Since the dawn of time (well, OK, since 1979 when Michigan and Princeton Professors Ross and Williams developed the idea of a “house doctor”), energy efficiency enthusiasts have been convinced that retrofitting a residential building to save energy could pay for itself in fuel savings.  It’s been a rocky road since those days, when the prime concern was our dependence on unreliable Mideast oil rather than climate change, and in the energy price valley of 1985 – 2000, it was a lot harder to make the case.

But over the last ten years, subsidized programs all over the country have carried out hundreds, perhaps thousands, of retrofits.  Many were aimed at affordable housing, including the federally funded Weatherization programs, and state efforts like NYSERDA’s Assisted Multifamily Program (AMP, in which I was active) and the current Multifamily Performance Program (MPP). Others focused on coaxing the owners of unsubsidized multifamily buildings, including coops, condos, and market-rate rentals, to upgrade their building systems in the interest of greater efficiency, but always with the carrot of long-term savings. Similar efforts went on in many of the more progressive states.

All these programs were successful in installing efficiency upgrades:  insulate the roofs, add caulking and weather-stripping, switch to fluorescent lights, replace that failing boiler, and add better heating controls.  And because we had used careful analysis and detailed computer models, we were confident the savings were there.  But the fact is, we couldn’t present fuel and electric usage data from any of the early projects to prove that our analysis was accurate. As late as 2008, we had a grand total of 20 buildings from AMP for which we had verified savings, largely of satisfactory magnitude.

Of course this is a problem from a technical perspective – we would like to know we are telling the truth when we claim that savings will be forthcoming.  But there is another, much larger problem:  all the retrofits done under Weatherization or NYSERDA programs are subsidized, one way or another, so the owner could expect a much more substantial return on their own partial investment than they would receive in pure market circumstances. And still it was hard to get them to undertake the projects.  Further, what we need now is a truly massive campaign of energy retrofits, far larger than can ever be subsidized by either NYSERDA or the federal government. And owners rarely have the cash reserves to undertake energy retrofits on their own.  The only way to bring retrofit activities “to scale” is to make them an investment opportunity for lenders, by which I mean banks.

But you know bankers – dour, untrusting, “show me your cash flow” types who want proof that you will have the money to meet your monthly obligations. (We will omit discussion of the unfortunate events of the last few years except to note that now no one will lend any money without ironclad guarantees of credit-worthiness.) If we want bankers to lend money for retrofits based on the use of energy savings to repay the loan, we need tools to convince them that the savings will be forthcoming.  Until now, those tools were not in evidence.

Today, we stand a chance.  Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation and Living Cities commissioned Steven Winter Associates and HR&A Advisors to undertake a massive study of energy retrofit activities in New York City, and to formulate an underwriting approach based on their findings. The just-released report provides both a powerful case that the savings will be realized in enough instances to justify significant investment activity, and an analytic framework that will make investments even more secure.

On the technical side, they examined 231 buildings for which pre- and post-construction data was available, and developed a strong set of useful conclusions. Just a few examples: expect more substantial and reliable savings from fuel use reduction than from measures aimed at electric usage; the more fuel your building uses, the greater the potential for savings. (Before you say “duh”, this was quantified in way that that will be very useful for underwriting, as we will see.) And because buildings are complex systems, they found that while observed savings tracked projected savings in a statistical sense, there would still be cases where the savings fell short.  How can this risk be minimized, making energy efficiency retrofits an attractive investment for our dour banker?

Here is where the team developed an exceedingly clever analytic approach.  The engineers designing the retrofit will use their models to predict savings.  But from an analysis of the 231 buildings, the team already knew that on average, they could expect savings roughly equal to half of the pre-retrofit fuel use minus a substantial constant. (See the paper for the math!)  The clever approach then is to trust the engineer’s model unless it predicts savings greater than the average found for their data set, adjusted for energy use in the building being modeled. If the model predicts savings greater than the data set average, use the data set average. If the model predicts savings less than the data set average, use the model results. Then go talk to your banker. When this approach was applied to the buildings in the data set, they found that the actual energy savings substantially exceeded these adjusted predictions, a situation that should leave underwriters satisfied.

Can this work?  Will we see a dramatic increase in capital available for energy efficiency retrofits? Only time will tell, but we have made a substantial step forward.  All the buildings in New York City over 50,000 square feet will undergo energy audits, as required by Local Law 87 of 2009, and the proposed measures and their estimated savings will be there for all to see. Now, a robust way to justify financing the measures is also available.

The same day last week the City Council helped us all breathe easier with a new law on chemicals in carpets, the Department of Environmental Protection released its new stormwater rule that encourages natural rainwater detention and retention, along with accompanying design guidelines. “Natural” here is not being used like the labels on cleaning products – here we are talking about honest to goodness mother nature. Rather than send rainwater to concrete tanks, sewers, and treatment plants, the new DEP rule encourages onsite reuse and natural infiltration.

It’s hard to overstate how much of a “180” this rule and the Green Infrastructure Plan represents for DEP, at least in terms of the principles involved. Until very recently, the only stormwater approach that mattered to DEP’s water engineers were those that could be measured in tanks and pipes. While we all know rainwater can be absorbed in the ground, directed into a rain barrel, and retained by a green roof, it wasn’t that easy to measure this capture. So it didn’t count at all for DEP. It does now.

The new rule is not a panacea for those who favor green infrastructure but is still a big step forward. The rule drastically reduces the allowable runoff from new construction and major reconstruction (a 90% reduction from previous limits). DEP will consider a range of approaches to reduce runoff including vegetative cover, green roofs, and permeable pavement. It will also consider open-bottomed detention systems that allow infiltration. Owners are required to provide maintenance for these systems so they work as intended. And finally, new developments next to a waterway must send rainwater into the waterway (rather than the sewer system).

Taken together, this rule implements 4 Task Force recommendations:

• SW 2: Reduce Stormwater Runoff From New Developments
• SW 4: Send Rainwater to Waterways
• SW 5: Encourage Innovative Stormwater Practices
• SW 6: Maintain Site-Based Stormwater Detention Systems

Another good day for green codes and a great way to kick off the New Year!

Green codes continue to fly off the City Council’s legislative shelf like bagels on a NYC morning. We can’t even keep track and we helped draft them!

Last Wednesday, the City Council gave New York a New Year’s present by prohibiting the sale, offer for sale, or installation of carpets and carpet cushions that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the Green Label Plus standards from the Carpet & Rug Institute. Implementing the Task Force proposal Health & Toxicity 1: Limit Harmful Emissions From Carpets, we believe this law is another first in the nation for a municipality. While many jurisdictions have standards on paints and coatings, carpets haven’t received the same attention.

But they should. For those who aren’t familiar with VOCs, they are a class of carcinogenic chemicals behind “new car smell” that cause a host of health problems ranging from respiratory ailments to major organ damage. While paints and coatings off-gas VOCs very quickly, it takes longer for carpets to release their VOCs thus increasing the likelihood that end users will be impacted. Interestingly, the vast majority of U.S. carpet manufacturers meet the Green Label Plus standards — the problem is with imported carpets. So, in one package we have a new law that improves the health of New Yorkers and also increases the competitiveness of American carpet manufacturers.

For ongoing updates on the status of the GCTF proposals, check out our Codes Status Report.

I’ve been ruining family gatherings with this point for years.  But that doesn’t make it any less true.  There are easy jobs to be found with a little nudge from the government.  What’s the holdup?

Bloomberg’s homepage is pretty much what you would expect from the world’s leading financial information firm: the market snapshot…a crawl of all the major indices, and of course the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ at a glance.  Below the logo, the navigation bar shows all the things relevant to the world of finance: News, Markets, Personal Finance, Sustainability…

Holy cow! “Sustainability”!? Last week, Bloomberg quietly offered up prime online real estate for this critical category. So far, it’s proving to be a fantastic source of national and international environmental news (I used it last week to track the depressing climate treaty discussions). But that’s the smaller point.

The big news here is the message Bloomberg is telling the finance industry: today’s businesses need to understand and track sustainability. One interesting question—is Bloomberg responding to a need voiced by the industry, or are they trying to make a market for it? Hopefully it’s a little of both.

While politicians either sit on their hands or openly mock the consensus around climate change, the U.S. Army continues to move forward on its mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuel.  Logic can be a terribly effective tool when you use it.

The zoning drawn up in 1961 did not envision a city of new green buildings, nor did it foresee the retrofitting of older buildings. Today, we are at a crossroads with respect to the performance of our buildings. We know that they must accomplish much more than they were once designed to do – they can save energy and generate clean, renewable power; reduce the burdens they place on city infrastructure; support our ecology; and provide a healthier environment for New Yorkers. We also know that we cannot accomplish this only with new, high-performing green buildings. We must also improve the performance of our existing buildings, which represent 85 percent of the buildings we will have in 2030.

However, as highlighted by the Green Codes Task Force – convened by the Urban Green Council at the request of the Mayor and the Speaker of the City Council – zoning sometimes discourages or outright prohibits green building features.

So we need to continue a retrofit of our Zoning Resolution.

In the last ten years, the Department of City Planning has completed over 100 neighborhood rezonings and numerous amendments to the text of the Zoning Resolution, to promote transit-oriented development and sustainable growth in New York City. Through a series of green initiatives, we have improved the green infrastructure of our neighborhoods with street trees, front yard planting, and stormwater management for parking lots; enhanced alternatives to private automobile ownership and use with bicycle parking requirements and car sharing; and promoted the availability of healthy, fresh foods with our FRESH program.

Today, we are proud to unveil our latest initiative, Zone Green – the most comprehensive effort of any U.S. city to sweep aside zoning obstacles to the construction and retrofitting of green buildings. City Planning is proposing amendments to promote energy-efficient and green design. Zone Green would:

• Exempt external insulation from floor area and yard requirements, to enable existing buildings to add external insulation within their property line;
• Eliminate penalties for high-performance envelopes in the way floor area is measured, by exempting a portion of thicker, better insulated walls from floor area calculations when buildings substantially exceed energy code standards;
• Enable solar panels to be added on top of any building roof, by allowing them as a “permitted obstruction” above a height limit;
• Allow sun control devices such as vertical or horizontal shades or screens to project from building facades over required open areas;
• Allow more flexibility to accommodate a wide range of rooftop features, including green roofs and stormwater management equipment, boilers or cogeneration facilities, recreational decks, and stair and elevator bulkheads that provide rooftop access;
• Foster local food production by encouraging rooftop greenhouses, by allowing waiver of floor area and height limits for greenhouses on top of buildings without residences or sleeping accommodations; and
• Allow wind turbines to exceed a height limit on taller buildings and in locations near the waterfront, where winds are most conducive to power generation.

Zone Green will also include other legislation to improve building performance.  City legislation would tighten the energy performance standards for the building envelope, ensuring long-term energy efficiency by addressing the longest-lasting elements of the building. In addition, many buildings built before 1961 are subject to the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL), and would not be able to take advantage of the proposed provisions for external insulation. So the Department is preparing draft legislation for targeted amendments to the MDL to make possible the external insulation of these buildings.

This proposal builds upon other efforts under PlaNYC, including the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, by using zoning to encourage buildings to outperform the New York City Energy Conservation Code. Removing zoning impediments to green buildings will give building owners more choices to make investments that save money, save energy, and improve the quality of our environment. By making these improvements possible, Zone Green can unlock the potential for as much as $800 million per year in energy savings.

Today the Zone Green text amendment begins the public review process, which includes referral to all 59 Community Boards, five Borough Presidents and Borough Boards, and review by the City Planning Commission and City Council, and is expected to take roughly six months. We have complete information about the proposal and public review available on DCP’s website, at nyc.gov/planning/greenbuildings.

This proposal would not be possible without the contributions of the Green Codes Task Force, whose recommendations helped spark the Zone Green effort. The continuing engagement of task force members has also been critical in shaping this proposal. We would like to thank Urban Green Council and the Green Codes Task Force for their continuing guidance and support as we take this critical step to bring our buildings into the 21^st century.

You can read the zoning text Amanda refers to here. Full disclosure: It is a little abstract and dry, but that’s just the way laws must be written.  It’s worth plowing through it if you would like to be involved in the process, since there will be public hearings and the opportunity to comment between now and February 12th, 2012.

Find out more on January 11th from the architect of Zone Green, Howard Slatkin, City Planning’s Director of Sustainability. After Howard’s presentation, a panel of industry representatives and Green Codes Task Force members will discuss the implications of the new zoning proposals. Details are here.

Back in 2007, in the world of high rise construction, Franco was the kingpin of New York City concrete.  His price to supply concrete to big construction projects reliably beat his competitors and he seemed to be getting rich doing it.  You didn’t want to ask too many questions.

At the time, I was working for one of NYC’s leading construction management companies and circulating within the concrete industry to build support for better concrete washout water management.  The rinsing of concrete trucks and equipment at construction sites generates highly corrosive water that flows down the street and into the sewer.  During rain events, these sewers empty into the East and Hudson Rivers as combined sewer overflow (CSO) events.  Other cities and states had more stringent rules about discharging concrete washout water in areas where it could harm people and enter waterways, but in New York City, the Department of Environmental Protection just required the water to be filtered through filter fabric or hay bales, in an attempt to reduce the amount of concrete hardening in the sewer and clogging drains.  Filtering was only partially effective at that and did nothing to address the public danger and environmental impact of the water’s chemical makeup and alkalinity, which is comparable to Draino®.  Draino is a product that used to be used to unclog waste pipes until it was found to corrode right through the pipe.

All the concrete trade organizations and manufacturers my colleagues and I met with agreed the practice was polluting, and even the manufacturers seemed surprised the DEP was allowing it.  When asked why the practice persisted, the manufacturers explained, “so long as the city isn’t making the waste water our problem, it’s not in our financial best interest to claim it.”  The most cost effective and environmentally preferable means of handling the washout water generated by rinsing the chute of a mixer truck, which is the primary source at most construction sites, is to capture it off the bottom of the chute with a pail, and return it with the truck to the concrete manufacturer’s own plant for treatment.  All concrete batch plants have wastewater treatment systems, and as the Cement League commented, “It make sense – a construction manager buys the concrete, not the concrete truck and equipment.  Therefore, any waste generated in maintaining this equipment should be the supplier’s.”  Franco, however, added one more kernel of insight: “I have beautiful trucks.  I’m not going to hook or attach anything to them unless some code requires me to.”

Technically, New York City already had a law on the books prohibiting corrosive water from being discharged down the sewer.  But because the manufacturers resisted claiming the waste water as their problem, construction sites were limited to two options: letting the water evaporate onsite in bins or sending a wastewater pump truck around to the site daily to suck it out of a dumpster and take it to a special waste water treatment plant.  The first was only possible at World Trade Center-sized sites and the latter was a logistics hassle, expensive and generated additional vehicle miles (environmental impact), so no one did it.  To get Franco and his kin to play ball in managing the wastewater in the most cost-effective and environmentally preferable way for a project, a better code would be required.

Which is exactly what the City Council passed today. Effective July 1, 2012, NYC will have a new building code prohibiting concrete washout water from entering sewers and catch basins.  Most importantly, the code offers special dispensations to mixer trucks so that the water from rinsing their chute is returned to the originating concrete plant with the truck. Read Urban Green’s detailed summaries of the laws here.

Let’s just hope Franco doesn’t chip the paint on any of his trucks when he installs the tank racks.

* Editor’s note: This name is a pseudonym.  We were concerned “Franco” might knock on our door looking for Charlotte.

Photo credit: Daniel X. O’Neil

Today brings another burst of Green Codes activity with the enactment of three new laws by the City Council. Urban Green played a critical behind-the-scenes role, working with the City Council, Mayor’s Office, and real estate industry for months to build support for these latest initiatives.

Thanks to today’s laws, there will be less soot in buildings due to better filters on large new ventilation equipment (Int. 592); grey, caustic streams of concrete wastewater from construction sites will no longer be filling the streets (Int. 576) [Read more about this one on Charlotte Matthew's post here]; and most new roads, driveways, and parking lots will contain 30% recycled asphalt (Int. 578). You can read our detailed summaries of the laws here.

Compared to major legislation we’ve helped develop, like the Greener Greater Buildings Plan, these bills are relative small fry. But bit by bit the codes are being improved, and collectively the Green Codes Task Force is having a major impact. With our advocacy, the Council has now passed 19 Task Force proposals, with 10 others enacted by other levels of government or in progress.

We can’t talk out of school, but I strongly encourage you to watch our newsletter and emails in the coming weeks for more good news on the codes front.

And if you value the critical work we’re doing on codes, I hope you will consider making a year-end tax-deductible contribution to our Advocacy Fund.

After last year’s Urban Green Council Board Member elections, one of the successful candidates suggested that we take a second look at our election procedures, which felt a bit like high school. He had a point; we recruit senior, well-qualified candidates only to then ask them to compete against one another.

The Board of Directors recently voted to revise our bylaws, including changing our election procedure to match that of most other nonprofits. Rather than have some people elected by the Board and others by the members, all candidates will be part of a slate put before the members for a vote approving or disapproving the full slate. The members will help us put together this slate through a Call for Nominations we’ll issue each Fall.

We made other updates to the bylaws, which were 10 years old, making them more in line with other nonprofits:

• We removed the two-year time limit for Board officers. Now they will be able to serve for as long as they remain on the Board and their colleagues would like them to serve;
• Extended the term for the Emerging Professionals Director from two to three years, aligning this position with that of other directors;
• Added various provisions found in most nonprofit bylaws. For example, authority to enter into contracts and obtain a loan.

Most of these details are inside baseball, but they are the rules underpinning the organization. We’ve just updated them so Urban Green Council better reflects the mature organization it has grown into.

The 2012 Board Election will kick off on December 6th at the Winter Member Meeting, where members will be have the opportunity to meet all the candidates. Elections will remain open until December 31st.