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

Utilities are often dismissed or ignored in most discussions of energy efficiency and green building  I find this quite remarkable.  First, many state laws mandate that utilities engage in energy efficiency efforts.  Second, as utilities are directly connected to the energy consumer, utilities are often n the best place to advocate for energy efficiency and deliver energy efficiency programs.

The problem is that utilities are not usually incentivized, and are often disincentivized, from promoting energy effiiciency.  Historically, utilities have made money by selling electricity or natural gas, and recovering a return on their sales and investment in infrastructure from ratepayers.  The trouble with this scenario is that it does little to incentivize utilities to promote energy efficiency.  If the utility promotes conservation, thus selling less energy and reducing investment in infrastructure, they will make less money.   

Some energy efficiency advocates are beginning to promote different utility rate structures which pay the utilities for the lost revenue attributable to energy efficiency, so that the utilities are made whole for thheir investment. An article on energy efficient rate making is available here.

These new rate structures are not without their challenges.  For example, the Public Regulation Commission of New Mexico put in place a rate scheme which allowed utilities to collect one cent for each kilowatt hour of electricity that was saved through energy efficiency programs.  The average increase on a residential customer was 17 cents a month. 

On August 3, the New Mexico Supreme Court struck down the surcharge, holding:

The PRC did not inquire into any of the utilities’ revenue requirements, nor any of
the traditional elements of the ratemaking process. At the evidentiary hearing, the utilities merely presented evidence on what the impact of [the surcharge] would be. Without inquiring into a utility’s revenue requirements, we fail to see how the PRC could adequately balance the investors’ interests against the ratepayers’ interests when adopting [the surcharge]. The PRC’s adoption of the adder rates was arbitrary and unlawful in that they were not evidence based, cost-based, nor utility specific.

The full opinion is available here.

Energy efficiency advocates seeking to use utility ratemaking as a mechanism for promoting energy efficiency must pay careful attention to ratemaking regulations, and realize that attempts to change the historical rate structures will face opposition from many sides, including consumer advocates.   

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A lot of attention has been paid to creating a greener building stock by incorporating green building practices into building codes.  The development of the International Green Construction Code is just one example.

However, there are two primary components to every regulation--policy and process.  Both components are critical to acheiving regulatory goals. Good laws that are not implemented and enforced might as well not exist, and bad laws which are well implemented create a different, but equally bad, outcome. 

The process for approving building codes is arcane at best and impenetrable at worst. To those interested in sustainability, code process may seem like the ultimate "inside baseball" information, like knowing what the Lou Brock's 1967 out statistic was--simply not vital to understanding baseball as a whole.  HB 377, a law signed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett this week demonstrates how how process changes can impact green building and energy efficiency policy. 

 Generally, the process for adopting building codes is as follows:

1.  The local or state government enacts enabling legislation requiring a building code, often incorporating the International Code Council's model code.  

2.  The International Code Council updates their model building codes on a regular basis, once every three years.

3.  The state or local government has some mechanism, either automatic or through an approval process, for updating its building code to the new version. 

Depending on what level of authority is provided to local governments with respect to their building codes, local governments may adopt additional or different changes to the building code requirements.

Pennsylvania has a state wide building code which, until this week, was an "opt-out" model.  Updates to the International Construction Code were automatically incorporated into the Pennsylvania code unless provisions were specifically rejected by a Governnor-appointed council comprised of builders, architects, code officials and so on. 

The bill enacted this week switches the code adoption to an "opt-in" model.  Any changes to the construction code must be approved by a super-majority vote by the council, otherwise the prior code remains in effect.  In addition, the law adds an additional seat to the 19 member council for:

A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FROM AN ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHO HAS RECOGNIZED ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Policy watchers, like Penn Future , the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, and the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships , anticipate that the super-majority vote of the council will make enacting updates of the ICC very difficult, and that the extra seat for the general contractor will bias the council against upgrading the stringency of the building code. This, of course, includes code changes for greater energy efficiency requirements and incorporating green building practices.

HB 377 said nothing about energy efficiency or green building.  Nonetheless, the changes to the building code adoption process creates a potentially significant barrier to a greener building stock in Pennsylvania.  On a 20 person board, It would require 13 votes to put a code change into effect, and each change must be lobbied for separately.  

Do you know what the code adoption process is in your state or municipality?  Are there any proposed changes?  Let GBLB know what you find out.  It might surprise you.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Because of the enormous popularity of last week's post on green project finance--Let's Make A Deal--Top 10 Rules Of Green Project Finance--I have decided to do a series on the various aspects of green project finance. 

Today we will discuss alternative financing mechanisms for green projects.  Over the next few weeks, I will do posts on incentives available for green projects, an update on the PACE controversy, and the basics of renewable energy finance.  If you have suggestions for other posts you would like to see as part of this series, feel free to email me. 

Please note, I am not a finance professional, and the goal of these posts is simply to give a high-level overview of potential financing mechanisms.  As with all financial decisions, please consult your financial professional and attorney for advice specific to your project.  And now, without further adieu, a primer on alternative green financing mechanisms.

Basically, there are only a few mechanisms for financing projects.  Self-finance (your bank account); equity finance (someone else's bank account); debt finance (the bank); government finance (Uncle Sam's bank account); and grant finance (your parents' third party bank accounts). 

These basic mechanisms are no different for green projects.  However, there are some interesting variants that have developed for financing green projects of various types. Many of the financing concepts are not mutually exclusive.  To the extent that one of the models, like energy efficient mortgages, is applicable mostly to a specific sector, it can be used as a model for a specific project's financing arrangement with a particular financier. 

Leases

For commercial scale (and even residential) green and renewable energy projects, variants on leases have become an interesting project financing model. Essentially, a provider leases the equipment (typically  to the owner of a facility through a long term lease), which reduces the up front costs.

There are a wide variety of leases available, and the decision among which lease is the best solution is largely based on tax and payment considerations.  Most leases radically reduce or eliminate up front costs.  Some leases allow the lessee to take advantage of the tax incentives, renewable energy credits and depreciation on the green equipment, others do not. 

For a great overview of lease variants for renewable energy projects, see here.

Performance Contracting

Performance contracting is essentially a loan from the provider of the green/renewable equipment (known as an Energy Services Company, or ESCO) that is paid for out of the savings or benefits of the green project.  For example, suppose you want to install energy efficient improvements on a facility which will cost $1000 and will save $100 per year.  Typically, the ESCO arranges the financing, and you pay the ESCO through reduced energy bills, sharing the energy cost savings over a predetermined length of time, after which all of the energy savings revert to you.  The ESCO often guarantees the energy savings from the project. This mechanism is used for both energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, and can be used with projects of almost any scale. The DOE has a handbook on performance contracting available here.

Grants In Lieu

 As part of the Stimulus bill, the Department of Treasury made available "1603 grants" which are grants in lieu of tax credits which reimburse up to 30% of the cost of installing certain renewable energy projects. Environmental Leader summarizes the 1603 grant program here:

The grant is 30 percent of the full cost of the intended solar system. Without the grant, system owners could still claim the 30 percent as a tax credit, but some businesses weren’t profitable enough to make use of the full tax credit. This grant now keeps all businesses eligible for the 30 percent incentive, not just those with enough profits (or those with financing partners with enough profits).

The full description of the program is available from the Department of Treasury.

 Energy-Efficient Mortgages And Energy Improvement Mortgages

A form of debt financing, energy efficient mortgages (and their friend, Energy Improvement Mortgages) work on the premise that implementing energy efficiencies on a property will free up cash which can pay down a debt.  The Department of Energy has a great handbook and other resources available here. HUD has qualifications guidelines, approved lenders, etc. available here.

Mortgageloan.com has a nice overview here:

Green, or “Energy efficient” mortgages, let you borrow extra money to pay for energy efficient upgrades to your current home or a new or old home that you plan to buy. The result is a more environmentally friendly living space that uses fewer resources for heating and cooling and has dramatically lower utility costs...At this time, Energy Efficient Mortgages aren’t second mortgages. Though they are created separately from your primary mortgage, they are ultimately rolled into your primary mortgage—so you only make only one payment per month.

Technically, energy efficient mortgages:

give borrowers the opportunity to finance cost-effective, energy-saving measures as part of a single mortgage and stretch debt-to-income qualifying ratios on loans thereby allowing borrowers to qualify for a larger loan amount and a better, more energy-efficient home.
 

And energy improvement mortgages:

are used for existing homes and allow borrowers to include the cost of energy-efficiency improvements in the mortgage without increasing the down payment.
 

The problem with energy efficient mortgages is that they are pretty small scale. For example, the FHA program only backs EEMs for one to four units.

 

 

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

I have been tracking the green stimulus spending since June 2009. In November 2009, actual dollars spent on green projects was $1.5 billion.  Now, in November 2010, dollars actually paid to date on green projects is approximately $11 billion.  It amounts to approximately 7% of contract spending from the Stimulus bill (which does not include tax benefits), and 2.6% of the total stimulus money paid to date. 

By agency, the spending on green breaks out as follows:

	Allocated	Paid Out	Unit	% Paid
DOE	33.29	9.4	Billion	28.24%
Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy	16.50	4	Billion	26.06%
EPA (9/30)	7.20	4	Billion	62.22%
GSA	6.10	1.42	Billion	23.28%
Green Buildings	5.50	1	Billion	18.18%
DOT	40.40	22.3	Billion	55.20%
High Speed Rail	3.00	1	Billion	33.33%
Total Agency	86.99	38	Billion	43.22%
Total Green	32.20	11	Billion	33.48%
Total Contract Spending	275.00	156.7	Billion	56.98%
Total Stimulus	787.00	403.4	Billion	51.26%
% Green of Contract Spending	11.71%	6.88%
% Green of Total Stimulus	4.09%	2.67%

[I used the same methodology as described in detail here. If you are a data geek like me, you can do your own number crunching at Recovery.gov and the agency recovery sites who do weekly reporting in Excel on the allocation and spending of the Stimulus money.  There is a wealth of information available, and I welcome any input or different statistical or mathematical analyses from the Green Building Law Community.] 

At the initiation of the Stimulus, Obama touted the green components of the stimulus bill.  He has also been very positive on the prospect of green jobs. Opponents of the stimulus bill, and waning support of green initiatives and green jobs in general, has been on the rise.

So the question becomes: what is the value of the 3% of the Stimulus that went to green iniatives, and was the return on investment higher or lower than the other initiatives that were funded by the stimulus? The answer to the ROI question is "yes"-- Agencies tasked with green funding (DOE, EPA, GSA) hold 3 of the top 10 most efficient job creating agencies that were allocated stimulus funding:

 

	Stimulus Funds Paid	Jobs Created	Dollars Per Job
Department of Justice	$2,013,343,173	16330.59	$123,286.62
National Science Foundation	$817,277,981	5503.36	$148,505.27
Department of the Interior	$1,545,986,174	10047.13	$153,873.41
Department of Education	$66,652,472,918	341668.74	$195,079.22
Department of Energy	$9,691,290,357	42262.17	$229,313.60
General Services Administration	$1,493,185,840	5773.82	$258,613.16
Department of Housing and Urban Development	$7,270,460,291	27640.01	$263,041.16
Department of Homeland Security	$598,741,846	2137.91	$280,059.43
Environmental Protection Agency	$4,608,982,170	16233.68	$283,914.81

  By contrast, the two departments which spent the most money, the Department of the Treasury (tax cuts) and the Social Security Administration only created 188 direct jobs.

Department of the Treasury	$8,575,280,379	144.27	$59,439,109.86
Social Security Administration	$13,727,406,290	44.75	$306,757,682.46

It will be argued that the tax cuts, etc. indirectly created jobs by pumping more money into the economy.  But there is a direct way to measure the impact of a single green dollar.  To address this, I looked at the statistics for the GSA.  Unlike other agencies which allocate money through states to programs or disperse it to individual taxpayers, the GSA contracts directly with builders and other direct contract fund recipients to build or renovate federal buildings.

As of September 30, 2010, the GSA had saved or created 5773.82 jobs (how you have .82 of a job I can't say). The stat is here. The GSA was 16th in the agencies recieving funding, and the12th net job creating agency.  But on a job per dollar basis, the GSA the 6th most efficient job creating agency at $258,613.16 per job created.   

Do not fall into this statistical trap "$258k per job? We could have created five $50k jobs for that money!"  Remember, this dollars per job includes materials and costs of the jobs involved (bricks, mortar, etc.), which also have downstream job creating effects (brick makers, concrete haulers, etc.).

Tomorrow, I will post an interview I had at Greenbuild with Kevin Kampschroer, the Director of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings at GSA in which he gave insight not only into the GSA's experience with the Stimulus spending, but also on the long term impacts the Stimulus spending had on the operation of the GSA itself. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several stories recently have highlighted the other side of the regulatory coin--regulations are onlyeffective if they are enforced. 

On Monday, the Department of Energy issued 27 penalty notices to companies for failure to meet energy efficiency and water conservation standards.

According to Green Wombat:

For the first time in 35 years, the United States Department of Energy is moving to enforce decades-old energy efficiency and water conservation standards for products like refrigerators, light bulbs and shower heads.

Baltidome challenged Baltimore's enforcement of the city's green building code with respect to a new development being considered for the city center. 

Whether these enforcement actions are legitimate (Baltimore lawyer Stuart Kaplow did a little digging and reported to me that the senior policy making public official reviewing the project  assured him that the project, as designed, complies with the law), it is worth discussing what impact enforcement of energy efficiency codes, building codes, tree planting regulations and open space requirements THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS could have on greening the United States. 

Part of the problem is that putting laws on the books is cheap, and enforcement is expensive.  It requires expertise, personnel, lawyers, inspectors and so forth to make it work.  In this era of contrained resources, it is nice to see that the DOE is enforcing some of its regulations.  Let us hope that other regulatory bodies follow suit, like the Federal Trade Commission, which is in charge of false green advertising claims, but has only filed a handful of enforcement actions over the years.   

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday, I posted the complaint for BIA v. Washington State Building Council, filed on May 25, 2010 by the Building Industry Association of Washington to enjoin (or, in regular english, stop) the Washington State Energy Code from taking effect on July 1, 2010.  The case is structured similarly to AHRI v. City of Albuquerque, which I have written about extensively on GBLB.

The foundation of both AHRI and BIA is in essence one of preemption--that the federal government has enacted laws that prevent lesser governmental authorities from passing laws on the same subject.  In BIA, the plaintiffs allege that the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code

in conflict with and preempted by federal law and regulations which govern the energy efficiency of certain residential heating, ventilation air conditioning and plumbing product, including the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 ("EPCA"), as amended by the National Applicance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 ("NAECA"), Public Law No. 100-12, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ("EPACT"), Pubilc Law No. 102-486, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6297.  As a result, Chapter 9 violates the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the United State Constitution.

What is most interesting about the BIA suit is that the Washington State Energy Code did not mandate enhanced energy efficiency of the HVAC equipment.  Rather, it allowed for a point system whereby energy efficienct HVAC components were one path for compliance with an overall energy efficiency target.  The BIA complaint alleges that it is essentially impossible to comply with the energy efficiency targets without  installing enhanced HVAC equipment.  This is an interesting twist on the AHRI  case, because here it is possible to comply with the Washington State Energy Code without running afoul of federal HVAC energy requirements. 

Another interesting argument is in a footnote.  One path for compliance with the Washington State Energy Code is to build a house less than 1500 square feet.  The complaint states:

Plaintiffs would submit that a blanket regulation forcing individuals to live in or contruct a home of a certain size runs afoul of constitutional protections against unlawful takings.

Two things are true: 1) the Washington State Energy Code is not a blanket regulation forching individuals to construct or live in a home of a certain size, and 2) even a blanket regulation that did not essentially eliminate all value from a property would not be considered a regulatory taking.  So this argument, while appealing at first glance, is probably not very valid. 

One time is an anomaly, twice is a pattern.  As states and local governments seek to regulate energy efficiency, I believe we will see more suits like AHRI and BIA  until the federal government upgrades HVAC energy efficiency requirements (which they are in the process of doing), or a nationwide energy efficiency building code goes into effect.

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