Green Building Law Blog : Green Building Lawyer & Attorney : Shari Shapiro: Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel Law Firm : Environmental, LEED

I will make an admission.  I took tax in law school, and, it was the academic equivalent of having my left arm sawed off without anaesthesia.  Why? Mostly because things which should have been clear seemed hopelessly obscure.  Now I deal with advising clients on incentives available for sustainable projects, and the tax code and I have had to battle to a stalemate.  At least, I battle, and the tax code just sits there impentarably.

One of the features which is particularly difficicult is the relationship between 26 USC 45, which deals with tax credits for producing renewable energy (the "production tax credit" or PTC), 26 USC 48 which deals with tax credits for investing in renewable energy equipement (the "investment tax credit" or ITC) and the Renewable Energy Grant created by the ARRA.  All three of these relate to businesses which have installed renewable energy technologies, like solar, wind and geothermal.  It should be clear and easy to understand which ones apply to your business and what the incentive will be.  As with all things related to the tax code, however, it is not.

I am going to attempt to clear up some of the obscurity, but, as with all information on this blog, it is for informational purposes only, not legal advice; and you should consult your legal and financial advisor to provide you with proper advice for your business.

The incentives are mutually exclusive--The PTC and the ITC cannot both be taken, and they can be swapped for the REG, but you cannot take the PTC/ITC and the REG.

In plain english, it appears that the PTC is designed for renewable energy sources where the power is designed to be sold to others as a Renewable Energy Credit, and the ITC is designed for renewable energy sources where the power is used on-site.  The Renewable Energy Grant allows companies which have invested in either type of renewable energy capacity to receive cash, as opposed to a tax credit, which is helpful particularly if the company has no tax liability or a tax loss. 

 There are some resources available to help you sort through this morass.  The DSIRE database has quick summaries of available state and federal incentives.  The Utah Clean Energy site has a nice summary of the renewable energy features of the ARRA.   The DOE site has a useful summary of renewable energy incentives for businesses as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many months ago I wrote about the need for a floating gas tax to stabilize fuel prices, allow predictability and incentivize eco-friendly developments.  Now Ford chairman Bill Ford agrees.

Earth2tech reported:

“If prices are gyrating wildly,” he said, it becomes extremely difficult to know whether the company is planning the right vehicle or technology (if you’re operating under the assumption that automakers should supply what the market demands, and that there’s a lot less demand for fuel-sippers when gas is cheap). Ford noted that in the EU, diesel fuel “became an easy decision” for drivers after the government decided to make it much cheaper than gasoline.
 

When major environmental regulations were passed in the early 1970s, there was a lot of hand-wringing over how it was going to destroy the economy.  Now, with cap-and-trade, similar arguments are being made. Senator James Inhofe said yesterday, about EPA's declaration of greenhouse gases as harmful to human health:

This move by EPA will unleash a torrent of regulations that will destroy jobs, harm consumers, and extend the agency’s reach into every corner of American life.

But it turns out, in capitalism, the rules of the game don't matter, as long as they are predictable. So Obama should implement cap-and-trade, and those companies that can adapt and thrive in the new regulatory environment will survive.  And those that cannot, will not, but others will take their place.  I predict that with the attitude expressed by Bill Ford, Ford will survive...and the others should not.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most people are thinking about taxes this week.  Today is tax freedom day, the day on which most Americans have earned enough money to pay their taxes for the year, and Wednesday is tax day. In the spirit of this week, a post about taxation. 

How do you influence people to use reusable grocery bags instead of plastic ones? 

There are a few options:

1) Ban customers from using plastic bags

2) Ban stores from providing plastic bags

3) Give away or subsidize reusable bags to customers

4) Give away or subsidize reusable bags to stores

5) Educate stores and/or customers on the benefits of reusable bags

6) Charge customers a tax for the privilege of using plastic bags

7) Charge stores a tax for the privilege of using distributing plastic bages

The first two are traditional, command-and-control regulations.  "Thou shalt not....".  Historically, this had been the model of environmental regulation.  3 and 4 are incentives.  During the Bush Administration, market based incentives and voluntary programs were very much in vogue for environmental protection. 

I believe that all four have their place.  For big, intractable problems with clear environmental consequences, command-and-control is the only way to go.  Incentives are best utilized to correct for market failures, like making solar or wind power more affordable because carbon is not priced in the cost of petroleum.

But I think five through seven--education and taxation are underutilized tools of environmental policymaking.  Miley Cyrus sporting a reusable shopping bag in the new blockbuster film is a way of educating and influencing public action.  Make the reusable tote the new "it" bag.  The green building equivalent is providing education on green building practices, and for government agencies to build green and widely promote their efforts.

Taxation is another great way to influence public choices. By taxing a plastic bag, even a small amount, people are penalized for their anti-social behavior.  We do it with cigarettes, why not plastic bags? Or stick construction? By making alternatives available at the same price as the tax--a 50 cent tax for each plastic bag, and a reusable tote at the same price, people will be more likely to choose the reusable bag. Combined with education on better choices, a penal tax is a very strong policy lever. Portland has sort of done this with the feebate structure, charging builders who want to build traditionally, and remitting that fee for green construction.  But I have yet to see a green building program which taxes builders for traditional construction.  The tax could be tied to the increased public resources needed to service traditional buildings--stormwater management, electricity, etc.

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

I am involved in getting green building legislation passed in Philadelphia.  Basically, the bill would tie a 10 year tax abatement to LEED certification.  The greater the level of certification, the higher the tax abatement.  The bill is modelled on many other cities' incentive systems, and certainly does not go as far as Boston, Washington DC or several other cities in requiring green building practices.

What has been interesting about the process of shaping this bill and lobbying for its passage is the Realpolitik which comes into play when trying to get legislation done.  This is one of my favorite topics--where the real world intersects with theory.

In theory, everyone should be on board with green building practices.  Save the environment, save money in utilities, get federal, state and local incentives and have a great marketing tool.  In addition, most studies now report that the cost of green is down, in some cases not costing any additional resources beyond standard construction costs. 

But the reality of policymaking is a whole different ballgame.  Turf battles exist even where all the participants are supportive of green building.  Who created the legislation and who will get credit for its passage will effect whether a piece of legislation passes or dies in committee.  Special interest groups, like the affordable housing community, residential developers, mixed-use advocates and others come out  either because of cost considerations or inapplicability to their building typology.  Finally, the best bill may not be the ultimate bill that is passed--compromises made for political reasons will effect the content of the ultimate legislation. 

What is the solution? 

1. Understand the Realpolitik aspects of the process going in.  We do not live in an ivory tower, we live in a democracy with co-equal branches of government.  Engaging the power players in your jurisdiction will matter.

2. Reach out to interest groups early.  These groups should include the affordable housing community, residential developers, large development companies, contractors, the Building Industry Association if your area has one, etc. 

3. Build a coalition of supporters. Political supporters, industry supporters, academic supporters, etc.

4. Recognize that you will not please everybody.  Put in the strongest bill you can, with the best support you can.

5.  Finally, don't let the great be the enemy of the good.  Do not let the holy grail of a perfect bill supported by all constituencies stand in the way of getting something actually passed which  advances the agenda of benefitting the environment through green building practices. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the past five years, green building regulation has been on a meteoric rise. Green practices are being incorporated into state an local building and zoning codes and ordinances. According to the AIA, 14% of US cities with populations in excess of 50,000 people now have green building programs in place, and the number of counties with green building programs has grown nearly 400% since 2003. In addition, federal statutes were passed requiring federal agencies to build green, procure recycled materials, reduce energy consumption and prevent pollution.  The regulatory schemes fall into one of three basic types: command-and-control regulations, financial incentives and non-financial incentives.  

Command and Control Regulations

These laws mandate that buildings comply with a green building standard of some type. Command and control regulations often reference a private green building standard, like LEED, but may also include local green building requirements on top of the referenced standard.

Command and control regulations come in two basic types, zoning ordinances and building code changes. One model for instituting a command-and-control regulation is to pass a zoning ordinance which requires that a proposed project meet the referenced green building standard, in order to obtain zoning.

 In 2007, Boston made several amendments to the Boston Zoning Code to require all projects over 50,000 SF to be designed and planned to meet the “certified” level using the USGBC’s LEED systems modified with Boston-specific credits.

The advantage of a zoning code based regulation is that the project team can determine how to achieve the green building standard. In addition, local governments have almost exclusive control over their zoning.

Another approach is to revise the building code to require green building practices. On July 17, 2008, California adopted a green building code applying to all new construction statewide, with targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, plumbing systems, diversion of construction waste and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design. 

 Some advantages to amending the building code to include green building requirements is that more buildings are generally impacted by changes to the building code, and the system of inspection for compliance with building codes is already in place.

Financial Incentives

Municipalities can also provide financial incentives to promote green building practices. These financial incentives can take almost any form: tax rebates, fee waivers, cash payments, etc. 

Portland, OR recently instituted a unique “feebate” structure whereby buildings built in a conventional manner pay a specified fee for their permits, building s built to LEED Silver standard get the fees waived and get access to green building resources, and buildings built to LEED Gold or higher actually get a rebate from the government. 

The advantage to financial incentives is that they use the market to encourage green building, as opposed to mandating green building practices.  However, there has been little data collected regarding whether financial incentives cause developers to go green where they would not have otherwise.  In other words, the value of the financial incentives in stimulating new green building projects has not been adequately studied.  

Non-Financial Incentives

The third common type of green building regulation is the non-financial incentive. Some local governments allow for increases in floor to area ratio, building height or density for building green. Others expedite the permitting process. 

Using non-financial incentives has the advantage of being inexpensive for cash-strapped local governments, and harnessing some of the same market based value of financial incentives.  It is also a good gateway for entry into regulating green buildings for local governments who want to proceed in a step-by-step fashion.

TOMORROW: To LEED or Not To LEED: Pros and Cons Of Integrating Third Party Certification Into Green Building Regulations

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To stimulate the green technology, repair infrastructure, fund transit and save the world, tax gas now.  At this moment, the price of gasoline, our carbon based friend, is $46.28.  At this price, green energy technologies like wind and solar are not competitive.  Energy efficiency improvements on houses do not make economic sense because energy is just too darned cheap. Thus continues our dependency on oil which is contributing to global warming and funding our frenemies in the middle east.  What to do? 

Tax gas now.

Here's how to do it:

First, set a price of crude where energy efficiencies will make economic sense.  Then set a floating tax which will tax up to that price point--i.e. up to that price point, the difference between the market price of oil and the set point will be tax revenue,  after that price point, there will be no need for the tax because the market price of oil will be high enough for green to make economic sense, like, say, last summer.  Finally, use the "carbon" tax on crude to fund green initiatives from green jobs to incentives for green builldings. 

But what about the economy? The trillions in stimulus (which are coming) will have to come from somewhere, might as well be a tax on crude which directly links to the problem. 

UPDATE: My friend Chris Hill at Construction Law wrote a very cogent challenge to the economics of the plan.

UPDATE: The Oil Drum had an answer--lower income taxes to compensate for gas tax.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link