Today marks the fourth time this summer that the GOP in the Senate have blocked an energy and business tax bill from getting to the floor. The Wall Street Journal explains:

The bill would extend tax incentives for wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, and would renew a host of expired tax cuts, such as the research tax credit and the state-sales-tax deduction. It would also protect most taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax in 2008.

The move failed on a 51-43 procedural vote, dashing Democrats’ hopes that their recent additions to the bill would draw more Republican support.

The White House said senior advisers will recommend a veto should the Senate tax bill reach the president’s desk in its current form. The White House had earlier threatened a veto of similar legislation passed by the House.

The GOP is attempting to attach amendments to the bill for offshore drilling. But for many Republicans, it’s more a matter of principle and politics: many oppose what they say are new tax increases to pay for parts of the package and nearly all say the Senate’s only business now is acting on an energy bill that promotes drilling and other measures to boost domestic oil supply. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, added that his party sees a “need to dispose of the pending energy bill to help bring down the price of gas at the pump before turning to other matters.”

I’m speechless. For now.

Oglethorpe’s plan for Savannah

Savannah is known for her unique and plentiful city squares that promote open space. Consequently, its present city planning department, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, tends to be examined under a microscope by planning departments and preservation scholars across the country. My impression had been that living under this microscope understandably tended the Board towards “safe decisions” and away from modern and new technologies. It seems that I was wrong, as evidenced by The MPC’s unanimous recent ruling to allow the first solar hot water installation in the Savannah Historic District during this month’s meeting on July 9th.

The homeowners of this precedent setting project are Sara Barczak and her husband Anthony Jernigan - customers of ours at OneWorld Sustainable. I met Sara at Savannah’s Earth Day festival this April. She was holding down the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy booth, while I was representing OWS. We got to talking, and I learned that she was looking into solar hot water for her home. A couple of months later, OWS, together with Sara and Anthony, began the process of submitting an application to the MPC for approval on the installation of the solar-water delivering mechanism, 20 evacuated tubes, to be placed on top of her roof.

In my research to prepare for the application, I spoke with several helpful people across the country who all had experience in attempting to marry sustainability with historic preservation, very new and unchartered territory for me.

Chris Meschuk, a City of Boulder, CO planner, generously agreed to a lengthy phone conversation to explain how Boulder has implemented alternative energy into their General Design Guidelines.

The message was clearly delivered by many planners, from Key West, FL to Ypsilanti, MI, that solar PV and hot water were the least obtrusive instruments to deliver alternative energy. And since these installations are also reversible in that they can be removed, the fear of a more solid commitment and ease of correction are both reinforced. Everyone I spoke with also agreed that the general preference for installation was on a roof NOT facing the street. This gave me pause, since Sara and Anthony’s South facing roof is also street facing. Thankfully, their pitched roof was designed for future solar, remaining virtually invisible from the street, thus helping our chances for an approval come decision time.

In my search to better understand the issues, and in turn to hopefully convince the MPC board to approve our application, I luckily happened upon Kimberly Kooles, a University of Georgia National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) staff member. She actually answered the phone, and serendipitously explained that she was crafting her PhD on the very subject of the integration of Sustainability and Historic Preservation. What luck! Kimberly educated me and sent me innumerable articles, research links, and various precedents set throughout the country.

Thanks to Kimberly, I learned that while this subject is fairly new to us all, there is a common thread set forth by both Boulder and Ypsilanti, MI, among others. The thread is this: we need to create energy efficient homes through energy efficiency audits and upgrades, prior to implementing alternative energies for any building. These measures include envelope sealing, HVAC equipment upgrades, appliance upgrades, and more efficient lighting equipment.

I have often used a similar line of thinking while speaking with potential solar customers with the simple analogy of turning up ones heat while simultaneously opening all of ones doors and windows. While we all realize the foolishness in the above scenario, we must work together in educating homeowners to pursue energy efficiency prior to considering solar, wind or geothermal alternatives.

This thinking was presented with our application, as the Barczak/Jernigan home was built twice as efficient as their Georgian neighbors’ homes. It is a new home, built on a previously empty lot within the historic district. And it is this fact, that the home is NOT an historic home, that seemed to allow the board to recommend an approval.

Thankfully, Jack Star attended the MPC meeting and spoke during the public comment period. He stressed the importance and timeliness for the board to consider the future allowances of solar PV and hot water applications within the historic district, including installation on historic buildings. It seems many on the board, most notably Joseph Steffen, are open to this discussion and future attempts at finding a good balance at the intersection of sustainability and historic preservation.

As Chatham County has produced a resolution to become the “greenest county in Georgia” and new Georgia tax credits have taken effect on July 1st, there is no time like the present to tackle this much needed dialogue and resolution. Community cooperation together with individual’s heightened responsibility towards environmental stewardship is the vehicle we need to drive implementation of alternative energy worldwide. The first steps, of course, always begin at home.

P.S. A very sincere thanks to all of the combined efforts that helped make this precedent ruling a reality: Sara and Anthony, their neighbors Anthony Alfonso, Tom Hoffman, and Gretchen Ernest, Bill Traver of OWS, Jack Star, all of the generous sharing of information by various planners across the country, and of course, the MPC Historic Review Board.

For a clearer view of the above scene, please go here

Buzzcock Market Research in New York City conducted an online survey of over 1,100 consumers in the U.S. and the U.K., attempting to get an idea of how consumers feel about environmentalism and “being green.”

Both countries are similar in that more than 70% of those polled say they actively use energy efficient light-bulbs, and recycle paper and plastic. The most interesting part of the results is how the two countries differ in their results, shown here from a Brandweek article:

U.S. vs. U.K. consumers who:
• Recycle paper: 71% vs. 87%
• Purchase recycled paper: 55% vs. 47%
• Walk rather than drive short journeys: 36% vs. 56%
• Own or lease a hybrid: 4% vs. 1%

In short, Brits change their behaivor and actions to work towards sustainability (a word that only one in three Americans understand, unfortunately) and Americans…well, we shop. Rather than actually recycling the paper that we buy (a basic responsibility), we’d rather go out and get new hybrids and drive them all about town to our extensive sets of strip malls and super stores full of junk, not thinking to drop off the recycling along the way.

This buy-our-way-to-green psyche permeates all that we do, both personally and in our professional lives. As I work to provide sustainability initiatives and alternative energy to builders via green building programs, solar PV systems, and various other sustainable goods and services, the math often does not justify the purchase when exploring sustainable options. One glaring reason is that we fail to look at the real costs of the manufacture of goods and services . Our balance sheets and cost analyses must begin to include the real price unsustainable items wreak on our health and environment. Or, we can just wait for energy costs to rise dramatically (see California), and the payback will begin to make more sense. This scenario, of course, is inevitable and happening now whether we plan for alternative energy solutions, or not.

The real cost we pay as voracious consumers supporting unsustainable business practices is expressed every day, in the form of polluted rivers, a raped Earth, and unhealthy food systems. In animal extinction, toxic waste dumps, and overflowing landfills. And we continuously send the message that we, American citizens, approve of the businesses that produce this mess by rewarding them with increasing profits. We PAY FOR THEIR WASTE ourselves on the backs of our children’s children. We must demand that our companies’ balance sheets include the effects of their products, thus creating incentive for us all to collectively change our actions. And create an economy that rewards sustainability, rather than penalizes ingenuity and positive change.

A paradigm shift is greatly needed, and is ultimately inevitable. Wouldn’t it be a healthier option to freely choose that path, rather than have that path chosen for us, by necessity and survival? While much has been done to create awareness surrounding our dire need for environmental change the world over, it seems we Americans like the fat we have worked so hard to attain, and that trimming it is out of the question.

Perhaps our first step as Americans is to look up the word sustainable. Then, how about we redirect our hard earned (and even harder to come by) American dollars into educating our citizenry and discontinue identifying ourselves as consumers. Stewards of the Earth has a nicer ring to it, don’t you think?

A couple of weeks back, a local builder asked me and my partner at OneWorld Sustainable to look into all of the prevailing green building programs and to give them an overview of each program. While I had already investigated and learned these various guidelines to further my own personal knowledge, it was a natural extension into the tangible nuts and bolts of the green building prospect in a real world setting.

Being a part of a burgeoning “movement” is at once both exciting and challenging. As a person with an affinity for organization, efficiency, and some structure, navigating the waters on pilot* programs such as LEED for Homes and the new NAHB National Green Building Program is littered with unanswered questions that requires a DIY spirit.

One of the biggest challenges facing all LEED for Homes projects is, how much will this cost, and how does it really work?

In my area (the Southeast), the USGBC has chosen Southface as their LEED for Homes Provider, one of 12 in the country. Southface has then chosen a handful of practitioners, referred to as Provider Representatives. These Provider Representatives will oversee the project and be the liaison between the client and Southface, who then forwards all of the project documentation on to the USGBC. Any LEED for Homes project MUST go through this chain of command, and each detail passes through these many hands. And as far as becoming a Provider, that is not an option at this time, which leaves you working within the system that is in place in your area, including the sometimes lack of various third party verifiers/raters needed in order to handle the interest. Tired yet?

More challenging is trying to figure out exactly who does what, and how much each program will cost. As OneWorld will likely act as the green rater on most LEED projects, providing the blower door tests, etc., we as a community of practitioners working on LEED projects are all still figuring out what to charge for our services. Due to the uncertainty of time commitments, among other things, it is somewhat difficult to explore the unknown and then place a price tag on it at the same time.

Most perplexing is the real time needed to do the actual work. If implementing these guidelines means that 40 hours of additional third-party verification and paperwork per house is needed throughout the course of the project, how much would you have to pay yourself or an employee for those 40 hours? Most professionals at this level charge at least $125/hr, and at that (lower) rate, one is already spending $5000 just for the actual paperwork and testing needed to appease the guidelines. While I personally believe this cost to be worth it, the market has not yet met the value of these services, and it is not yet conceivable that most builders can carry that additional cost on the front end to hopefully make it up on the back end yet. Add to that the fact that most of the Providers are part of a larger firm, garnering much more than $125/hr for their well-deserved expertise, and it is hard to justify being involved in the process at all, if only to be an advocate of “green” building rather than to make a profit in the process. Which most smaller organizations can not afford to even entertain, as there are real costs associated with the work. (time, gas, mileage, expertise, etc.)

While experiencing these growing pains is par for the course with any new system, product, field, etc., it seems that those eager to “roll out” the framework need to be as instrumental in helping to apply the nails to keep it together. My hope is that the USGBC and Providers are dedicated to helping this framework to become solidified by way of providing guidance and answers to many ambiguous areas of the guidelines themselves, and the structure of the actual implementation of the projects. And I think that they are, which is beneficial as we all learn this program by trial and error.

Still, while the LEED for Homes program is taking its commercial expertise and applying it to the residential sector, the pure economics don’t quite jive as well as it does within the billion dollar, architect laden haven of the commercial program.

Don’t get me wrong; we need the thinking and elevated understanding that the USGBC has brought to the table over the years, and their work has definitely helped to pave the way for the “greening” of America’s built environment. Conversely, expecting that a builder doing mostly production work (whether it be small or large scale) pay 3-5K PER HOUSE to get the LEED stamp of approval is completely off base and unrealistic. While this model may work with high-end custom home builders, the responsibility of helping all builders “go green” more safely rests on the shoulders of the NAHB program.

We’ll see what happens, but my money is on the NAHB program taking root and leading the “green” residential programs nationwide. I would love to see a best practices forum, where real insight can be gained from the detailed aspects on any given completed project. Like cancer researchers discovered decades ago, sharing ones experiences and knowledge can only benefit the whole, much needed in our present global climate. Pun intended.

[UPDATE] Technically, LEED for Homes is out of pilot, but there is still a ton to figure out. Also, the USGBC is in the midst of creating the LEED for Homes Volume Pilot, for builders with a development with over 50 single family houses. The intention here is to help offset the cost of a house plan that is likely to be built over and over again.

While working on a project the last month and wanting some texture, I came across the Wolf Gordon Earth Safe books in the showroom, featuring rice papers, grass cloths, and wood veneers “manufactured with sustainable materials and processes that are environmentally sensitive.” I am interested in more specific information, like, “Do your wallcoverings include binders, inks, dyes, fungicides, pesticides, pastes, or flame retardants,” which all contribute to poor indoor air quality with the outgasing of VOC’s?

Unfortunately, none of that information is available, and when I had asked for a spec sheet, I had to provide a vendor number. I realize that this is par for the course in the world of interior design, but since the advent of these intertubes, I believe a company’s goal, especially if that company is touting “green” products, should be transparency.

While my customer service rep, Jose, was extremely accommodating, the only useable information I received, for my purposes, at least, was the permeability rating. It’s 147, for the record. Which doesn’t mean all that much, since there isn’t any standardized permeability rating method in the wallcovering industry. A positive exists in that this particular Wolf Gordon wall covering does not have a backing, making it less a factor in being a party to any mold issues.

Through research, I learned that the Earth Safe line is part of a what Wolf Gordon calls its Ecological Reclamation Program. At the end of the product’s life cycle, the wall coverings can be returned (for credit) and applied to a variety of alternative, secondary uses. This line is composed of natural, renewable or recyclable materials and cellulose harvested from managed forests.

It would seem that the representatives at Wolf Gordon would be eager to share this sustainability program information on its “green” product spec sheet. I’m not sure why they choose not to. Hopefully, as consumers get more savvy in the questions that they ask and designers become more insistent in transparency and full-disclosure when it relates to “green” products, we can all raise the bar and elevate what will pass for “green” in our respective industries.

Each time I hit the road, which is pretty often, I am always interested in the ways that sustainable building and design have affected a place, if at all, and how sustainability has been implemented there. It seems like a herculean task to keep track of the various residential green building programs all over the country, and with USGBC’s LEED for Homes and Energy Star Homes taking a strong hold nationally, I wonder…will we have one comprehensive set of guidelines for residential sustainability (for new home and remodels), or will the guidelines tend to be hyper-local and scattered, creating a splintered affect among building and design practitioners?

States like Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and California have been “building green” for decades now, and while it wasn’t quite mainstream 20 years ago, the interest level of the common consumer in these states was much higher than in other parts of the country. Because of that, many of the green building programs that have taken hold locally are comprehensive and elevated strategies for the residential sector in many of the cities there, like Portland, Seattle, Boulder, and all of California. Add to the list progressive places like Chicago and Austin, and you will find a pool of Architects, builders, and developers who have been practicing sustainability long before Al Gore hit the road with his Inconvenient Truths.

Yesterday, the NAHB launched their National Green Building Program, “an education, verification and certification program that will allow builders anywhere to build green homes”. While this is, on the surface, a positive move towards sustainable building practices becoming the norm rather than the exception, there must be concern for the rigidity of the guidelines and the level at which NAHB considers a building sustainable. While there are many conscientious builders, builders along with developers are the two entities dragging their feet on “green” building, at least in my experience here in the Southeast. Institutions don’t often embrace change, even if that change is good for them. Logistically, it is difficult, and many times, we humans prefer easy. 2008 may turn out to be the year of change, and our ability to embrace it seems the test of our continued success.

Over the course of this year, Project Green Spot will be taking an in-depth look at various residential green building programs, and examine further how the NAHB program has impacted the residential home sector. PGS also intends to examine how the third party verification entities evolve, and how they remain objective in an industry rife with “incentives”. Stay tuned…

Vintage postcard of the Merchandise Mart

Existing buildings seem to be overlooked when the sustainability topic arises, although USGBC’s LEED program has had an EB (existing building) designation for three years now. The shift from new construction to the rehabilitation of the estimated 4.5 million commercial properties already built is one that is necessary, especially considering that commercial buildings account for over 60% of the nation’s electricity consumption.

One of the largest buildings to get LEED certification, The Merchandise Mart in Chicago takes up two city blocks and has its own zip code. Spearheaded by Myron Maurer and Christopher Kennedy, brother of Robert Kennedy of NRDC fame, the Merch Mart received a Silver LEED rating.

With the real estate market morph towards realistic values, this seems to be the time when many property management companies and large commercial building owners are staying put and looking for ways to increase tenant retention and decrease operating costs. Building owners, meet sustainability. Sustainability, building owners.

From the New York Times Sunday business section:

The headquarters of the software maker Adobe Systems received a platinum rating for its three towers in December 2006. Adobe spent 1.4 million on the project, but earned that back in savings in less than 10 months.

The myth that “green” buildings cost more is thankfully being successfully challenged at every turn. I personally am incredibly interested in the LEED ReGreen program, addressing residential remodeling projects using a whole house approach. Helping homeowners to retrofit and build upon what they have, as opposed to using more natural resources by building a new house from scratch, is also an exciting prospect.

With the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver come an estimated 1.5 million attendees, creating a mammoth-sized footprint.

Thanks to VANOC, the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, sustainability is written into the mission/value statement of this enormous effort.

In 2005 and 2006, VANOC established a set of six corporate-wide sustainability performance objectives. These objectives are based on Bid commitments, best management practices of other Organizing Committees and input from sustainability experts, key partners and stakeholders. They are now an integral part of VANOC’s strategic and business plans.

Accountability, Environmental Stewardship and Impact Reduction, Social Inclusion and Responsibility, Aboriginal Participation and Collaboration, Economic Benefits, and Sport for Sustainable Living are the six objectives. Some of the poignant goals are:

To behave ethically, set measurable performance targets and communicate openly about our progress and challenges

To conserve natural environments and manage, mitigate and offset negative impacts

To care for our workforce, protect human rights, and ensure health and safety

To demonstrate that sustainable innovation and practice makes good business sense

To use sport, and growing athlete and public interest in living more sustainably, to inspire action on local and global sustainability challenges

Vanoc is going for LEED certification on many of the building’s that will be constructed, as well. Imagine if all corporations, business ventures, governments, and individuals sat down and mapped out their intentions like this. Imagine.

ASID & the USGBC have joined forces on what seems to be a much needed partnership for guidelines in best practices, which focus on residential remodeling based upon sustainable design principles, called ReGreen. The release of the completed guidelines happens at Interiors 08: The ASID Conference on Design next month.

The conference takes place in New Orleans, another great reason to go. While there, my agenda would include touring and exploring all of the great sustainable building happening in the fertile blank slate of New Orleans right now.

The plan is to present the guidelines, developed by “ASID and USGBC members and invited experts”, which will “complement the release of LEED for Homes, but is not itself a LEED-branded rating system”. With help provided by the open source implemented public comment spoke of the project, the think-tank model supports forward thinking and delivers what will likely prove to be a well-rounded blueprint in this field.

Apparently, space is limited for the upcoming conference, which takes place March 13-16, 2008.

Although it sounds vaguely like some sort of bacteria, rest assured, SIP’s are much less threatening. The acronym stands for Structured Insulated Panel’s. These efficient and ingenious panels are used in floors, walls, and roofs in mostly residential (and some light commercial) projects.

From the SIPA (Structured Insulation Panel Association) website:

The panels are typically made by sandwiching a core of rigid foam plastic insulation between two structural skins of oriented strand board (OSB). Other skin material can be used for specific purposes. SIPs are manufactured under factory controlled conditions and can be custom designed for each home. The result is a building system that is extremely strong, energy efficient and cost effective. Building with SIPs will save you time, money and labor.

I am told that because SIP’s are manufactured with the insulation built-in, the application is more reliable. Instead of having, say, a spray-foam insulation on your project, where areas can be missed and only show up once a blower door test is performed, SIP’s provide a tight and reliable envelope from the start. This, of course, allows your blower door test - if you are going after a specific building program compliance path -to be more efficient.

As you can see by the graph above, just by using SIP’s, as opposed to conventional timber frame building, you are reducing your energy needs by half. Those are great numbers, don’t ya think?

Also, by by using energy efficient building materials such as structural insulated panels, builders and contractors can qualify for a $2000 tax credit on residential homes or up to a $1.80 per square foot tax deduction on commercial buildings.