United States failed to stay on the track, allowing the European countries to drive the development of a carbon offset market.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration was involved in the crafting of the Kyoto Protocol, proposing the Joint Implementation Scheme to encourage international partnerships to enable low-cost reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Though the Clinton administration supported the Kyoto Protocol, it was not submitted for ratification after the Republican-led Senate made a statement that it would not ratify any treaty which did not include binding targets for developing nations expecting to be responsible for the majority of emissions in the future.

During the U.S. presidential campaign in 2000, George W. Bush promised to set mandatory targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions but expressed his reservation about participation in the Kyoto Protocol.(Dietrich, 2005) Later as president, he did not introduce domestic CO2 reduction targets. The U.S. also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol discussions, with the Bush administration stating that the Protocol did not impose compliance on the countries responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions globally, and therefore, participation in such treaty could only cause serious harm to the US economy. The Bush administration also emphasized the importance of further scientific research about global warming, and proposed the use of alternative energy sources and “market-based incentives” such as a voluntary approach and energy-efficiency programs to reduce GHG emissions.(Dietrich, 2005)

The Kyoto Protocol required ratification by 50 nations in order for it to be recognized as a major international agreement according to United Nations. After Russia ratified the agreement in 2004, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 without any reliance on US support. The Bush administration stayed isolated from the global debate on climate change throughout its eight-year term, continuing to favor an “aspirational” approach instead of mandatory CO2 caps to combat climate change. (Bohan, 2007).

President Barack Obama has been very outspoken about the importance of US involvement in climate change issues and the development of national regulations to reduce GHG emissions, lower energy consumption and accelerate the adoption of alternative energy technologies. However, Obama was not always supportive of the Kyoto Protocol. In 1998, as an Illinois senator, he voted for the bill condemning the Kyoto treaty and disapproving GHG emissions regulations in the state of Illinois to protect the coal industry, as Dilanian (2008) conveys in his article “Obama shifts stance on environmental issues”. The article states that Obama continued expressing his favoritism towards the coal industry during his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 proclaiming that “there’s always going to be a role for coal” in Illinois. Dilanian (2008) points out that during Obama’s campaign for president, he addressed his opposition towards the bill by saying that the Kyoto treaty did not have “meaningful and achievable emissions targets,” and that he “did not believe that state agencies in Illinois should unilaterally take steps to implement a global policy on their own …”

However, in the U.S. Senate Barack Obama showed his favor towards environmental friendly policies by opposing then-President Bush’s air-pollution proposal for relaxing federal air pollution control restrictions. Although Obama continued sponsoring bills that provided coal subsidies, he shifted towards broader public interest the closer he moved towards the presidential elections.

In October 2007, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan to decrease the US dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming with a national “cap and trade” system across the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including an auction system requiring power companies and other energy-intensive industries to pay for their pollution. He continued to encourage mandatory policies throughout his presidential campaign.

Thanks to growing global awareness of climate change issues and Obama’s emphasis on low carbon economy, the United States now is actively pursuing implementation of enforced reductions for GHG emissions and stronger energy efficiency legislation. As a result, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Waxman-Markey bill (also known as American Clean Energy and Security Act - ACES) as a first step towards a regulated carbon market. The new legislation proposes national energy efficiency targets for residential and commercial buildings as well as a cap-and-trade mechanism mandating a reduction of 2005 emissions levels by 20% by 2020. The cap-and-trade system is set up to regulate carbon allowances and offsets for electric utilities and other energy-intensive industries. The Obama administration has repeatedly promised to pass federal legislation that would limit CO2 emissions in the United States, and continues to pressure the Senate to follow the House’s lead - emphasizing that the Waxman-Markey bill would create jobs, lower the cost of renewable energy and reduce oil dependency. In his speech at the first meeting of the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the United States and China on July 27, President Obama stressed the importance of the cooperation of world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases on climate issues.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This December 2009, the UN and international government officials will meet in Copenhagen (UNFCCC COP15) to discuss the final details of a new climate agreement. The Obama administration plans to be actively involved in the negotiations of a new treaty trying to regain leadership in the international climate debate.  It remains to be seen whether Obama will act upon his words to become national and international leader in the fight against climate change.

The past resistance of the US government to establish national carbon reduction targets and to participate in the Kyoto Protocol has significantly slowed down the development of a carbon market in the United States. The next posting will describe how the carbon market has developed in the US in light of the resistance of the US government.

Reproduced from Renewfund Fri, 06/26/2009 - 15:32 - By Shari Shapiro and Chris Cheatham

Today, the Waxman-Markey bill, otherwise known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is set to be voted on in the House of Representatives. The very fact that the vote is occurring means this bill will pass in the House. This monumental bill would establish a cap-and-trade program to cut global warming pollution. Of course, a cap-and-trade program faces an even more difficult path in the Senate.

So what is a cap-and-trade program exactly?

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.

Companies will be required to purchase the emissions permits from the federal government, which in turn results in a sizeable revenue stream to the federal government. Much of the back room politicking that has occurred over the last few weeks regarding the Waxman-Markey bill has involved how this revenue stream will be allocated to government programs.

In addition to establishing an overall cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, the Waxman-Markey bill contains several provisions which involve green building, and many green building and energy efficiency programs will be funded by the cap-and-trade revenue. Below is a summary of some of the major provisions regarding green building contained in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Section 201: National Energy Efficiency Building Codes

Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey Act calls for the development and adoption by state and local governments of a national energy efficiency code. A summary of the main provisions are as follows:

1. Establishes a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.

2. Sets energy efficiency targets for the national building code: “on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code…effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and…January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.”

3. If consensus based codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under the ACESA, the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.

4. Requires that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and provides for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.

The federalization of building codes has the potential to save consumers large amounts of money on their energy bills by enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings nationwide, as well as addressing the 38 percent of carbon emissions generated by buildings in a comprehensive manner. On the other hand, it represents a major shift in the balance of power over building and land use regulation. Traditionally, building codes, like almost all land use regulation in the United States has been a local (in some cases, state) issue. This makes for a patchwork of different codes across the nation. Indeed, thirteen states have no statewide commercial building codes, and fourteen states have no statewide residential building code.

Proponents of local control of regulatory authority argue that local government can more appropriately respond to local conditions and can experiment more freely with different types of regulations than would be possible at the federal level. On the other hand, federal control of building codes provide uniformity across the country for a problem which does not respect state and local borders, prevents local challenges to individual energy efficiency efforts (like AHRI v. City of Albuquerque) and, given the large number of states which do not have a current building code at all, provides more effective regulation of this important source of carbon emissions.

Section 131, 132: SEED funds

According to analysis completed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

“allocations detailed in Section 782g direct 9.5 percent of allowances in 2012 (and decreasing amounts thereafter) to go into a State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) account to be used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects.”

The allocation of SEED money will be at the discretion of local and state authorities.

One of the programs that can be funded by these allocation are Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Bonds. PACE bonds involve loans to commercial and residential property owners to finance energy retrofits. Through the interest generated on these bonds, a revolving fund is established to allow for even more retrofits to occur. Already, California and Missouri have announced plans to use funding from the Department of Energy State Energy Program to establish PACE bond programs. Look for more states to jump on the PACE bond bandwagon and use cap-and-trade revenue to fund similar programs.

Section 202: REEP Program

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program received billons of dollars. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, the State Energy Program will again receive billions of dollars for more energy efficiency retrofits. From the Pew Center on Climate Change (PDF):

“This section requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to facilitate building retrofit programs for energy efficiency and efficient water use. Funding will be made available through REEP to the State Energy Programs for state and local efforts, including audits, incentives, technical assistance, and training. States are permitted to choose funding mechanisms, with options including credit support, such as interest rate subsidies or credit enhancement, providing initial capital, and allocating funds for utility programs.”

The REEP program has not been created yet so it is unclear what the program will look like. Based on the DOE’s previous support for PACE bond programs when allocating ARRA funds, don’t be surprised to see even more of these programs established through REEP.

Green Act: H.R. 2336-Amendment to Waxman-Markey

On May 7, 2009, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) introduced H.R. 2336, the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 (”GREEN ACT”). According to Perlmutter’s office, “The GREEN Act provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers, who build, buy or remodel their homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and use of alternative energy.”

In essence, the Act:

1. Encourages energy efficiency in HUD housing by offering block grants and credit for energy improvements in the underwriting of mortgages;

2. Provides that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a duty to serve very low, low and moderate income communities while developing underwriting standards to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages;

3. Requires federal banking regulators to establish incentives for the development and maintenance of “green banking centers” for the purpose of providing information to customers seeking information about acquiring green mortgages.

Interestingly, Perlmutter’s GREEN Act passed the full House of Representatives as part of HR 6899, the Comprehensive Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act in September 2008, but the Senate failed to take action on this legislation. The GREEN ACT was added this morning to the manager’s amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill.

Shari Shapiro, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP in Philadelphia. And attorney Chris Cheatham, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate at Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area.

This post originally appeared on their blogs: Shapiro’s Green Building Law and Cheatham’s Green Building Law Update.

Reuters: The Green Building Guide to Waxman-Markey

Fri, 06/26/2009 - 15:32 - kelley@renewfund.com

By Shari Shapiro and Chris Cheatham

Today, the Waxman-Markey bill, otherwise known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is set to be voted on in the House of Representatives. The very fact that the vote is occurring means this bill will pass in the House. This monumental bill would establish a cap-and-trade program to cut global warming pollution. Of course, a cap-and-trade program faces an even more difficult path in the Senate.

So what is a cap-and-trade program exactly?

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.

Companies will be required to purchase the emissions permits from the federal government, which in turn results in a sizeable revenue stream to the federal government. Much of the back room politicking that has occurred over the last few weeks regarding the Waxman-Markey bill has involved how this revenue stream will be allocated to government programs.

In addition to establishing an overall cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, the Waxman-Markey bill contains several provisions which involve green building, and many green building and energy efficiency programs will be funded by the cap-and-trade revenue. Below is a summary of some of the major provisions regarding green building contained in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Section 201: National Energy Efficiency Building Codes

Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey Act calls for the development and adoption by state and local governments of a national energy efficiency code. A summary of the main provisions are as follows:

1. Establishes a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.

2. Sets energy efficiency targets for the national building code: “on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code…effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and…January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.”

3. If consensus based codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under the ACESA, the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.

4. Requires that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and provides for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.

The federalization of building codes has the potential to save consumers large amounts of money on their energy bills by enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings nationwide, as well as addressing the 38 percent of carbon emissions generated by buildings in a comprehensive manner. On the other hand, it represents a major shift in the balance of power over building and land use regulation. Traditionally, building codes, like almost all land use regulation in the United States has been a local (in some cases, state) issue. This makes for a patchwork of different codes across the nation. Indeed, thirteen states have no statewide commercial building codes, and fourteen states have no statewide residential building code.

Proponents of local control of regulatory authority argue that local government can more appropriately respond to local conditions and can experiment more freely with different types of regulations than would be possible at the federal level. On the other hand, federal control of building codes provide uniformity across the country for a problem which does not respect state and local borders, prevents local challenges to individual energy efficiency efforts (like AHRI v. City of Albuquerque) and, given the large number of states which do not have a current building code at all, provides more effective regulation of this important source of carbon emissions.

Section 131, 132: SEED funds

According to analysis completed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

“allocations detailed in Section 782g direct 9.5 percent of allowances in 2012 (and decreasing amounts thereafter) to go into a State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) account to be used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects.”

The allocation of SEED money will be at the discretion of local and state authorities.

One of the programs that can be funded by these allocation are Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Bonds. PACE bonds involve loans to commercial and residential property owners to finance energy retrofits. Through the interest generated on these bonds, a revolving fund is established to allow for even more retrofits to occur. Already, California and Missouri have announced plans to use funding from the Department of Energy State Energy Program to establish PACE bond programs. Look for more states to jump on the PACE bond bandwagon and use cap-and-trade revenue to fund similar programs.

Section 202: REEP Program

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program received billons of dollars. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, the State Energy Program will again receive billions of dollars for more energy efficiency retrofits. From the Pew Center on Climate Change (PDF):

“This section requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to facilitate building retrofit programs for energy efficiency and efficient water use. Funding will be made available through REEP to the State Energy Programs for state and local efforts, including audits, incentives, technical assistance, and training. States are permitted to choose funding mechanisms, with options including credit support, such as interest rate subsidies or credit enhancement, providing initial capital, and allocating funds for utility programs.”

The REEP program has not been created yet so it is unclear what the program will look like. Based on the DOE’s previous support for PACE bond programs when allocating ARRA funds, don’t be surprised to see even more of these programs established through REEP.

Green Act: H.R. 2336-Amendment to Waxman-Markey

On May 7, 2009, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) introduced H.R. 2336, the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 (”GREEN ACT”). According to Perlmutter’s office, “The GREEN Act provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers, who build, buy or remodel their homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and use of alternative energy.”

In essence, the Act:

1. Encourages energy efficiency in HUD housing by offering block grants and credit for energy improvements in the underwriting of mortgages;

2. Provides that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a duty to serve very low, low and moderate income communities while developing underwriting standards to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages;

3. Requires federal banking regulators to establish incentives for the development and maintenance of “green banking centers” for the purpose of providing information to customers seeking information about acquiring green mortgages.

Interestingly, Perlmutter’s GREEN Act passed the full House of Representatives as part of HR 6899, the Comprehensive Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act in September 2008, but the Senate failed to take action on this legislation. The GREEN ACT was added this morning to the manager’s amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill.

Shari Shapiro, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP in Philadelphia. And attorney Chris Cheatham, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate at Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area.

This post originally appeared on their blogs: Shapiro’s Green Building Law and Cheatham’s Green Building Law Update.

Huge potential with existing buildings
Existing regulation leading to emissions reductions through “green” construction techniques usually comes in the form of building codes that reach only new construction and substantial renovations.

Yet the majority of GHG in the built environment come from existing buildings. Current government incentives “are helpful but inadequate because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years,” Simon says.

Domestic green building offsets would allow regulated industries to choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing offsets from others who are able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This would reduce the overall cost of climate change regulation for consumers because the market would exploit the lowest cost GHG reductions.

Green building carbon credits would provide a large funding source that partially finances energy efficiency improvements. Poorer communities would benefit, as credits would fund energy efficient and renewable energy upgrades to existing building stock at a more accelerated rate than building codes currently create.

Making energy upgrades affordable
Moderate House Democrats and Republicans say that under a cap-and-trade program, ordinary people would incur higher energy costs over time because most have not upgraded their homes and small businesses with energy-efficient technologies.

However, by allowing green building offsets into the federal cap-and-trade system, subsidies to poorer communities for increased energy costs would not be necessary. Their buildings would be retrofitted by the private sector using the dollars from green building offsets. Ultimately, these people would consume up to 50 percent less energy, with no net energy cost increase.

I have been away and attended a conference Carbon Expo, the Global Carbon Market, Fair and Conference, May 27th-29th 2009 in Barcelona, the most important conference in the Carbon Calendar and under new market initiatives in the Voluntary and Regulatory market there is now a “Cities & Carbon Finance Stream Workshop”. This shows the force of Cities gearing up to participate in the Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement.  This is unusual as Nation States participate in International Treaties not city states. Climate Change is impacting on global governance issues as all levels of government are involved in Climate Change emissions, reductions, impacts and mitigation. Even a few years ago the role of Cities and local government at international meetings was questioned. Mayor’s of the world are responding spontaneously such that City states are now involved with the lead up meetings like Carbon Expo to Copenhagen for the Post 2012 Agreement. For example in the U.S, I have recently heard that Governor Schwarzenegger of California state may well be present along with Global Presidents and Prime Ministers in Copenhagen.    Eventually organizations on behalf of cities will have to be represented at these Global meetings, as the numbers and levels of government simply become unwieldy.

According to the Carbon Expo program, there is “increased awareness and growing commitment of city decision makers to city climate strategies and implementation of GHG mitigation in policies and measures in both developed and developing country cities. However, currently there is limited access to information, knowledge on technologies and innovative financial solutions are some of the barriers preventing local leaders, entrepreneurs and business groups from seizing an overabundance of low carbon win-win options in urban centers. Hence the Cities stream aimed to facilitate and promote dialogue, knowledge sharing, networking and business communication within relevant stakeholder groups to be a part of an essential measure to foster a transition to low-carbon city development. The streams covered:
- Beyond Carbon Trading - Policies & Measures at the local level for financing low carbon development in cities
- Carbon finance in cities post-2012- Scaling up GHG reductions and enhance urban development co-benefits
- CDM/JI in Cities - What has worked and what has not
- Creating Urban Carbon Assets: From Concepts to action
- Leveraging Greater Energy Efficiency in Buildings with Carbon Finance - How can we make it happen?
- The Role of Carbon Finance in the transport sector in urban areas

U.S Cities are moving fast to catch up with European initiatives and are closer to taking over - they are well  organized and spear-heading major initiatives around GHG reduction at the city level. The San Francisco Carbon Collaborative is part of a broader groundswell of spontaneous activity by the World’s Mayors.The City of San Francisco Urban EcoMap, an Internet-based tool that enables cities around the world to provide smarter climate change information for their citizens. Urban EcoMap provides information on carbon emissions from transportation, energy and waste among neighborhoods, organized by ZIP/ Post codes.

On PBS March 23rd 2009, it was announced that the U.S Conference of Mayor’s established 4 years ago by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels reached the 900-mayor milestone. The 900 mayors represent 80 million Americans, and they illustrate the increasingly prominent role that cities and towns are playing in combating climate change.

According to Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels, “cities cover less than one percent of the earth’s surface, but hold half its population and produce about 80 percent of greenhouse gasses. And cities will have to deal with the effects of climate change, from sea level rise in coastal cities to heat waves, strong storms and other extreme weather”.

Seattle has  aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2024 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The plan includes transportation goals — such as building a light rail system, improving bicycling infrastructure and using more “clean vehicles” in the city’s fleet — and improvements in building energy efficiency.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn on April 26th 2009 announced the world’s most comprehensive package of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing government, commercial, and residential buildings. According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use.

A six-point plan, when enacted as part of PlanNYC, will dramatically reduce the City’s energy usage and save consumers money, while simultaneously creating thousands of well-paying jobs and significantly reducing New York City’s carbon footprint. The six-point plan consists of four pieces of new legislation and two PlaNYC programs that will achieve carbon reductions, train workers for the estimated 19,000 construction jobs that will be created, and help finance energy-saving improvements using $16 million available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The plan will also result in cleaner air, since emissions from boilers, furnaces, and local power plants will also be reduced.

“Today we’re introducing the greener, greater buildings plan, a far-reaching package of new local laws that will dramatically improve New York’s energy efficiency and reduce energy costs by some three-quarters of a billion dollars a year,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “This will significantly improve our economic competitiveness, put thousands of New Yorkers to work in green jobs, and do more to shrink our own direct impact on global warming than any other actions imaginable.”

According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use. Once implemented, the legislation announced today will reduce citywide emissions by 5 percent….

The reductions will be achieved through the six point green buildings plan unveiled today:
* Legislation that creates a New York City Energy Code that existing buildings will have to meet whenever they make renovations;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to conduct an energy audit once every ten years and make any improvements that pay for themselves within five years;
* Legislation that requires commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to upgrade their lighting to more energy-efficient systems that pay for themselves through energy savings;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to make an annual benchmark analysis of energy consumption so building owners can better understand what steps they can take to increase efficiency;
* A jobs program that will work with the real estate and construction industries to train the workforce that will fill the estimated 19,000 construction jobs the legislation will create; and
* An innovative financing program that uses Federal stimulus money to provide loans for property owners to pay the upfront costs for the efficiency upgrades that eventually pay for themselves.