I liked David Rebenau’s beginning of a discussion of the two business models (consulting vs. contracting) that energy auditors use to sell their services found here. He put into words something that I’ve been looking at for some time now but hadn’t solidified.

A consultant energy auditor is someone who doesn’t do the work themselves or even sub it out.

A contractor energy auditor is someone who audits and then will do the work themselves or sub out to a network.

When to Hire a Consultant-type Auditor

• When you want to do the work yourself and don’t need the referral or bid for work.
• When you want a more objective third-party assessment of your building.

When to Hire a Contracto-type Auditor

• When you don’t want the hassle of trying to manage the project yourself. You want it just to ‘get done’.

The pro’s and con’s seem straightforward. I’d say that neither model is better necessarily. There are good, competent people using both models for certain. Do your digging and networking and just find the best auditors in your area. Good service is worth the investigative effort.

When I scribe my periodic gratitude lists, a practice that always seems difficult to fit in but which without-fail brings tangible rewards, I always put down my involvement in the Tucson Branch of the USGBC AZ Chapter. I have been volunteering for the Tucson Branch for about 2 years now, and this experience has allowed me tremendous learning opportunities as well as the chance to work with so many talented people.

I first started volunteering on the Tucson Branch’s Communications and Program Committees. The Communications Committee had more work for me to do, so most of my initial experience was working with Nate, Nancy, and a few others to create more efficient, more effective communication between committees as well as to the public. We worked on automating communications using the web, email and other forms of electronic communication. Never one to be afraid of trial by fire, I volunteered to help write a press release for our Membership Outreach event last October. Others stepped in to help me and I learned so much from my mistakes. What a wonderful experience! I learned what needs to be included in a press release, how to draft succinct communication, and how to ask others for help.

Volunteering with the Emerging Green Builders Committee also was a great experience. (Southern AZ Branch website, National EGB website) We had a few meetings and then I offered our services at the same Membership Outreach event mentioned above in October 2008. I was able to create and present a talk on changes in the new LEED 2009 system and how these affected businesses involved with green building.  The focus was on how to transition smoothly into using the new LEED 2009 system.

This year, I will be shifting my volunteering energies a bit. I will be chairing the Tucson Branch Technical Committee. I like learning about the technical specifications and HOW we make green buildings. In learning some of the nitty-gritty details,  I believe that I can gain a better understanding of the feasibility and drawbacks if any of sustainable products and practices. For example, in the Technical Committee, a colleague and I are working on understanding the current state of LEDs. My colleague is an architect and a lighting designer and has found that the current efficiency of LEDs is NOT where it could be. In other words, LEDs will save energy in the coming years but the technology is not there yet. Had my colleague not been delving into the details and technical specifications, she might not have known this. Thus, I aspire to understand the details so as to better my understanding of ‘green’ and to be able to sift through the marketing hype.

Another avenue of volunteering is serving on the Governing Council of your local branch. This year, I was also co-opted into the USGBC Southern AZ Branch Governing Council. That is where decisions are made that affect the Southern AZ Branch as a whole. I find this position very exciting. Just this past weekend, we were given a Dynamic Governance training (which is a whole other story in and of itself). Suffice it to say that our fearless leader for the training brought us closer to understanding this powerful governing process/tool.

As if all that wasn’t enough to keep me busy until the next millenium, I also applied to compete for the LEED for Homes (LEED-H) Advocate position for our state and was accepted! Great Scott! I’m very excited about this position mostly because I will be learning much about the residential home building industry and how to best advocate for the LEED rating system within it. My passion is to give everyone, not just the affluent, the chance to live in environmentally-sustainable, non-toxic homes.

So….what’s my message here? I guess it might be: give your time to volunteer with the USGBC. It has been incredibly worth it to me. I’ve gotten back much more than I’ve given. I’m recruiting for the Technical Committee and we have a lot of great things planned for the year. Shoot me an email and let me know if you are interested!

I’m such a techno-newbie. I am just getting on twitter. I have no idea if I’m even using the jargon correctly (e.g. “getting on twitter”.)

Anyway, somehow this gentleman named Stephen Del Percio sent me a message through twitter responding to my blog post on 179D. Well, he wrote a really great blog post about this which I wanted to serve up here:

Stephen’s Blog Post

Another great Green Building Law website is one by Shari Shapiro.

Check these blogs out if you have the time.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, I have a builder who is thinking of getting on the LEED for Homes bandwagon and he wants me to be the LEED consultant. I have already drafted up a quote for services which includes a set fee for the preliminary work (i.e. charrette preparation and facilitation, etc.) and then I was going to charge him by the hour for project management stuff after we complete the charrette.

However, my gut says that this is part of the problem with the old model of building. I’ll quote something from Natural Capitalism (Paul Hawken):

“One reason that buildings are inefficient is that the compensation paid to architects and engineers (and in this case, me –the consultant) is frequently based directly or indirectly on a percentage of the cost of the building itself or of the equipment they specify for it. Designers who attempt to eliminate costly equipment therefore end up with lower fees…

…An obvious remedy for this mess if for a developer to stipulate a positive incentive for achieving efficiency. Pilot projects launched by Rocky Mountain Institute in 1996-97 are now testing how much more efficient buildings can become if their designers are rewarded for what they save, not what they spend. Through simple supplementary contracts, designers would keep a portion of several years’ measured energy savings as a bonus fee. Rewards can also be balanced with penalties for poor performance. The incentive can also be paid partly up-front and partly several years later, trued up to measured savings, so the designers have the right inducement to see that their intentions are fully realized in construction, commissioning, training, and operation. Like a Chinese “wellness doctor,” they could even be paid a small performance-based fee for attending to sustaining and improving the building’s performance throughout its life”

My question to you is: Do you know of anyone who is consulting with this type of fee structure? If not, could you recommend anyone I could contact who might be able to help me think about how to accomplish this for my own practice?

Many, many, MANY thanks!

Ok, post before last, I wrote about whether or not the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deductions were going to be extended past Dec 31, 2008. Luckily, we found out that they will be extended until 2013. The next question I have for myself is “how does the deduction actually work?” I did some research and here is what I came up with.

Section 179D provides a deduction equal to the monetary value of the approved energy-efficiency expenditures.

The expenditures that qualify must be installed as part of the interior lighting, HVAC, hot water, or the building envelope. Additionally, the property must be installed as part of an effort to reduce energy usage to 50% of a baseline building that meets the minimum requirements of Standard 90.1-2001.

How much can you receive as a deduction?

Well, you can get $1.80 per square foot of installed energy-efficiency equipment.

In the case that your building doesn’t meet the 50% reduction in energy, you can still get a partial deduction of $.60/sf for the installed energy-efficient system.

The IRS has two different Notices (which are different from Bulletins) 2008-40 and 2006-52. 2006-52 is an earlier version. 2008-40 is an “Amplification of Notice 2006-52″. These Notices have the text of the requirements and you read until you get dazed and confused like I did.

For Energy Analysis experts, this law matters even more because it limits the type of software that an analyst can use to determine the 50% energy savings. A list of qualified computer software can be found on the DOE’s website. Rumor has it that eQuest is a confirmed qualified software but I will only believe it when I see it on the website.

I think that this is as far as I want to take this subject right now. I’d love to hear from any readers about the subtle nuances that I know I am missing. Happy New Year all!

News Flash: Pima County, AZ is going to be able to take credit for reducing its carbon footprint in a manner equivalent to taking 11,160 cars off the road (i.e. 64,000 tons of carbon emissions). That’s over the next 20 years of course, but it’s not bad for us southwestern cowboys and cowgirls.

So, how will they get to claim such a feat? The answer is that they are building a solar array at the Roger Road Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) which will produce 1 MW of power. What’s even better is that the solar panels will be produced by a local business, Solon America, at their Tucson plant. I had a quick glance at Solon’s corporate website. They have a facility here in Tucson but are based elsewhere. Funnily, their tagline on the corporate site reads “Don’t leave the planet to the stupid.” Very…um…direct!

So, back to the main story….The news came out in the AZ Daily Star yesterday (12/22/08). The article goes on to say that Pima County’s goal is to reduce the carbon energy needs 15% by 2025. Apparently, Pima County has two agreements with with Solon America and Sun Edison which account for the generation of 6 MW of electricity from solar power over the next three years.

How much land space will this take up you ask? About 10 acres.

And who actually owns the panels? Solon. Pima County has the option to buy the panels at the fair market value after the 20-year contract ends. Other options for Pima County include negotiating a new agreement or asking to have the panels removed. Additionally, the Waste Water Reclamation Facility will rebuilt because of changing federal regulations regarding effluent.

There are fiscal as well as environmental ramifications of course. Fiscally, it seems to be a win. In the article, it is stated that Pima County will be spending $2 Million less to buy the energy from this operation than to purchase the energy from TEP. Environmentally, it looks like we are taking advantage of our most abundant natural resource — the sun. I hope to see more projects like this underway. Good job Pima County!

If you haven’t heard anything about LEED 2009, don’t despair. I’ve taken the liberty of creating a PowerPoint presentation called “Easing the Transition into LEED 2009” that describes the changes that will take place as we move to LEED 2009.

If you have been keeping up with the changes proposed in LEED 2009, there were a few highlights in a recent email sent by the national USGBC team that deserve some extra press. They are:

1. Expanded options for Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof materials, SSc7.1
2. Inclusion of non-carpet flooring options, EQc4.3

As a disclaimer, these changes will not be set in stone until LEED 2009 go through the entire vetting process.

1. Expanded Options for Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof Materials, SSc7.1

In the LEED 2.2 NC SSc7.1, the requirement to reduce non-roof heat-island effect was accompanied by two options. Option 1 was centered on using a combination of strategies to reduce heat on site hardscape. Option 2 was focused on placing a minimum of 50% of parking spaces under cover. (Tracked changes are noted below in Excerpt A.)

At a quick glance, it looks as if LEED 2009 has added 2 extra strategies to Option 1. However upon closer inspection, it is evident that the USGBC has more precisely delineated which structures could count for shading hardscape and how soon each structure must be in place to count for this credit. Without this specificity in LEED 2.2 NC, one might misconstrue the credit to mean that a man-made shade structure such as from an architectural device, might not need to be installed right away because the text states that shading must be within 5 years (“Shade (within 5 years of occupancy)”). However, LEED 2009 clearly states that only shade from tree canopy or landscaping is given the 5-year window. Additionally, grid pavement systems must now be at least 50% pervious. In LEED 2.2 NC, this was unspecified.

Excerpt A – LEED 2009 Tracked Changes, SSc7.1:
(underlined = new text, strikethrough = deleted text)

OPTION 1
Provide Use any combination of the following strategies for 50% of the site hardscape (including
roads, sidewalks, courtyards and parking lots):

• Provide shade from existing tree canopy or within five years of landscape installation; landscaping (trees) must be in place at the time of occupancy.
• Provide shade from structures covered by solar panels that produce energy used to offset some non-renewable resource use.
• Provide shade from architectural devices or structures that have a solar reflectance index (SRI2) of at least 29.
• Have hardscape Shade (within 5 years of occupancy) Paving materials with an Solar Reflectance Index (SRI)2 of at least 29.
• Have an open-Open grid pavement system (at least 50% pervious).

OR
OPTION 2
Place a minimum of 50% of parking spaces under cover (defined as under ground, under deck,
under roof, or under a building). Any roof used to shade or cover parking must have an SRI of at
least 29. 29, be a vegetated green roof, or be covered by solar panels that produce energy used to offset some non-renewable resource use.

2. Inclusion of Non-Carpet Flooring Options, EQc4.3:

As we know in the southwest, many buildings do not use carpeting as a flooring cover. Long have we waited for changes in the LEED Rating System giving credit to non-carpeted flooring because of the rationale that our non-carpeted floors are exceptionally green because they save the use of this extra material. Our cries have not fallen on deaf ears. However, the powers-that-be at the USGBC have agreed to give points for non-carpeted flooring but only if we abide by a few rules. (Note that I did not say “simple” rules.)

You can see in Excerpt B below that floors covered by vinyl, linoleum, laminate, wood, ceramic, rubber, wall-base, etc. must be certified as compliant with FloorScore. Concrete, wood, bamboo, and cork floor finishes must meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 to gain this point. So, there are ways that we can get credit for floors without carpeting but just don’t expect that it will be an effortless journey.

The new wording of EQc4.3 is complex so please take a moment to read it in order to update yourself on the new changes.

Excerpt B – LEED 2009 Tracked Changes, EQc4.3:
(underlined = new text, strikethrough = deleted text)

All flooring must comply with the following as applicable to the project scope.

All carpet installed in the building interior shall meet the testing and product requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label Plus program.

All carpet cushion installed in the building interior shall meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label program.

All carpet adhesive shall meet the requirements of EQ Credit 4.1: VOC limit of 50 g/L.

AND

All of the hard surface flooring must be certified as compliant with the FloorScore standard (current as of the date of this Rating System, or more stringent version) by an independent third party. Flooring products covered by FloorScore include vinyl, linoleum, laminate flooring, wood flooring, ceramic flooring, rubber flooring, wall base, and associated sundries.

An alternative compliance path using FloorScore is acceptable for credit achievement according to the following stipulations. 100% of the non-carpet finished flooring must be FloorScore certified, and it must comprise, at minimum, at least 25% of the finished floor area. Potential examples of unfinished flooring include floors in mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, and elevator service rooms

AND

Concrete, wood, bamboo, and cork floor finishes such as sealer, stain and finish must meet the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, rules in effect on January 1, 2004.

AND

Tile setting adhesives and grout must meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule #1168. VOC limits correspond to an effective date of July 1, 2005 and rule amendment date of January 7, 2005.

OR

All flooring products will meet the testing and product requirements of the California Department of Public Health Standard Practice for The Testing Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Various Sources Using Small-Scale Environmental Chambers, including 2004 Addenda.

Yes, if you are having difficulties with your old, pre-1991 porcelain goddess (a.k.a. toilet), you can upgrade to a new High Efficiency Toilet (i.e. HET) and have Tucson pay for 50% of the cost (up to $120). The HETs need to use 1.3 gallons per flush or less to qualify. If you are a homeowner, you get a 50% rebate up to $120. If you are representing a multi-family or commercial project, you can only claim up to $100. (More info here).

To make sure that these HET toilets really deliver on saving water, only HET toilets certified by the EPA Water Sense Program are eligible.

All this is thanks to Community Conservation Task Force which is a group established by Tucson Water in the summer of 2005. I read part of their Water Conservation Program Recommendations document (pdf) and found it to be quite interesting.

Here are the Recommended Conservation Measures that were approved by stakeholder vote of 12 to 1:
Rebates and Incentives

• Single Family targeted ULF toilet rebate
• Single Family greywater incentive
• Multi-family irrigation system upgrade rebate
• Multi-family high efficiency toilet rebate
• Commercial/Industrial sub-metering (indoor/outdoor) incentive
• Commercial/Industrial targeted ULF toilet rebate
• Commercial Industrial pre-rinse spray valve rebate
• Commercial/Industrial waterless urinal rebate

Retrofit on Resale Ordinances

• Multi-family irrigation system retrofit on resale ordinance
• Multi-family ULF toilet retrofit on resale ordinance
• Multi-family Condo Conversion sub-metering (indoor/outdoor) ordinance
• Commercial/Industrial irrigation system retrofit on resale ordinance
• Commercial/Industrial passive water harvesting retrofit on resale ordinance

New Construction Ordinances

• Multi-family revised landscape design standards
• Multi-family sub-metering (indoor/outdoor) ordinance
• Multi-family irrigation system design ordinance
• Commercial/Industrial water harvesting and greywater ordinance

Other

• Multi-family ULF toilet community-based distribution
• ULF toilet vendor-driven delivery Demonstration programs (all sectors)
• Hot water re-circulation program
• Smart irrigation controller program
• Water harvesting program

I’ve heard that there’s some controversy about these low-flow toilets…that one may need to flush a few times to get rid of solid waste and thereby nix the water savings. So, I’m interested if anyone has any first-hand experience. I could make a million dumb jokes here but I’ll save you.

I think there is some truth to the naysayers but I’m sure that toilet manufacturers have been hard at work improving their models. So,

It’s been a while since I posted, I know. I’ve been a bit busy getting ready to go to Greenbuild in Boston. So, it was a great conference with Archbishop Desmond Tutu as the keynote speaker. I have to say though that I was more impressed with the choice of closing speakers: E. O. Wilson and Janine Benyus.

E.O. Wilson is a University Research Professor Emeritus and Honorary Curator in Entomology of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Janine Benyus is the Co-Founder and Principal of the Biomimicry Guild.

I’m impressed with these speakers because they hint that the leaders of the USGBC may actually be quite forward-thinking. Biomimicry is an advanced way of thinking about the roles of the environment and building. However, to have these people speak on this and then ask them questions about our nation’s economy led me to believe that their opinion matters. And it does. How CAN we learn how to fix our nation’s monetary woes from nature. Does nature give us any clues?

What a great conference and a great lineup of speakers! More to come as I am starting to digest all that I’ve learned…

I’m lucky enough to be assisting a client renovate an old office/home into two green residential apartments! So, I’m going to be assessing the house’s energy efficiency. I’m checking out some energy modeling software at the moment and consulting with a few experts in the field. We’ll see what eQUEST can do. My friend Jason told me about E10 but since it is not going to be upgraded, I can’t see investing the time or money into using it.

Well, so I was busy learning as much as I could tonight about windows and window options when I stumbled across a great resource. It is a pdf on the Efficient Windows Collaborative website. Basically, they have published fact sheets for all the states of the US explaining how to choose the most energy efficient windows in that state and in various subregions. So, here is the one for Arizona if you are interested.

The remarkable thing is that, in some climates, you want a higher solar heat gain. For us in Tucson, we have wide swings in temperature so it may not be clear if we should choose a window with a higher solar heat gain coefficient or not. What about when it gets cold in the winter. And, yes, it does actually get cold here in Tucson.

Well, the answer that the folks at the Efficient Windows Collaborative have come up with is that double glazing, low-E coating, argon gas filled, vinyl/wood framed windows will decrease your energy bills the most (see the last page of the pdf).

If you are not from Tucson, you can still use this site. They have suggestions for each and every state in the nation. Great job EWC! Keep the info coming!