Weak Green Building "Rules" Make A Bad Foundation

Sierra Club California is seeing red over new green building “rules” currently under consideration.

The California Building Standards Commission meets Tuesday, May 6 to decide whether to adopt weak, voluntary green building standards. Sierra Club California, along with a number of key legislative leaders and environmental groups, opposes the rules.

For years, California builders and architects have led the nation in designing safe, inspiring buildings. Now we have a chance to tower over the rest of the world in sustainable design as well. We're urging commissioners to reverse their current course and begin to engage in continued discussions of meaningful, enforceable standards.

Reasons Not To Like The New Standards

• Through their use of energy, residential and commercial buildings in California produce about 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Increased energy efficiencies in buildings could cut a minimum of 3 million metric tons of emissions by 2020 -- if the changes are done right.

• As a sector, commercial and residential buildings account for more greenhouse gas emissions than industry or transportation, according to a report by the federal Energy Information Administration. Spiking energy use by U.S. buildings accounted for 48 percent of the nation’s total increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

• The standards use the term “bio-based," which isn’t reality-based. Simply because a product comes from biologically based sources doesn’t make it sustainable. For example, the Chinook salmon is “biologically based,” yet harvest of the population wouldn’t be sustainable because its numbers are so low. You won't find this term used anywhere else, including EPA's “Terminology Reference System,” the US Green Building Council’s LEED rating system, the Build It Green “GreenPoint Rated” system, or The Construction Specifications Institute “GreenFormat” sustainable product reporting form.

• Widespread clear cutting, logging in endangered species habitat, conversion of forests to plantations and other harmful forest practices aren’t “green” by anyone’s definition. Wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a certification approved by the U.S. Green Building Council, cannot be harvested in those ways. But the Building Standards Commission’s voluntary rules would allow the use of wood certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC), or American Tree Farm – none of which have the same, strict certification standards.

• Currently, tens of thousands of acres of FSC-certified forest in California and many hundreds of California-based distributors, manufacturers, retailers and other companies that service the building industry. Integration of FSC certification into the state’s standards could drive the industry to embrace these attainable, sustainable practices.

• During a contentious March meeting, the BSC removed all talk of sustainable land use from even these voluntary green building standards – even though it’s universally acknowledged that infill development is “greener” because it lessens commute time. This further weakened these already watered-down voluntary “rules.”

Your Secure Donation Helps Us Build Our Resistance To Soft Standards

Expert Details Viable Ways to Cut Carbon Emissions

Cutting carbon emissions both locally and globally is an issue of the utmost importance for Sierra Club California, and we draw valuable information from experts with the knowledge necessary to make a carbon-free economy a reality. Daniel M. Kammen, Ph.D./distinguished Professor/Chair in Energy, is one such person who knows what it takes to research and implement such progress. Speaking recently at the California Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Kammen highlighted some important emerging technologies he sees as vital to getting California, the United States, and the rest of the world to kick the fossil fuel habit.

Kammen sees carbon sequestering biofuels, super-efficient solar/wind technologies, and sustainable re-development as the most promising ways towards a low-cost, low-carbon roadmap for California to meet near and long-term sustainability targets. Important to Professor Kammen's seminar was the implementation of green technologies on a receptive economy. Citing over a dozen separate studies and findings, Dr. Kammen concluded that his favorite green improvements would create 3 to 5 times more jobs per dollar invested than would be created with a traditional fossil-fueled economy. Also, what Kammen advocates is not a far-flung technology which has yet to be created; he only talked about what exists now as a reality. Everything Professor Kammen mentioned could be implemented tomorrow if only the funding and investments existed. But, not to be disillusioned, Kammen expressed much optimism as to the viability of a low-carbon economy and energy infrastructure that is slowly coming to fruition.

Click here to see the archived web-cast of Daniel Kammen's seminar, then follow the links to the video/audio of the January 29th Chairman's Seminar at Cal/EPA Headquarters, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM.

2007 Legislative Session Wraps Up With Some Progress, But on Many Key Issues It’s “Wait ‘til Next Year”

After a highly productive session in the 2006 election year established key new safeguards for the global climate and human health, this year has seen far fewer major new laws enacted to protect California’s environment. Although some key measures found success, on many vital issues our elected officials seem to be echoing the eternal refrain of Chicago Cubs fans: “Wait ‘til next year.”

Bright spots included flood protection, clean air, and endangered species protection. A package of bills negotiated by the Legislature and Governor finally starts to bring some sense to development in flood-prone areas. SB 5 (Machado) requires the state to prepare a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan by 2012. AB 5 (Wolk) reforms, restructures and renames the state Reclamation Board, which is the agency in charge of flood protection in the Central Valley. AB 70 (Jones) would provide for limited shared contribution between the state and local governments when local governments approve new developments in previously undeveloped areas that can increase property damages resulting from a flood for which the state is liable.

The Healthy Heart and Lung Act, AB 233 (Jones), sponsored by Sierra Club California and American Lung Association of California, will improve enforcement of rules that limit toxic diesel emissions, and SB 719 (Machado) will, at long last, reform the San Joaquin Valley’s lackluster Air Pollution Control District by adding expertise and urban representation. AB 118 (Núñez) will raise about $150 million annually for clean fuel and clean air programs.

Governor Schwarzenegger surprised many observers by signing AB 821 (Nava) to require the use of non-lead bullets when hunting big game within the range of the endangered California condor. This state icon is suffering from lead poisoning, because the birds eat bullet fragments when scavenging carcasses.

Speaking of poisons, the Governor has opened a Green Chemistry Initiative to reduce human exposure to toxic chemicals, most of which currently come into our homes and workplaces without being required to demonstrate safety. Legislation to reduce toxic threats fared poorly this year on the whole, but Schwarzenegger’s signing of the Toxic Toys bill, AB 1108 (Ma), will invigorate the Green Chemistry process by keeping hazardous substances away from the youngest Californians. The bill bans pthalates, a plastic softener, from products meant for infants and toddlers.

Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed important bills to make our buildings and fuels greener. AB 888 (Lieu) would have set green building standards for commercial buildings, starting in 2013. AB 1058 (Laird) would have set green building standards for new residential construction, and AB 35 (Ruskin) would have required CAL-EPA to set sustainable building standards for the construction and renovation of state buildings. SB 210 (Kehoe) would have required the adoption of a low-carbon fuel standard by 2010 that achieved at least a 10 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and maintained or improved upon air quality benefits gained by current gasoline and diesel fuel standards.

The Legislature deferred until next year the vital tasks of spurring smart growth, requiring utilities to generate more power from renewables, and cleaning up the filthy air at the mega-ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland. Sierra Club California and our allies had pushed the Legislature to act in these vital areas, but many key bills stalled toward the end of session due to opposition from powerful special interests. SB 974 (Lowenthal), the Clean Ports bill, was deferred until January at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger. Both SB 375 (Steinberg), which seeks to reduce vehicular emissions through smarter land use patterns, and SB 411 (Simitian), which would require utilities to generate 33% of their power from renewable sources, failed to clear the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and AB 558 (Feuer), which would have generated information on the use of toxic chemicals, died by a close vote of the Senate Appropriations panel.

The Legislature’s failure to pass these important bills, along with the Governor’s vetoes of some of the bills passed by lawmakers, leave substantial unfinished business to be taken up next year. Since 2008 is an election year, and our elected officials know that protecting our health and ecology is very popular with voters, we have reason to expect more progress next year.

By Bill Magavern

Will the California Building Industry Continue to Attack CEQA?

For a number of years, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) has roamed the halls of the Capitol, shouting “Housing Crisis, Housing Crisis.” This was part of their well-planning campaign to weaken California’s environmental protection and planning laws. Of course, with the median house price in California going through the roof, it was easy to get the attention of legislators who were well aware that more and more of their constituents were being priced out of the housing market.

And because of this valid concern, the developers saw their opportunity. They introduced a series of bills to solve the “housing crisis” by blaming the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the “red tape” a builder had to go through to get new housing approved.

But Sierra Club California was not buying that argument. We testified that CEQA was not the problem, and that industry has perpetrated a myth that the law is used neighbors and environmental groups to relentlessly sue applicants of proposed projects. In reality, hardly any CEQA actions go to court. But that fact did not deter the developers. They kept blaming CEQA and argued that if this law was “reformed” they could build housing in numbers that would make it more affordable to Californians.

The CBIA philosophy is that we can build ourselves out of the housing “crisis.” They imply that if they build lots of houses, more and more families will achieve the “California Dream” of home ownership. But their roadmap is highly flawed. It’s not just about how many homes are built, but where and how. In their world, environmental and social considerations are secondary to home ownership (and builders profits). However, Californians care a lot about quality of life issues, with their number one concern (above crime, pollution, and education) being traffic congestion. It’s a fact that building traditional low-density sprawling subdivisions far from jobs is significantly contributing to commute times and traffic congestion. This exacerbates global warming by increasing vehicle miles traveled and making a permanent commitment to these auto-centric developments, while eating up farmland and open space at an alarming rate.

The vast majority of builders also do not give potential homebuyers much choice in housing. When was the last time you saw a new home for sale in one of these subdivisions that was “only” 1,500 or 1,800 square feet, thereby making the house more affordable? Save for a few infill builders, the industry has promoted the bigger is better model.

We know that the period of 1999-2005 saw the industry build a lot of homes. But did prices go down? No -- they skyrocketed, with double-digit increases in the median house price every year in nearly all corners of the State. The industry made record profits during these years and the stocks of the publicly traded companies went through the roof. They used some of these profits to fund their lobbying efforts at the State Capitol. They also produced a “road show,” traveling around the State holding news events, often with a concerned locally elected official at their side, citing the awful statistics about housing prices and what the Legislature should be doing about it (pass the BIA’s sponsored bills). It was all an orchestrated effort to have CEQA rolled back and to see if they could get the Legislature to neuter local government’s authority over housing approvals.

We fought the legislation they sponsored and at every hearing testified that CEQA had not been made tougher in its 35 years of existence, and that the real culprit behind the huge rise in housing prices was historically low interest rates. We urged the Legislature to not let the CBIA get the upper hand during this period when there was panic about housing prices. Thankfully, the Legislature did that, rejecting almost all of the bills the CBIA backed; with some damage being done around the edges.

While not an economist, I think my arguments about interest rates make sense. But, let me bring in Alan Greenspan, who is an economist. In a recent interview with an Austrian magazine, he said that low interest rates in the past 15 years were to blame for the house price bubble, and that central banks were powerless when they tried to bring it under control. He went on to say that deregulation and the introduction of market economies in the Communist bloc after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 had caused a global boom and a worldwide reduction of interest rates, which both helped fuel the property bubble.

In a Yahoo News story Greenspan said "There is no doubt about the fact that low interest rates for long-term government bonds have caused the real estate bubble in the United States. The Federal Reserve began a series of interest rate increases in 2004. We were hoping to bring the speculative excesses in the real estate sector under control. We failed. We tried it again in 2005. Failure; nobody could do anything about it, neither us nor the European Central Bank. We were powerless."

So, it remains to be seen if the CBIA will attack environmental and planning laws again. If they do, they will be particularly brash given what has happened since July of 2005 when the bubble started to burst. In the aftermath of their record profits, developers all over the State are leaving building permits on the table, not wanting to bring more units into a very slow market. I guess I can’t blame them – if I was a builder, I would bring yet another 2,800 square foot home for $600,000 into the market today?

But let’s hope they don’t point their finger at CEQA once again. Instead, I hope they sit down with environmental groups, local government, and affordable housing advocates and seriously tackle true streamlining of the planning and building process and making new development more efficient. And, I hope that the issue of global warming is front and center in these discussions, as this is the issue that truly trumps all others. The current climate change path we are on will lead to economic chaos in California and not just in the housing sector.

Sierra Club California Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger on Highest Priority Legislation

September 21, 2007


The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Highest Priority Legislation for Sierra Club California

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

First, Sierra Club California would like to thank you for your continued leadership on the fight to slow global warming, the issue that in most respects, trumps all other environmental issues. Meanwhile, we respectfully request your signature on the following highest priority pieces of legislation.

AB 5 (Wolk)/SB 17(Florez) reforms and restructures the Reclamation Board.

AB 35 (Ruskin) requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to adopt regulations establishing sustainable building standards for the construction and renovation of state buildings.

AB 48 (Saldana) – Prohibits the sale of electronic devices if they contain toxic heavy metals.

AB 70 (Jones) – requires local governments to share liability for flood damages with the state if local land-use decisions lead to damages.

AB 118 (Nunez) – establishes new state programs to invest in projects that improve air quality and support development and deployment of clean alternative fuels and technologies.

AB 162 (Wolk) – requires flood-risk identification in local general plans.

AB 188 (Aghazarian) expands information required to be included in the state’s central public registry of conservation easements.

AB 233 (Jones) – Strengthens enforcement of diesel emission control rules for heavy-duty on-road and off-road vehicles and engines.

AB 548 (Levine) – Requires the owner of a multifamily dwelling (5 units or more) to provide recycling services consistent with any local or state requirements or agreements.

AB 609 (Eng) would allow energy conservation measures and energy service contracts for existing state buildings to be approved if cost savings will be realized through a life-cycle cost.

AB 821 (Nava) – bans lead ammunition when hunting big game within the range of the condor.

AB 833 (Ruskin) – Requires California to maintain toxics release inventory requirements as they existed prior to the federal weakening of reporting requirements by US EPA.

AB 888 (Lieu) requires the adoption of green building standards for new commercial buildings.

AB 1058 (Laird) Requires HCD and ultimately the Building Standards Commission to adopt best practices and building standards for green building in new residential construction.

AB 1108 (Ma) – Prohibits the use of specified phthalate chemicals in toys and childcare products designed for children up to 3 years old.

AB 1109 (Huffman) would require the state to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to increase the energy efficiency and reduce the pollution associated with current lighting technology.

AB 1420 (Laird) would condition state funding for water management grants and loans to the implementation of water conservation measures by urban water suppliers.

AB 1470 (Huffman) creates a $250 million incentive program to encourage the installation of solar water hearing systems that offset natural gas use in homes and businesses throughout the state.

AB 1613 (Blakeslee) requires the PUC to establish pay-as-you-save pilot programs to finance all the upfront costs for the purchase and installation of combined heat and power systems.

SB 5 (Machado) requires the state to prepare a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan by 2012, and establishes flood protection requirements for local land-use decisions consistent with the plan.

SB 210 (Kehoe) -- Codifies & strengthens the Governor's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard by requiring ARB to adopt that standard to achieve at least a 10% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 220 (Corbett) Enhances the Department of Public Health's regulatory process governing water dispensed from water-vending machines and the labeling requirements for bottled water.

SB 719 (Machado) – Reforms the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District board by increasing the number of city members and adding two public members.

SB 990 (Kuehl) – Requires the Santa Susana Field Lab site to be thoroughly remediated for both chemical and radioactive contamination.

We also ask that you veto the following bill:

AB 809 (Blakeslee) would weaken California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard for energy and discourage investments in new truly renewable energy.

While these 25 bills are our highest priorities, there is additional significant legislation we urge you to sign and have submitted separate letters for each of these bills. We appreciate your consideration of this request and your commitment to restoring and protecting California’s environment.

Sincerely,


Bill Allayaud, State Legislative Director