Green Building Law Blog : Green Building Lawyer & Attorney : Shari Shapiro: Calliope Communications, LLC

I covered the messy breakdown of the Carousel/Destiny USA project in Syracuse on Monday.  In short, the Destiny USA project was selected as a green "demonstration" project under the 2004 Green Bonds program.  $255 million in tax exempt bonds were issued on behalf of the project, the revenue of which was supposed to be used to implement the green features of the project.  As of now, none of the green features have been implemented, and the developer has intimated that even if the project is fully built out, the green features will not be included.  The IRS will have to decide whether to rescind the tax exempt status of the bonds for failing to meet the green requirements.

I have written at length about creating effective green incentives and regulations (see my Regulating Green Series here).  For me, the most interesting part of this debacle is what it reveals about a major green incentive program.  The Green Bonds program was developed as a part of the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004.  In theory, the program was intended to: 

 finance environmentally friendly development. The objective is to reclaim contaminated industrial and commercial land (brown fields), and encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources.

Although the goals of the Green Bonds program were clearly noble, as I see it the program was doomed from the start. No market rate project in 2005 could have met all of these requirements.  Thus, the proponents of the projects had reason to overstate the green components of their projects to access $2 billion in tax free capital for the projects. 

According to the IRS Guidance (available here) $2 billion in AAA tax exempt bonds were authorized by the Federal government to be awarded to four demonstration projects.  To qualify for the bonds, the four projects in aggregate had to:

1. Reduce energy consumption by more that 150 megawatts annually compared to conventional generation;
2. Reduce daily sulfur dioxide emissions by at least 10 tons compared to coal generated power;
3. Expand by 75% the domestic solar PV market in the United States as compared to the expansion of that market from 2001-2002, which was 14.424 megawatts (which means an aggregate increase of approximately 11 megawatts, or an average of almost 4 megawatts of PV power per projects);
4. Use at least 25 megawatts of fuel cell energy generation.

In addition, each project had to be at least 1,000,000 square feet or 20 acres and: 

1. At least 75% of the square footage had to be LEED certified;
2. The wood had to be certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the American Farm Tree System;
3. Reclaim a brownfield site

Beyond the green features, the projects also had to create at least 1000 construction jobs and 1,500 full time equivalent jobs. 

In addition to the requirements of the Green Bonds, the Destiny USA project entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA (available here and summary below from Syracuse.com) committing to: 

1. Using green building design, construction and operation principles to obtain the highest levels of certification from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
   program;
2. Retrofitting more than 100 construction vehicles with diesel particulate filters and using clean fuel, which will reduce emissions by nearly 85 percent;
3. Implementing techniques to reduce idling of vehicles during construction
4. Becoming partners in EPA's Energy Star and WaterSense programs,
   which require the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances;
5. Using over 3,000 tons of coal ash in place of using newly-manufactured Portland Cement, which will reduce greenhouse gases by over 3,000 tons.
    

As a policy measure, the green bonds were destined to be ineffective.  For a green incentive to be truly beneficial, it needs to set out goals that stretch its recipients to higher levels of sustainability, but not so pie-in-the-sky that they create an incentive to greenwash their projects.  This is a tough balance to strike.  Doing so requires that the regulatory bodies have a good understanding of the state of the green market that they are looking to incentivize. It is not enough to throw public money at any project claiming to be green.  The result is projects like Destiny USA, which give a bad name to green building and public financing of green projects. 

By contrast, good investment in green projects can bring real benefits.  I analyzed the investment of ARRA funds in green projects.  Per public dollar, these investments were among the most efficient ways of creating jobs of all of the ARRA money spent. (See my analysis here).  As Congress debates the value of continuing public investment in green projects and renewable energy, the debate must not only be about whether, but how, the support will be crafted and implemented.  The road to green is paved with good intentions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The foundation for a rash of legal actions arising out of a failed green project have been laid. 

According to the Syracuse Post-Standard, the Carousel Center shopping mall was supposed to be a showcase of green features. To fund the project, the Carousel Center developers secured:

$228 million in federally authorized, tax-exempt “green bonds” to help finance the first phase of Congel’s expansion of the mall into an entertainment and tourism center to be called Destiny USA.

Unfortunately, six years later, those green features are no where to be found:

There is no 45-megawatt electricity generating plant running on “biofuel” made from soybean oil and recycled cooking grease. If there were, it would be the largest such plant in the nation and consume more than one-third of the total U.S. biodiesel supply.

Nor are there 290,000 square feet of solar panels on the mall’s roofs and other surfaces, enough to blanket six football fields.

The fuel cells that were to make 7 megawatts of electricity, five times more than the nation’s largest existing commercial fuel-cell installation? Nowhere to be seen.
 

The construction landscape is littered with the bodies of failed projects, grandly envisioned in 2005 and all but abandoned in 2011.  The question--What becomes of the tax exempt status of the bonds? 

Loss of the tax exemption would require Congel to pay higher interest rates on the bonds to compensate investors, who would suddenly be required to pay income taxes on the interest they earned. The increased cost would depend on the interest rate spread between taxable and tax-exempt bonds at the time of the IRS ruling. In 2005, a Destiny USA executive estimated the tax exemption would save the developer about $120 million over the 30-year term of the bonds.

If the IRS chooses to rescind the tax exempt status of the bonds, there could be a flood of legal fallout.  A few possibilities: 

1. Investors, particularly institutional investors, now forced to pay taxes on their previously exempt bonds could sue Congel. 
2. Government entities, like the Syracuse Industrial Development Authority, could pursue Congel. Although the SIDA did not put up any money outright, it gave the project a 30 year tax abatement, presumably on the premise that completion of the project would bring economic development.  If the project would not have gone forward without the $228 million in green bonds, SIDA might have grounds for seeking its property taxes.
3. Citibank and Congel entered into a settlement under which Citibank agreed to disburse the remainder of the $$155 million construction loan on the project.  If the project is devalued by the impact of the tax issue, Congel may be in breach of whatever settlement he came to with Citibank.
4. According to the Post-Standard, the developer’s attorneys now say the promised conservation and technology goals will not be achieved with the current expansion and may never be achieved, even if future phases of Destiny are built. if the Federal government can prove that Congel fraudulently represented that the project would have the green features, this may be additional grounds for a suit.
   

However, Congel almost certainly protected himself and his development company behind a single purpose entity to develop the Carousel Center.  If, at the end of the day, the only asset the single purpose entity has is the partially completed Carousel/Destiny USA Center, investors, the government and the people of Syracuse may have been taken for a ride.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GBLB has been named one of the top 50 Environmental and Climate Change blogs by Lexis Nexis, and has been nominated for a Jackson Design and Remodeling Annual Industry Blogger Award in the Green Category. 

For the Lexis Nexis blogs, you can comment on the best blogs list until February 28 here. Once the comments have been compiled, the Lexis Nexis community will vote for the best blog. 

For the Jackson Design and Remodeling competition, voting will start March 4, 2011 and closes on April 15, 2011.

Thanks to our great readers who nominated us and for voting for GBLB for best blog!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.

Yesterday, I discussed the fact that Henry Gifford filed an Amended Complaint in his suit against the USGBC for fraudulently claiming that LEED buildings save energy.  The post, as well as the Amended Complaint are available here. I also noted that Mr. Gifford and the other plaintiffs probably do not have standing to bring the suit because they were not harmed by the allegedly fraudulent advertising of the LEED system. 

Mr. Gifford alleges that the people and entities that have been and will be harmed include:

USGBC's misrepresentations have and will continue to deceive consumers and voters, taxpayers, developers, municipalities, and legislators at the local, state and federal levels.

Amended Complaint at Paragraph 57.

This brings up critical questions about the legitimacy of Mr. Gifford's claims:

If developers were really experiencing energy performance vastly out of proportion to their expectations, wouldn't there be suits by developers against their design professionals and/or the USGBC? 

If the Federal government, with one of the largest portfolios of LEED buildings, were really disappointed by their performance, wouldn't they stop using the system? 

If design professionals were spending money to obtain worthless credentials, then wouldn't architects (whose profession is down something like 50%) be lining up to demand their money back? 

If the problems that Gifford alleges are so fundamental, why is it that Henry Gifford and a few other plaintiffs who have rejected the LEED paradigm seem to be the only ones suing? 

The concept of abstract “rightness” does not play a very large role in the American judicial system.  With few exceptions, only a person harmed can bring suit to right the wrong done to him or her. So, even if you or I see something terribly “wrong” happening, if we are not harmed by it, we have no standing to bring suit. 

For example, a man stops by a street hustler and plays a shell game.  You are standing on the corner.  You see the street hustler take his money and bilk him.  The man sees it too, but shrugs his shoulders and walks away.  You cannot sue to get the guy’s money back—only he can (or press charges, etc). 

If there are no victims of the USGBC's "fraud", then Mr. Gifford's is really just a gadfly who is calling attention to himself by suing the USGBC.  If there is fraud, then we should see a rash of suits by plaintiffs who have actually been harmed--consumers and voters, taxpayers, developers, municipalities, and legislators at the local, state and federal levels.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.

In October 2010, Henry Gifford filed a lawsuit against the United States Green Building Council alleging, essentially, that the USGBC had fraudulently represented the performance of LEED buildings, and doctored study results to support their claim that LEED buildings performed more efficiently than standard construction. Yesterday, Henry Gifford filed an amended complaint (you can download the amended complaint here). 

The original suit was filed as a class action, and included claims against the USGBC for illegal monopolization and false advertising.  I posted that these issues would probably not pass legal muster.  The class action could not be certified (see my post here) and the suit did not establish that the USGBC was a monopoly (see my post here).

 There are several changes to the new complaint:

1. It has been boiled down to essentially a False Advertising and Consumer Fraud Act case under Federal and New York State law.
2. It is not a class action.
3. The monopolization claim has been eliminated.
4. Several new plaintiffs have been added, including an architect, an engineer, and a "speciali[ist] in moisture barrier design and mold remediation."

The essential claims as alleged in the factual section of the Amended Complaint are that the USGBC has misrepresented the energy efficiency of LEED buildings, and that the LEED certification is not a verification of the actual energy performance of the building. 

From a legal perspective, I believe that the Amended Complaint is still riddled with a fatal flaw--the plaintiffs probably do not have standing. 

In alleging a violation of the Lanham Act, the Federal act prohibiting false advertising, the Amended Complaint states:

USGBC's misrepresentations have an will continue to deceive consumers, voters, taxpayers, developers, municipalities and legislators at the local, state and federal levels.

However, fraud requires "reasonable reliance" on the false statements. The difficulty here is that, although more plaintiffs have been added, they are still not plaintiffs that were "duped" by the USGBC's representations.  The claims alleged by Gifford are really claims rightfully brought by people who have been harmed by spending too much on LEED buildings, or LEED accreditation.  In essence, Gifford has not eliminated the standing problem that doomed his class action. 

The Amended Complaint is also rife with hyperbole, which diminishes its credibility.  For example, with respect to a study on the performance of LEED buildings:

The self-selection bias is so obvious, it's about as reliable as using breathalyzer tests of drivers who volunteer to be tested as a gauge of how many people drink and drive.

See Amended Complaint at Paragraph 32(b).

Despite the fact that Gifford's lawsuit is probably flawed by reason of lack of standing, as revised the Amended Complaint may be enough to survive a Motion to Dismiss.  In that case, discovery will proceed, which will open the internal communications of the USGBC to public scrutiny. 

As with the kerfuffle over the emails among scientists studying global warming, this may muddy the waters and slow the progress of green building, even if the claims against the USGBC are eventually proven to be unfounded.   

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In last week's State of the Union address, Obama challenged America to embrace a "Sputnik Moment":

So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.  

Today, speaking in State College, PA, Barack Obama is scheduled to make a speech on committing to new programs for energy efficient buildings.

According to Reuters:

As part of that program, Obama will announce a plan to improve energy efficiency in U.S. commercial buildings by offering businesses incentives to help pay for clean energy upgrades of offices, stores and other buildings.

According to the White House, the "Better Buildings Initiative" will: 

achieve a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2020, reduce companies' and business owners' energy bills by about $40 billion per year and save energy.

Most significantly, the Obama administration announced that the cost of the program would be "paid for by ending tax subsidies for oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels."

Obama faces many challenges in the process.  At a recent American Council On Renewable Energy event on the new political climate in Washington, all of the speakers expressed skepticism that real energy policy moves could be made in 2010. The Republican party does not want to be perceived to approve of any discretionary spending.  The fossil fuel lobby is very strong and the breaks and incentives for fossil fuels very well entrenched.  Finally, states with nonrenewable resources like coal, natural gas and petroleum are loathe to threaten these high value industries, particularly in lean economic times. 

Obama and the Democrats have a few unique elements which could turn into a "perfect storm" for renewable energy policy:  

• Public interest studies have demonstrated that Americans currently have a positive image of solar and other renewables. 
• The Gulf Oil Spill is still relatively fresh in the public's mind.
• The turmoil in the Middle East is increasing by the day.
• There were record weather patterns again this winter.
• The ARRA demonstrated the capacity of public investment to grow green jobs.

If these components can be honed into a clear, coherent connection to the value of investment in renewable energy, then it may be possible to achieve a major step forward in energy policy. 

One small step for Obama, one giant step for mankind.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link