Time flies. Do you remember back in 2007 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the state assembly passed AB 1103 Commercial Building Energy Use Disclosure Program? It was supposed to begin in 2010, but of course, it got changed and delayed and modified and finally, low and behold, the time to disclose energy data is upon us. The first phase of the Energy Use Disclosure Requirements begins July 1, 2013.
To refresh our memories, Assembly Bills 1103 and 531 require owners of nonresidential buildings located in California to disclose energy usage of such buildings in advance of any sale, lease, or financing of the entire building.
Here is the schedule for when commercial buildings need to keep and disclose energy usage records:
2. On and after January 1, 2014, for buildings with a total gross floor area between 10,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet; and
3. On and after July 1, 2014, for buildings with a total gross floor area between 5,000 square feet 10,000 square feet.
AB 1103 and 531
Assembly Bill 1103, signed into law on October 12, 2007, requires the tracking of the energy use of all nonresidential buildings and the disclosure of such energy use as part of the sale, lease, or financing of an entire nonresidential building. T
The disclosure requirement is intended to “motivate building operators to take actions to improve their buildings’ energy profiles” and “to allow building owners and operators to compare their buildings’ performance to that of similar buildings and to manage their buildings’ energy costs.”
Since we’re talking government, AB 1103 then added Section 25402.10 which contained a compliance deadline of January 1, 2010. Assembly Bill 531 removed that deadline, and replaced it with the disclosure of energy usage data on a schedule of compliance established by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.
Compliance with Assembly Bills 1103 and 531 expects owners of nonresidential buildings to take certain actions at least 30 days before the sale, lease, or financing of the entire building.
1. Register for an account with “Portfolio Manager,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR program online tool for managing building energy use data.
2. Create a profile within Portfolio Manager for the nonresidential building.
3. Use Portfolio Manager to request that utilities serving the building release the last 12 months of energy use data for the building to Portfolio Manager. What you’ll get is:
- Disclosure Summary Sheet;
- Statement of Energy Performance;
- Data Checklist; and
- Facility Summary (collectively, the “Disclosure Data”).
4. After the utility data has been provided, download the Disclosure Data; and provide the Disclosure Data as part of the sale, lease, or financing.
(Regulations section 1683(a) + 1684(c).)
Here’s the curious caveat, there is no specific penalty for non-compliance, but a failure to disclose a building’s energy usage could be viewed as a material fact in the transaction.
Have you gawked at the morning line of traffic waiting to get off the 10W freeway at Cloverfield? The jobs came to the beach before the mass transit. Think of how much easier the commute will be when the Bergamot Station stop on the Expo Line opens in 2015…
Nationally, more than three-quarters of all jobs in the 100 largest metropolitan areas are in neighborhoods with transit service.
Western metro areas like Los Angeles and Seattle exhibit the highest coverage rates. When combining bus and rail service, they exhibit near ubiquitous transit coverage rates and enable their jobs to access over half of their local labor pools. Los Angeles is better than average? Just imagine trying to take the bus to work in Arkansas….
Pundits say that the typical job is accessible to only about 27% of its metropolitan workforce by transit in 90 minutes or less. Labor access varies from the high of 64% in metropolitan Salt Lake City to a low of 6% in metropolitan Palm Bay, Florida. Studies conclude that city jobs are consistently accessible to larger shares of metropolitan labor pools than suburban jobs, reinforcing cities’ geographic advantage relative to transit routing.
In case you were wondering why our state unemployment sits at 11%, and Los Angeles employment was @ 12.2% at the end of the 1st quarter, it’s because California has been voted the worst place in the country to do business…again. According to Chief Executive’s eighth annual survey of CEO opinion of Best and Worst States in which to do business, California has earned the dubious honor of being ranked dead last for the eighth consecutive year.
Chief Executive polled 650 business leaders, asking them to grade states in which they do business in categories such as tax and regulation, quality of workforce and living environment. Texas was given high marks for its business-friendly tax and regulatory environment. But its workforce quality, second only to Utah’s, is also highly regarded.
Here’s what some of the polled CEOs had to say about Califorrnia…
“California and Connecticut are full of impenetrable regulations and generally hostile to business.”
“California has a great draw from a weather & location view point, but the state is so business unfriendly.”
“California is a complete mess.”
“California is a hopeless disaster.”
“California, New York and Michigan all continue to lose population, due to the less than favorable business climate. It’s no coincidence that all three states have bloated governments, are union-controlled and run significant annual budget deficits… who knew?”
“California and Connecticut have state governments that are simply too big, too intrusive and too anti-business.”
“California and Michigan are predatory in their approach to business.”
“California, New York and Illinois are all anti-business.”
“California and Massachusetts in league of their own for anti-business regulatory environment.”
“California and New York are a basket case… only the life style saves California.”
“California continues to head in the wrong direction as its tax policies will drive more businesses and people to relocate in other states. State politicians feel business and commerce are “necessary evils” that provide the funds to enable pursuit of their misguided agendas.”
“California government is difficult to work with and very bureaucratic. Taxes and regulation are high and unruly.”
“California has driven away business with bad rules and a refusal to acknowledge its problems. We should let it become its own country. The legislature is horrible.”
“California is begging for businesses to leave its state.”
“California is going in the wrong direction if that’s even possible.”
“California is out of control. They have too much government who have nothing better to do than to harass businesses in the state. They need to cut the size of their regulatory bodies in half.”
“California is the interface with China, where all our money is these days.”
“California is the only state in which I have direct experience in operating a business. Simply stated, California is not employer friendly, does not encourage or incent businesses to grow and has far more regulations that anywhere else!”
“California is the worst! They are doing everything possible to drive a business out of their state. If the environment in CA was not so good, they would have lost half of their population.”
“California makes it truly difficult to operate a business, but especially a mid-size organization.”
“California regulations, taxes and costs will leave only tech, life sciences and entertainment as viable. If you aren’t an elitist no room here for the middle or working classes.”
“California should become set aside and not included in commerce with the rest of country. They have become impossible to deal with and proposed regulations will further distance them from rest of country.”
“California should secede from the union – it is like doing business in a foreign country, it has its own exchange rate, regulation is crazy.”
“California treats business owners like criminals. CA has different overtime policies for it’s own employees vs. private sector.”
“California, Massachusetts and Vermont have enacted anti-business policies that are detrimental, especially to the medical device industry.”
“California, New York and Connecticut heavy on taxation and regulatory.”
“California…outlook is for an even worse business and tax climate under Governor Brown.”
“California’s regulation and specifically labor regulation is a job killer. We will be moving our business out of CA and the State will lose 100′s of jobs simply due to the poor regulatory environment.”
“California’s taxes and ongoing changes for regulations are devastating. One never knows from even day to day what new intpretation of an existing regulation or new regulation will befall you and your small business. Every single state or federal program payor source for healthcare has tried to stop paying for programs in the last year. If we dealt with the real issue of state and federal government entitlement pension plans, we would stop raping all current programs that support our citizens. We also need to deal with the benefits issue for all of the illegal immigrants and spread that cost over all of the states to eliminate them, as another reason for California’s budget woes is the disproportionate share of that cost we carry.”
“California is the most difficult state to deal with on all fronts.”
Sucking sound continues as frustrated businesses leave California for friendlier climes….and there’s another measure to make doing business in California even more difficult.
An environmental coalition called “Californians to Close the Out-of-State Corporate Tax Loophole” has submitted more than 900,000 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot. The initiative is to raise more than a billion dollars from companies headquartered outside of California, but doing business in our state. It’s like not being allowed to drive the family car because your brother had an accident.
For the first five years, the initiative is projected to raise about a billion dollars per year, with about half going toward energy conservation efforts at schools and other public buildings. The remainder would go toward the state’s general fund. After five years, however, the entire amount would be directed to the State’s General Fund.
The measure can easily discourage investment in California by national companies. The measure offers a short term benefit to the real estate industry, but, it’s a bit of “bait-and-switch,” as it ultimately directs any gain from the tax to the state’s General Fund coffers.
We evolve and we learn. When it comes to building efficiency, we are advancing at warp speed. The Department of Energy has revealed that buildings meeting the new 2010 energy efficiency standard will conserve 18.5% more energy than structures using the previous 2007 DOE standard. It’s like making the jump to hyperspace.
The DOE did some pretty serious study to come up with the new codes. For its findings, DOE simulated 16 representative building types in 15 U.S. climate locations. In addition, they analyzed the energy codes published by the American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
The evolved 2010 standard covers a wide spectrum of the energy-related components and systems in buildings ranging from simple storage units to complex energy usage locations like hospitals and laboratories. The size of the structures also ranged from under 1,000 square feet to the largest buildings in the world.
States are expected to review Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings and update their building code to meet or exceed the energy efficiency of the new standard within two years. Certification statements by the states are due October 18, 2013.
California requires our state-developed commercial code the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, comprising Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, of the California Code of Regulations.
The DOE boasts that the newer version of the standard contains 19 positive impacts on energy efficiency. Among the modifications are new requirements for daylighting controls under skylights; increased use of heat recovery; cool roofs in hot climates; skylights and daylighting in some building types; reduced ventilation energy; supply air temperature reset for non-peak conditions; efficiency requirements for data centers; control of exterior lighting; and occupancy sensors for many specific applications.
Over a 20-year span, green buildings can $53 to $71 per square foot back on investment. LEED and Energy Star certified buildings achieve significantly higher rents, sale prices and occupancy rates as well as lower capitalization rates potentially reflecting lower investment risk…and green buildings make the world a better place.
Cut the expenses on your commercial property. Building performance tracking promises continuous improvement for every building. Even a building constructed to the most exacting environmental standards needs to be operated and maintained properly to perform as designed. By employing a strategy to monitor and improve the energy and system operation of commercial buildings, building performance tracking is the first step in seeing operating costs fall, asset values grow, and market differentiation improve.
“The Building Performance Tracking Handbook” was developed by the California Commissioning Collaborative with funding from the state’s Energy Commission and can be applied to commercial buildings throughout the country. It allows operators to understand how their buildings are running and improve standard operating procedures and energy usage for a building.
“The Building Performance Handbook” outlines the steps needed to continually manage building performance, demystifies the complex array of building performance tracking tools available, and provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate tracking strategy.
There are four elements to performance tracking:
• Collect data and track the performance of the HVAC and lighting systems, plus energy use data.
• Identify performance problems.
• Diagnose problems and identify solutions.
• Fix problems and verify results.
To help facility managers build a business case, the handbook identifies a range of benefits from performance tracking, including enhanced occupant satisfaction, reduced energy costs and increased property values.
Building Owners, managers, and engineers will find this handbook valuable, whether they are just embarking on a formal performance tracking approach, or are looking to take their existing strategies to the next level.
The Handbook, endorsed by BOMA California’s Energy Committee, is the outcome of research funded by the California Energy Commission, under a project managed by the non-profit California Commissioning Collaborative. The handbook was written by PECI, a non-profit organization devoted to energy efficiency.
Download a copy of the manual @ http://cacx.org/PIER/documents/bpt-handbook.pdf.
Powered by Digital Shake LLC