New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn announced the world’s most comprehensive package of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing government, commercial, and residential buildings.

A six-point plan, when enacted as part of PlaNYC, 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 theAmerican 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.

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 equivalent of eliminating all carbon emissions from Oakland, California.

The reductions will be achieved through the six point green buildings plan:

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.

Currently, New York is one of 42 U.S. states using the standard energy code known as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). However, New York is the only state that amends this code with a loophole that allows buildings to skirt the energy code if they are not taking on massive renovations. A critical component of NYC’s Green Buildings Plan is to move beyond this amendment and create an NYC code that would require all buildings to comply with the un-amended version. This means any time a renovation takes place in one of NYC’s 1 million buildings, this work would be required to conform to a set of easily applied standards, resulting in both a significant energy reduction and cost savings.

This legislation would require a benchmarking standard for all City buildings. Benchmarking is the practice of evaluating a building’s energy efficiency so a building owner can identify what improvements he or she should make. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online benchmarking tool to track buildings’ annual energy and water consumption. Tracking allows building owners and operators to see how efficiently their buildings function and enable prospective buyers to better assess the value of a building. Benchmarking provides the basis for empowering building owners to take steps towards minimizing energy use and maximizing the economic benefits of energy conservation.

This legislation would require owners of existing buildings over 50,000 square feet to make cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to their buildings once every ten years by conducting an audit, retro-commissioning, and retrofitting their building. Buildings will undergo energy audits with results determining the necessary improvements to be undertaken, including insulating pipes, replacing inefficient lighting, and installing low-flow water fixtures. The legislation requires spending by building owners for only those retrofits that will pay for themselves in less than 5 years through energy-related cost-savings. Many of the required measures are low- to no-cost. Those savings will then continue beyond recovery of initial outlays. This bill would apply to all classes of buildings over 50,000 square feet, both private and City-owned, and will cover nearly half of the built square footage of New York City.

In New York City, lighting accounts for approximately 20 percent of the energy used in buildings and roughly 20 percent of a building’s carbon emissions. The proposed legislation requires that lighting systems in buildings over 50,000 square feet be upgraded to meet the requirements of the New York City Energy Conservation Code. Over the past few decades, there have been rapid improvements in lighting technology, which have resulted in a dramatic reduction of energy use. By addressing lighting in the building sector, New York City can dramatically reduce its CO2 emissions.

Eric Miller on 04.22.09 @ 11:13 AM PST [link]  

Last year, Los Angeles sensibly combined its Earth Day celebration with Car-Free Day, and made the point obvious by closing a stretch of Wilshire Boulevard, the city's main main drag, to traffic, filling it with booths, displays, bands, dancing, and happy people strolling about. We blogged it, of course, concluding that "Things are changing when this can happen in LA," and even mainstream media reports were glowingly enthusiastic.

So, what do we do this year? Behold the announcement below, snipped from the Official Flyer:



That's right "Car-Free Day" with no street closures.

Car-Free Day/Earth Day: people crowded onto a commercial lawn in front of an office building, the music and speeches competing with the thunder of car and truck traffic, motorized chaos spewing fumes and imminent death just inches from the prospective revelers on the sidewalk--what goes on in their sclerotic little minds? Unintended irony, or just a total disprespect for the citizens of Los Angeles and the planet as a whole?

I would comment, "Flat learning curve," but this is actually backsliding down the evolutionary scale.

Let's hope that other cities do better....

Richard Risemberg on 04.22.09 @ 05:14 AM PST [link]  

I was to venture to Philadelphia twice in three days. After taking New Jersey Transit Saturday, I decided to try the bus Monday.

I had already discounted trying the Chinatown bus because the arrival point was Chinatown, not 30th Street Station. While waiting for an independently-operated shuttle behind 30th Street station, I was conversing with some folks who were waiting there for Megabus. I asked how often Megabus ran, how much is cost and where you get it in New York. I found out I could take Megabus from Penn Station in new York to 30th Street Station in Philadelphia--the same as the train.

At home Saturday evening, I went onto the Megabus site. Indeed, I could go from train station to train station on Megabus, but a much lower fare was available from Chinatown to Chinatown, $1.00 each way plus .50 fee. That's a little more than half a subway ride to go all the way to Philly. What did I have to lose but $2.50? So I purchased the tickets.

This morning I left at 7:30 headed for the 8:30 Megabus to Philly. The bus arrived a half-hour late, not a big deal, I'd still be there by 11 a.m. However at quarter-'til 11, we were still in Manhattan traffic. Not the fault of Megabus, but it was bringing the fruitility of my trip into question. I phoned my friend I was supposed to meet in Philly and decided to get off the bus. By noon I was home.

Sure, the train could also experience delays, but not traveling in auto traffic has significant advantages. I may try Megabus again in the future, but only on very early departures. Otherwise, the $32 train fare seems more than worth the price.

Eric Miller on 04.20.09 @ 12:00 PM PST [link]  

After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

MORE

Eric Miller on 04.17.09 @ 11:04 AM PST [link]  

General Motors and Segway recently announced a revolution in urban transportation, but few revolutions actually turn into transformations. Like the helicopter years before it, the Segway has failed to live up to the promises of revolutionizing transportation. Sure, it has found many applications, but I've yet to see one on a Manhattan sidewalk. More recently a partnership between General Motors and Segway has brought foreward the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility Vehicle (PUMA). While we can be in awe of the technology for a short period of time, I'm afraid the PUMV will have as much impact as the amphibious car.

The reason is quite simple. For these devices to work, the places where they work have to be rebuilt. Today our cities are divided primarily into spaces for pedestrians and places for cars. Using a Segway vehicle in downtown San Jose or in the high-tech office parks in Santa Clara may be somewhat practical, but using one in Manhattan is not. (Notice how the photo from the Segway web site shows the vehicle running separate from traffic--but where are these extra lanes?) There just isn't room on the streets, or in the subways. Using one on the street or in bike lanes presents a different risk of danger.

The PUMA is a little different because in essense it is a very small car. As long as it is road-legal, it probably does have great advantages for city driving. It appears, however, that it also has the capabilities of driving "off-road" into pedestrian spaces. This is even less practical than using a Segway on the sidewalk.

Another concern I had when the Segway was introduced was where does one put it when it's not in use? This can be a problem with bicycles too, although most places have provided ample bicycle parking. With the value of a Segway relatively high, I can't imagine leaving one outside and nore can I imagine them taking up valuable space, blocking filing cabinets in cubicles.

I'm not sure how heavy the PUMA is, but theft could be a problem.

There's also the trouble of defining a demographic for the PUMA. Drivers can't replace their car with one because at 35 mph taking it on the highway won't be feasible. They have to be an addition to the car. Then the question comes "where do you put it?" Those who primarily use public transportation also have the issue of storage, and the fact that it can't be taken on the subway or commuter train.

They may have an application for rentals, although that rental can't be in the traditional location, the airport, because they are not able to drive on the highway to the city.

Do they have any application? Yes. Police departments may find them useful, as will the meter maid. These vehicles also seem great for use on suburban campuses, in large factories and even in suburban neighborhoods where storage isn't a problem. Still, they won't be good for a trip to the mall or grocery store, unless of course a cart is provided for packages.

Eric Miller on 04.16.09 @ 06:35 AM PST [link]  

The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a new analysis. While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided.

"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."

READ MORE

Eric Miller on 04.14.09 @ 04:17 PM PST [link]  

A retrofit at the Empire State Building seeks to prove the viability for energy efficiency retrofit projects to dramatically increase building energy efficiency and reduce its overall carbon output with sensible payback periods and enhanced profitability.

Using the Empire State Building as a test case and model, world-class environmental consulting, non-profit, design and construction partners - including the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), Johnson Controls Inc. (NYSE: JCI) (JCI) and Jones Lang LaSalle (NYSE: JLL) (JLL) - today unveiled an innovative process for analyzing and retrofitting existing structures for environmental sustainability.

Adopted as core elements of the more than $500 million upgrade program presently underway at the world's most famous office building, the program is the first comprehensive approach that integrates many steps to use energy more productively. The program is expected to reduce energy consumption by up to 38 percent and will provide a replicable model for similar projects around the world. Work has already commenced, and building systems work is slated to be completed by year-end 2010. The balance of the work in tenant spaces should be concluded by end of 2013. Work that is scheduled to be completed within 18 months will result in over 50 percent of the projected energy savings. The balance will be an additional 36 months completed by 2013.

At the end of the project definition process, the team analyzed the steps to be taken in conjunction with other steps towards sustainability as part of the Empire State ReBuilding program within the framework of the existing USGBC LEED rating system. Internal calculations show that the Empire State Building will be able to qualify for GOLD certification for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Existing Buildings, and ownership intends to pursue such certification.

"Commercial and residential buildings account for the majority of the total carbon footprint of cities around the world - over 70 percent in New York City. Beginning in February 2008, the Empire State Building has been used as a test bench to create a replicable process to reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts," said Anthony E. Malkin of building owner, Empire State Building Company. "Most new buildings are built with the environment in mind, but the real key to substantial progress is reducing existing building energy consumption and carbon footprint."

"This innovative process, which has developed new techniques for modeling and organizing an integrated program, offers a clear path to adoption around the world, leading to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," according to Malkin. "Along with other steps taken, in recycling waste and construction debris, use of recycled materials, and green cleaning and pest control products, the model built at the Empire State Building will meaningfully speed the reduction in energy consumption and environmental impact and allow more sustainable operations - while simultaneously enhancing profitability and tenant comfort. This is a real program, happening in real time, creating real green jobs."

The project partners used existing and newly created modeling, measurement and projection tools in a new and repeatable process to analyze the Empire State Building and establish a full understanding of its energy use as well as its functional efficiencies and deficiencies. This provided actionable recommendations along a cost-benefit curve to increase efficiency and without harming bottom line performance. In reviewing more than 60 optional activities, the team identified eight economically viable projects, applicable to building-wide renovations, electrical and ventilation system upgrades and tenant space overhauls that will provide a significant return on investment, both environmentally and financially.

With an initial estimated project cost of $20 million, additional savings and redirection of expenditures originally planned in the building's upgrade program, and additional alternative spending in tenant installations, the Empire State Building will save $4.4 million in annual energy savings costs, reduce its energy consumption by close to 40%, repay its net extra cost in about three years, and cut its overall carbon output through eight key initiatives, including:

1. Window Light Retrofit: Refurbishment of approximately 6,500 thermopane glass windows, using existing glass and sashes to create triple-glazed insulated panels with new components that dramatically reduce both summer heat load and winter heat loss.



2. Radiator Insulation Retrofit: Added insulation behind radiators to reduce heat loss and more efficiently heat the building perimeter.



3. Tenant Lighting, Daylighting and Plug Upgrades: Introduction of improved lighting designs, daylighting controls, and plug load occupancy sensors in common areas and tenant spaces to reduce electricity costs and cooling loads.



4. Air Handler Replacements: Replacement of air handling units with variable frequency drive fans to allow increased energy efficiency in operation while improving comfort for individual tenants.



5. Chiller Plant Retrofit: Reuse of existing chiller shells while removing and replacing "guts" to improve chiller efficiency and controllability, including the introduction of variable frequency drives.



6. Whole-Building Control System Upgrade: Upgrade of existing building control system to optimize HVAC operation as well as provide more detailed sub-metering information.



7. Ventilation Control Upgrade: Introduction of demand control ventilation in occupied spaces to improve air quality and reduce energy required to condition outside air.



8. Tenant Energy Management Systems: Introduction of individualized, web-based power usage systems for each tenant to allow more efficient management of power usage.

Recently, several initiatives have been launched, including the CCI Building Retrofit program and New York City's PlaNYC in 2007, which aim to reduce the significant carbon footprint of existing structures in major cities. The pilot program launched today at Empire State Building moves from theoretical and directional steps to quantifiable action plans which can be broadly adopted around the world.

"To make cities cleaner and more energy efficient, we urgently need a replicable model for retrofitting existing major buildings. This visionary example will help inform and inspire initiatives that can cut carbon emissions, save energy, save money, make jobs, and provide better workplaces in buildings all over the world," said Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute.

Eric Miller on 04.14.09 @ 04:00 PM PST [link]  

Eric Miller on 04.09.09 @ 04:44 AM PST [link]  

Here's a talk from Ted.com that features Charles Moore talking about oceanic garbage, in particular plastic packaging waste and beverage bottles, and their effect on the sea and its denizens:



Don't forget to check our podcast page for our related podcast on packaging waste, which should be available by this evening.

Richard Risemberg on 04.08.09 @ 01:47 PM PST [link]  

Eric Miller on 04.08.09 @ 10:14 AM PST [link]  

There's more to living green than being serious, yah!

Yesterday my friend and colleague Josef Bray-Ali held a party for the opening of his Flying Pigeon LA bicycle shop. A longtime sustainability advocate and cyclist (who carts his baby around in a Dutch bakfiets cargo bike), Josef has decided to go into business with his brother selling the terminally unglamourous Chinese Flying Pigeon commute-and-shopping bike--a heavy but sturdy machine that comes equipped with basket, rack, chaincase and fenders (to protect your clothes), and generator lighting, for less than three hundred bucks. A workaday fuel-free replacement for your workaday but generally beyond-excessive automobile.

But the party needed beer, and Josef was a bit short on time. The nearest locally-brewed (or close to it) beer was in Pasadena, a couple of hours on the bakfiets (which could handle the load easily), so Josef took--not a car, not even an electric car, but the next-cleanest mode of mechanized transport after the bicycle: the Metro Gold Line train! One block to the local station, a quick ride to Pasadena, and one block to the purveyor of spiritous liquors. And voilà:



A good time was had by all. You can see pictures of the opening on our sister publication Bicycle Fixation's blog: Flying Pigeons Land in Los Angeles.

Richard Risemberg on 04.05.09 @ 07:05 PM PST [link]  

The tragic events this morning in Binghampton, New York brought a lesser known city, and a random section of urban America to the national television screens. Network news channels brought in experts to help describe Binghampton and its characteristics and location. At one point someone on CNN pulled up a Google Earth map showing an overview of the area where the shootings occurred. I couldn’t help but notice a few characteristics on my own.

First, from the street view, the place looks like a tranquil neighborhood with a tree-lined street and generally lots of greenery. A river town in small town America. CNN brought someone in who described river towns in a mountainous landscape and commented that development is concentrated along the rivers because the land backs up into mountainous areas. To some extent, places like this have escaped the worst of suburban sprawl development because the geography made it more expensive to develop big box stores here than in places with a flat landscape.

The Google Earth overview told a different story. I would venture than seventy percent of the two-square block area shown is covered with asphalt. Another 20 percent consists of roof tops. The only greenery is in small patches of earth along the front of some buildings. Any rainwater that lands on this section of Binghampton doesn’t have anywhere to go.

We usually think of large expanses of pavements in terms of the parking lots at Home Depot and Wall Mart. However, here they are, hidden behind the tree-lined streets of Binghampton.

Large expanses of pavement can be very detrimental to the environment in a number of ways. The Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council explains it this way. The impervious surface means that rainwater flows to storm sewers rather than infiltrating into the ground to recharge groundwater; oil and other fluids that leak from parked vehicles contaminate the stormwater; and the pavement absorbs the heat of the sun and causes heat island effects.

When most of the buildings we saw on television today were built, the impervious area consisted mostly if not exclusively of the rooftop areas of the buildings leaving ample grassy areas to absorb rainwater.

In the past sixty years, most of that has been covered up in order to provide parking. Today’s unfortunate events have drawn attention to the magnitude of work we have to do reclaiming land from parking lots in towns like Binghampton all over America.

Eric Miller on 04.03.09 @ 09:37 AM PST [link]  

Wonderful presentation exposing many little-publicized technologies and practices that could well save our collective ass:

Richard Risemberg on 04.03.09 @ 07:45 AM PST [link]  

Eric Miller on 04.03.09 @ 07:10 AM PST [link]  

From Building Green:

Energy Consumption Getting to and From Buildings Exceeds Energy Use for Operations

Brattleboro, VT An examination of the "transportation energy intensity" of buildings has found that getting people to and from buildings uses more energy than the buildings themselves consume. The lead article in the September 2007 issue of Environmental Building News shows that for an average office building in the United States, 30 percent more energy is expended by office workers commuting to and from the building than is consumed by the building itself for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy uses. For an office building built to modern energy codes (ASHRAE 90.1-2004), more than twice as much energy is used by commuters than by the building.

"This was a huge surprise," says Environmental Building News (EBN) executive editor Alex Wilson, author of the article. "I knew that transportation energy requirements were significant, but I was amazed at the differences." For the article, Wilson collected average U.S. data for commute distance, vehicle fuel economy, the split among different commuting options, and the number of square feet of building per office worker to normalize transportation energy intensity in Btu/square foot per year. He was then able to compare that transportation energy intensity to the average building energy use (also in Btu/ft2-yr) for average existing office buildings and energy code-compliant buildings (see table below).

Average U.S. commute distance one way (1)	12.2 m/19.6 km
U.S. average vehicle fuel economy 2006 (2)	21.0 mi/gal/8.9 km/liter
Work days	235 days/yr
Annual fuel consumption	273 gal/year/1033 liters/year
Annual fuel consumption per automobile commuter (3)	33,900 kBtu/yr/9,890 kWh/yr
Transportation energy use per employee (4)	27,700 kBtu/yr/8,100 kWh/yr
Average office building occupancy (5)	230 ft2/person\21.3 m2/person
Transportation energy use for average office building	121 kBtu/ft2/381.2 kWh/m2
Operating energy use for average office building (6)	92.9 kBtu/ft2-yr/292.7 kWh/m2-yr
Operating energy use for code-compliant office building (6, 7)	51.0 kBtu/ft2-yr/160.7 kWh/m2-yr
Percent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use for an average office building	30.2%
Percent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use for an office building built to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code	137%

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Energy Data Book 26th Edition, 2007, Table 8.6
2. U.S. EPA Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2006
3. Assumes 124,000 Btu/gallon of gasoline, DOE Energy Information Administration data
4. Assumes 76.3% commute in single-occupancy vehicle, 11.2% carpool (2 per car) and no other energy use (commuting transportation modes from U.S. DOT Transportation Energy Data Book 26th Edition, 2007, Table 8.14.
5. U.S. General Services Administration
6. This includes site energy only, not source energy. U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data for 2003, published June 2006.
7. Bruce Hunn, ASHRAE, personal communication

Source: Environmental Building News, September 2007

"The green building community has expended tremendous effort to reduce the operating energy use of buildings," notes Wilson, "but very little effort to reduce the transportation energy use of those buildings." He would like to see this change. "To achieve widely shared goals for dealing with climate change," says Wilson, "we simply can't ignore the energy consumption getting to and from our buildings."

Many of the strategies for reducing the transportation energy intensity of buildings relate to location. The September EBN article, "Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings," reviews a wide range of strategies for reducing vehicle use. Such strategies are often lumped under the heading "transit-oriented development" and include increasing development density, creating mixed-use development, providing various forms of public transit, restricting parking, and creating more pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. "Although progressive urban planners have been advocating for such development features for years," says Wilson, "the building industry has only recently begun paying attention to these issues."

In an editorial in the same issue of EBN, Wilson calls for changes to the LEED Rating System to make the credits relating to location and transportation performance-based, rather than prescriptive. "While the prescriptive approach in LEED to site and transportation issues has served an important role," Wilson says in the editorial, "it's time to provide a more rigorous basis for these credits."

The full article on transportation energy intensity and the accompanying editorial can be accessed at www.BuildingGreen.com. These articles are part of BuildingGreen Suite, a leading online resource on green building. While this is a paid-access site (with members paying $199 per year) these articles are provided free as a sampling of content. Environment Building News is the oldest and one of the most respected sources of green building information in North America. Celebrating its 15th year of publication in 2007, EBN has never carried advertising and is supported entirely by subscription revenue. For information, visit www.BuildingGreen.com, or call 800-861-0954 (outside the U.S. and Canada, call 802-257-7300). BuildingGreen is an independent, socially responsible, 20-person company based in Brattleboro, Vermont.

Richard Risemberg on 04.02.09 @ 11:17 AM PST [link]  

Eric Miller on 04.02.09 @ 06:46 AM PST [link]