Design, Economy, Energy, International, New York, Passivhaus

Net Zero Crosses The Pond

May 16, 2012 | By Russell Unger | 2 Comments »

You might have heard wild-eyed sounding rumors in the past about the European Union legislating net zero buildings. Those weren’t rumors.

A few years ago, the EU parliament required all new buildings to be “nearly net zero” (being defined by each state) starting in 2019. Existing ones that undergo major renovations will have to hit energy performance targets set by the member states. In the UK, new homes need to hit that target even sooner – they need to be carbon neutral by 2016.

Now California (any surprise?) has established a net zero beachhead in North America. Under an executive order issued by Governor Brown on April 25^th, by 2020 half of new State buildings and major renovations will be net zero and the all by 2025.

If you’re wondering how they are going to design these buildings, one could look to the net zero projects on the drawing boards in New York City: P.S. 62 on Staten Island (starting this year), Solar 2, and Cornell’s Roosevelt Island campus. And if they can do it, perhaps it’s time that we follow California and the EU’s lead?

That would be a bad idea. The first part of net zero – extraordinary load reduction – is something that all new buildings could and should achieve. We’re seeing it with these projects and we’re seeing it with Passive House. But the second part – generating solar electricity onsite – just isn’t possible for many buildings in New York. It’s no coincidence that all three New York net zero projects have large roof to square footage ratios, and are also in open areas of the city without neighboring buildings to shade their roofs.  A high-rise just doesn’t have enough roof area for PVs to generate its own energy and the only way they could meet a net zero mandate would be to purchase expensive renewable energy credits. According to our research director, Richard Leigh, “for almost any commercial or residential use, even with efficient lighting and appliances, the solar resource to get above three stories and meet net loads with on-site collectors just isn’t there, even out in the open countryside.”

So let’s build super energy-efficient buildings and install whatever onsite renewables we can. But as we look towards the next generation of green buildings, let’s remember that while net zero can be done for low-rises it doesn’t work for high-rises.

Construction, Design, Energy, New York, Planning

Zoning Goes Green

May 1, 2012 | By Howard Slatkin | 2 Comments »

Any building in New York City should be allowed to generate solar energy on its rooftop. Buildings should be rewarded, not penalized, for adding insulation to reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. It’s a great addition to the urban landscape when green roofs and urban farms sprout on top of our buildings.

No-brainers, right? Well, until yesterday, New York City’s zoning inadvertently discouraged or prevented all these green building strategies. But now, our zoning has gone green.

At the Department of City Planning, we learned from building owners, developers, architects, and engineers that zoning regulations written in the mid-20^th century were preventing our buildings from joining us in the 21^st century. Buildings could add air conditioning equipment on their rooftops, but not photovoltaic panels to generate clean, renewable energy, or the planting bed for a green roof. An old-fashioned awning could be used to shade a window, but modern sun control devices couldn’t hang over a yard. Adding continuous external insulation to dramatically improve energy efficiency could push a building over limits on floor area.

So the Department, under the leadership of Commissioner Amanda Burden, embarked upon the most comprehensive effort in any U.S. city to sweep aside zoning impediments to green buildings. The product of this effort, the Zone Green text amendment, was approved yesterday by the City Council. Developers and building owners now have more choices for the investments they can make to save energy, save money and improve the quality of our environment.

Before Zone Green, developers were confronted with a tradeoff between thicker, energy-efficient walls and usable interior space, because floor area was always measured to the outer edge of the exterior wall. Now, new buildings that exceed the requirements of the New York City Energy Conservation Code can deduct a portion of the thickness of exterior walls from floor area, leveling the playing field for highly energy-efficient construction.

The zoning changes promote not only new green buildings, but also retrofits of existing buildings. Existing buildings can add up to eight inches of wall thickness for the purposes of external insulation, without violating limitations on floor area or requirements for yards or other open areas. Features like solar panels, recreational decks, and sun control devices can be added to new or existing buildings. Complete information about the zoning changes is available on DCP’s website.

Additional legislation at the City and State level will extend the reach and effectiveness of Zone Green. On Monday, the Council also approved legislation enabling sun control devices to project over streets and sidewalks to the same 2-foot-6-inch dimension permitted for these devices within the property line under the zoning. In addition, the State Senate has approved legislation that would modify the Multiple Dwelling Law to enable pre-1961 buildings to make use of the external insulation allowances of Zone Green, and a companion bill has been introduced in the Assembly.

Thanks are due to Urban Green Council and members of the Green Codes Task Force, whose expertise and support have been indispensable to the Zone Green project from its early development through public review. This collaborative effort will yield benefits for years to come, helping make New York a greener, healthier city.

For more details on Zone Green, hear Howard Slatkin speak on June 12th.

Economy, Education, Food, Global Climate Crisis, Lifestyle

The City as an Ecosystem

April 30, 2012 | By Tom Jost | Make a Comment »

Given the stark reality that we are now in a time of deficit spending of the earth’s capital, it is imperative that we regard our economic systems as inextricably bound to ecosystems. The two words, ecology and economy— in fact, are derived from the same Greek root: eco, which means house.  Food systems are a primary example of the interaction of the two disciplines, and a closer look at food through the dual lenses of ecology and economy reveals many startling inefficiencies and even absurdities in how we currently grow, produce, distribute, consume and dispose of food.

Studying the lessons of wild ecosystems provides some valuable direction for redesigning efficient and non-depleting methods and practices for feeding humans.  As clever as we are, we have not yet developed technological processes that are better than nature for renewability.  All human-designed products and processes require a draw-down of the earth’s capital stock.  Wild ecosystems, in contrast, build organic material and resist stresses, performing this work on contemporary sunlight (as opposed to that embodied in fossil fuels) indefinitely and for free.

We have millennia of wisdom – embodied in wild ecosystems and human thought and experimentation – from which to learn.  To cite just one example, the practice of milpa agriculture in Mesoamerica has evolved over hundreds of generations into a mutually beneficial network whereby farmers temporally and spatially shift the growth of maize to feed local populations while sequentially regenerating small forest areas.

In our rapidly urbanizing world, can we design cities that more closely emulate dynamic and productive ecosystems like the milpa?  Perhaps agriculture, reinvented as a form of urban infrastructure, could offer such promise, particularly if combined with the multiple synergies of food production, biomass creation, CO² reduction and sequestration, nutrient recycling, resource renewal and purification, economic revitalization and social vitality.

Author Carolyn Steel will kick-off a day of discussions about these issues at Transforming Cities: How Food Systems Shape Cities on May 2 by explaining her concept of Sitopia (food-place), an integrated design tool with which to address the complex challenges of present and future dwelling. We hope you will join us.

Buildings & Neighborhoods, Energy, Global Climate Crisis, New York

O&M Key to City’s CO2 Reductions

April 25, 2012 | By Tiffany Broyles Yost | Make a Comment »

How is the City of New York going to reduce its carbon emissions 30% by 2017 (30×17)?  Ariella Maron and the NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services Energy Management (DCAS DEM) believe one key to significant reductions is improved operations and maintenance. Maron, Deputy Commissioner for DCAS Energy Management argues, “O&M practices are the day-to-day, low-cost yet high-impact activities that building operators can do to keep our facilities running effectively and efficiently.”

New York City owns over 4,000 buildings, from schools and fire stations to government offices, making them one of the largest owners in the city.  And those buildings are responsible for a whopping 64% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released by the city.  New York City estimates it will need to reduce GHG emissions by 1.05 million metric tons per year to meet its 30×17 goal and that existing buildings will be the source of 57% of those reductions–substantially more than any other source.  To meet the 30×17 goal outlined in PlaNYC, DEM has laid out an ambitious Operations & Maintenance (O&M) plan.

The plan is based on lessons learned from a yearlong O&M pilot program that resulted in a 17% drop in energy use, at no cost. At least not any operational costs because the pilot focused on helping operators, managers, and building occupants improve performance by measuring energy use, developing equipment maintenance checklists, encouraging conservation, and refining best practices.

DCAS DEM’s Energy Efficiency Operations and Maintenance Plan (EEOMP) is divided into three sections:

• Repairing, maintaining, and operating existing equipment efficiently;
• Increasing training and outreach to improve skills and raise awareness;
• Providing management oversight, accountability, and transparency.

Through the implementation of the EEOMP alone, New York City expects to reduce energy use 10 to 15% annually, saving $51 million and 185,000 metric tons of GHG emissions.

This is both impressive and important. While we are all aware of the importance of greening our existing building stock, the focus often tends to be on building retrofits and infrastructure changes. Of the available real estate that will exist in 2030, 80% of it already exists today. The growth of certifications like LEED for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance indicates a shift in the thinking, which is positive.  Retrofits can be a major source of energy savings (NYC estimates 45% of its goal) but are not the only significant one.  Energy retrofits can be cost effective with a short return on investment but they are rarely free and can pose a challenge for smaller buildings.

Changes in operations and maintenance are easily applicable and scalable for multiple building sizes and typologies, assuming you know what changes to make.

Fortunately, DEM is sharing their plan, and Maron will be speaking about the challenges DCAS faced and strategies they developed to overcome them at Urban Green’s upcoming training, the Building Blocks of Sustainable Ops.  In addition, experts from Hines, Jonathan Rose Companies, and Jones Lang LaSalle will also be there to share strategies used in the private sector.

From her experience with city agencies, Maron notes engaging the operators and engineers working within the buildings is critical to the success of any program.  “These are the guys doing the work,” so she says their experience and opinions are invaluable.

Construction, Education, GPRO

GPRO defines “Green Jobs”

April 13, 2012 | By Anjuli Munjal | Make a Comment »

As the Training Manager for a pre-apprenticeship training program at Nontraditional Employment for Women, I am always looking for pathways to green jobs.  But, multiple years after we first heard the term, “green job” continues to be an enigma.  Does a green job have to be new? Does it have to be funded by stimulus money? Are all jobs that work with landscaping green? While the phrase has created a great deal of enthusiasm, it can definitely use a healthy dose of clarity and approachability.

At last week’s Good Jobs Green Jobs conference in Philadelphia, Ellen Honigstock of Urban Green Council helped provide this clarity by facilitating a panel discussion with leaders and instructors from three New York City building trade unions.

Ellen introduced the panelists as “the GPRO Dream Team.”  Their organizations, along with other knowledgeable trade professionals, helped develop the curriculum and classroom materials for GPRO, Urban Green Council’s national green building program. By contributing to GPRO, unions are demonstrating leadership in the green building industry– and making buildings more sustainable by training their members.

The panelists, each representing a different trade, spoke about their union’s integration of sustainability training and how it applies to their members’ jobs. Bob Muldoon, Director of the Green Building Initiative for the Local 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Fund, explained the 1000 Green Supers program, in which over 1,500 NYC building supervisors participated in training about efficient building operations. John Sullivan, of U.A. Plumbers Local 1, brought up the valuable point that the plumbers’ curriculum has always taken efficiency and sanitation into consideration, which are some of the key areas of focus for efficient water systems in green buildings. He explained that Local 1’s apprenticeship program offers training for jobs in solar thermal systems and stormwater management and prepares their plumbers to keep up with market demand. Michael Yee, Director of the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund at Local 3 Electricians, mentioned that Local 3 provides classes for their electricians in renewable energy, such as solar panel installation and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). He also outlined plans for a LEED- certified training center that will break ground within the year.   Howard Styles, Training Director of the IUOE NYC Local 94 Union of Operating Engineers, was unable to attend the panel but Ellen presented some of the green courses they are currently offering.

These plumbers, electricians, and building supers are some of the building trades that have incorporated GPRO into their curriculum.  Each panelist reported a similar goal for their training program, which is to ensure that green work practices and concepts are covered before their members move on to more complex coursework.  GPRO’s prerequisite course, Fundamentals of Building Green, teaches basic knowledge about sustainability and green building systems, while the higher level trade-specific GPRO courses focus on green practices critical to each trade. The GPRO curriculum stresses the “whole building approach,” making the material relevant to anyone working in the building trades. GPRO also prepares experienced tradespeople to take advanced green training courses in a variety of specialties including Solar PV and Solar Thermal Installation, Building Operator Certification (BOC), or BPI Energy Efficient Building Operator Certification.

John Sullivan pointed out that plumbers trained in solar thermal panel installation have more background and experience to do a quality job because of their foundation, safety perspective and troubleshooting experience than someone trained only in the installation itself.  So, if you are looking for green jobs that will become a career, you may not need to look any further than the established union apprenticeship training programs in New York.

Using the GPRO curriculum as a baseline for working within green buildings is helping to provide more definition to the term “green job.” A green job is not what the work is, but how you do it. Plumbing and electrical work and facilities maintenance are all green jobs, when the approach is responsible in terms of resource use and efficient operations.

GPRO, New York, People, Research, The EBie Awards

Thank You, Spring Interns!

April 11, 2012 | By Erin Johnson | Make a Comment »

Urban Green Council relies on our interns to help coordinate our monthly educational programs and special events, assist with research and  fundraising, and work on developing our national certificate program GPRO. The Summer 2012 Internship season is upon us, and we wanted to take this opportunity to introduce you to our spring interns and thank them for their incredible work over the past several months.

JENELLE HOFFMAN (LinkedIn)
[EBies Intern] A California native, studying Sustainability Management as a Graduate Student at Columbia University.
I loved working this semester as the EBies Intern for this new and exciting competition!  I learned a lot about how sustainability initiatives can be implemented into existing buildings in order to improve our global carbon footprint.  One of the greatest perks of being an intern is being able to go to all the events and presentations by some of NYCs most forward thinking revolutionaries in the sustainable building sphere.  When I graduate from Columbia in December, I hope to find a job as a Sustainability Consultant either here in NY, or back home in San Francisco.

JAMIE KLEINBERG
[Research Intern] Recent graduate from Tufts University with a Bachelors of Science in Chemical Engineering.
As an intern at Urban Green Council, I’ve had the chance to learn about all of the amazing strides that New York City leaders have taken to create a sustainable urban environment. There have been so many opportunities to attend courses and events, with great speakers at the forefronts of their fields. My favorite part about working here has been all of the laughs, advice, and life-talks with the other interns and the rest of my coworkers. After this internship, I hope pursue a career in sustainable development, chemical engineering, or some fusion of the two!

ANDY LETWIN (LinkedIn)
[Programs Intern] B.A. Political Science from Skidmore College, focus on environmental studies and sustainable development.
As someone who is passionate about green buildings and sustainable development, my favorite aspect of this internship has been the networking opportunities. I have met so many wonderful people in a variety of fields. I have also enjoyed working with my great co-workers over the course of my time here.

With the internship winding down, I am shipping off to Vietnam for four months where I plan to teach English and travel. Upon my return, I hope to find full-time employment in the sustainability field!

HANAA ROHMAN
[GPRO Intern] A recent graduate of Princeton University with a degree in architecture and certificate in urban studies.
I’ve met and worked with a lot of amazing people during my time at Urban Green Council. This is what I value the most, as many of the issues we’re confronting could not be tackled without the passion and dedication of those involved. Among my favorite moments were interacting with industry professionals at our GPRO courses and attending many of Urban Green’s programs—both of which left me constantly thinking of the interactions between environment and design, especially in the context of the city. I’m very excited about all of the inspiring discussions I’ve had here and hope to continue developing these ideas in graduate school, where I’ll be pursuing a Master’s in Architecture.

CHARLOTTE STANLEY
[GPRO Intern] A California native and UCLA graduate with a BS in environmental science and environmental engineering.
I’ve had a great experience interning at Urban Green Council these past few months. I’ve learned a lot about green building practices from working on the GPRO Fundamentals and Electrical Systems curriculums. The best part of the internship was attending the Urban Green Council events (and eating the delicious food at those events!) with my coworkers. While I don’t know where my next move will take me, I know I’ll welcome any opportunities to show my commitment to a more sustainable future.

Education, LEED

Regional Priorities for LEED 2012

April 10, 2012 | By Tiffany Broyles Yost | Make a Comment »

In February, the Urban Green Council Chapter Task Force (CTF) for LEED Regionalization 2012 reported to our members its initial findings on priority issues within the chapter boundary – the five boroughs of New York City, as well as Rockland and Westchester Counties. Thanks to member response to our post and a survey sent to Rockland and Westchester county members, the Task Force has been able to attract more participants to contribute to the last phase of LEED Regionalization 2012 – Regional Priority Credit selection. Based on an updated list of regional priority issues, the CTF has now identified three potential credits in LEED 2012 BD+C for each issue. To help us select the six credits that will have the most impact on new construction in your area, please follow this link to fill out the Task Force’s brief survey.

As we approach the end of LEED Regionalization 2012, the CTF is in the process of identifying three credits per priority issue for the other LEED rating systems – EB:O+M, ID+C and LEED for Homes. In conjunction with credit selection, we’re planning an event on April 25 regarding updates to LEED 2012.  Yetsuh Frank will explain the goals behind the updated system and new prerequisites and credits.  At this event members will also have the opportunity to contribute to the credit selection in the various rating systems and hear from the CTF leader, Craig Copeland about the lessons learned in LEED Regionalization 2012.

We’d like to thank the active members in this phase of the Urban Green Council LEED 2012 Regionalization for their time, efforts and contributions, especially Craig and Elly for all their hard work in leading the group:

Kathleen Bakewell, Brook Farm Group LLC
Daniel Bersohn, Buro Happold
Gina Bocra, ENNEAD Architects LLP
Nancy Campbell, Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Andrea Chin, Applied Design Initiative
Craig Copeland, Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects ( CTF Leader)
Eleonora Encheva, Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects
Timothy Howell, Ecological, LLC
Christina Kissel
Joyce Lee, NYC Department of Design and Construction
Marsha Leed, Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers
Jennifer Preston, BKSK Architects LLP
Michael Shilale, Michael Shilale Architects LLP
Whitney Smith, Cosentini Associates
Melissa Snyder, Pace Law School

Buildings & Neighborhoods, Design, Energy, LEED

Backlash Against the Backlash

April 4, 2012 | By Yetsuh Frank | 1 Comment »

I wish LEED had more nuanced critics.

As regular as winter, articles crop up purporting to outline the problems with LEED.  Every time I dive in eagerly and almost every time I come away disappointed.  Maybe this is inevitable.  LEED is technocratic, both in terms of content and process, and the building industry moves at its own pace.  Maybe we can’t expect our frothy media to deliver on this subject.

The latest instance along these lines is an article for Urban Land, provocatively titled LEED Backlash, that contains three paragraphs of wheat surrounded by a cloud of somewhat disorienting chaff.  First, the wheat.

The piece notes that the most recent Department of Defense (DoD) reauthorization bill included a provision that restricts DoD projects from pursuing Gold or Platinum certification without a waiver from the Secretary of Defense and requires the DoD to complete a cost benefit analysis of their green building standards (which, despite the bill, still require LEED Silver certification.)  It’s a fascinating development but the tenor of the LEED Backlash article seems misplaced.  First, they report that “the U.S. Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill in December that severely restricts the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from spending extra money on” LEED.  This implies that government has arrayed itself against LEED, when in fact a small minority have attached a restrictive provision to a massive defense funding bill.  As the article notes later, “It appears that Congress’s action primarily stemmed from a dispute over the use of wood in green construction.”

It goes on to state, “A coalition of green building advocates, timber interests, and dozens of congressional members have objected to what they believe is an exclusion of domestic sources of wood in the LEED point system.”  This is fascinating, but it doesn’t mean there is a generalized backlash against LEED.  It means that much of the timber industry is still frustrated that FSC remains the baseline within LEED to receive credit for the use of sustainably harvested wood.  The article, for instance, could just as easily have been titled “Timber Lobby Engineers Destructive Rider to Defense Authorization Bill.”   This debate has been raging for years and is far from resolved.  More specifics on the background would have been illuminating.  Who exactly is in the “coalition” noted by the author?  Which member of Congress added the provision to the bill?  I’d be fascinated to know more about this but instead the author surrounds this nugget of actual news with a host of vague quotes about LEED’s place in the market, pro and con, and a frustratingly undeveloped premise that governments are “pursuing green building standards other than LEED.”

Which brings us to the chaff.  The article suggests that California’s CalGreen building code is somehow a rebuff of LEED.  But LEED is not a code.  It’s not written as a code and the USGBC would be first to tell you that it should not be implemented as one.  In almost every instance of LEED being “mandated” by a public jurisdiction you’ll find that the fine print is much looser.  Most require that projects meet LEED standards, but not actually certify.  And most include broad provisions for the folks that hold the purse strings to opt out if LEED isn’t suitable for the project.  This is prudently cautious, but also a recognition that LEED should not be treated as something that can be legislated.  The advent of CalGreen and other green codes can be seen as a direct result of LEED’s success in the market- not a repudiation of it.  The article also treats the existence of Green Globes as news and states rather vaguely that it is “gaining momentum.”  I’d love to know how Green Globes is faring in the market.  If states or cities are using it as a guide I want to know about it.  Same goes for the International Green Construction Code, developed by the International Code Council and soon to be, as the article notes, adopted by Maryland.  In the same sentence the article notes the presence of the Living Building Challenge, so progressive it is mind-boggling, and a new certification for windows and doors by the AMAA, a comically out of place reference.  As a result, the article hints at some fascinating developments in the industry but doesn’t pursue them in any kind of depth.

There are certainly big questions about the future of LEED; for one, LEED certified buildings don’t always perform as one might expect.  Why, specifically, does this happen?  While LEED is looking at the horizon the floor is being raised by increasingly stringent energy codes.  Will LEED remain relevant in this context?  These are important but complicated questions and none of them are served by articles that treat them without nuance.

Another piece in the same publication, The Greening of the Real Estate Industry, looks at the disconnect between right-wing policy and the work of the private sector.  It’s well worth a read and be sure to scroll down to the comments where you will be treated to entries from Roger Platt of the USGBC on the obstruction tactics of the timber lobby and a reply from Kathleen Sims of the Plum Creek Timber Company.

LEED has many rough edges.   It does some things well and others not so well.  Understanding these flaws and their impact on the future of our industry is important work.  Let’s make sure we treat those issues with the care and specificity they deserve.

Construction, New York, Planning, Smart Growth

Zone Green One Step Closer

March 29, 2012 | By Russell Unger | Make a Comment »

Yesterday the City Planning Commission unanimously approved Zone Green. The City Council now has 50 days to hold a hearing and vote on the resolution.

To remind readers, Zone Green removes a series of zoning barriers to renewable energy, increases allowances for solar shades, and will encourage better-insulated exterior walls – all in furtherance of recommendations from the Green Codes Task Force. City Planning Commission Director and Urban Green Board Member Amanda Burden recently summarized the Zone Green changes on our blog.

We eagerly await the passage of these changes, the most comprehensive effort by any city to update its zoning rules for today’s greener buildings.

Buildings & Neighborhoods, Economy, Education, Energy, New York, Planning

An Excuse in the Crosshairs

March 28, 2012 | By Paul Reale | Make a Comment »

You probably know the drill. Spend money on any number of energy efficiency upgrades and you’ll make it back through reduced operating costs for the life of the retrofit. That’s not to mention improved occupant comfort, an increase in jobs to do the retrofits, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits.

A no-brainer, right? Well, there’s been a long-standing excuse for not doing upgrades in a lot of commercial buildings, and admittedly it’s a good one. Under a commonly used modified gross lease, building owners pay the upfront costs of energy improvements on base building systems, while the tenants reap the cost savings from reduced energy consumption.  Because of this “misaligned incentive,” building owners resist investing in energy upgrades.

Mayor Bloomberg overseeing the signing agreement between Silverstein Properties and WilmerHale, the first lease to use the energy-aligned lease language

So the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability brought together a task force to develop new commercial lease language that allows tenants and owners to share in both the costs and benefits of energy efficiency improvements.  Part of the City’s broader sustainability program, PlaNYC, the language is called the PlaNYC Energy Aligned Clause, and it makes good sense.

Problem solved! Well, almost. Actually, not enough people in the commercial real estate industry know enough about it yet, but we’re not going to let that stop us.

At the request of the Mayor’s Office, Urban Green is working hard to get this information out to as many people as possible, with support from the City of New York, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council,  the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and the Real Estate Board of New York.

Going forward, I’ll personally execute the outreach program as Special Consultant with Urban Green. I’ll present the concept to targeted audiences and spearhead a handful of supporting objectives such as introducing the use of the Clause as a pilot credit for LEED certification.

The Energy Aligned Clause is a solid solution, and I’m only too happy to be talking it up. On Thursday March 15^th at Knoll, Urban Green Council kicked off the outreach with a Salon on green leasing. The take-away? Using this language makes good business sense.

Get involved. Reach out to me. And watch the uptake as the oft-used “misaligned incentive” excuse goes by the wayside!