I spent the afternoon at the DEP in Trenton attending the first of six stakeholder meetings for NJ’s Draft Global Warming Response Act Recommendation Report. The final report will be a resource for policymakers for years to come. The current draft report pulls together existing recommendations and provides new recommendations for the primary goal: meeting NJ’s requirement to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (about 25% below “business as usual” projections). The report also attempts to initiate a framework for 80% emissions reduction from 2006 levels by 2050….

…Ambitious goals, and some participants implied the goals are unrealistic without strong new mandates from the state. Moderators reminded the room: “We’re not yet answering implementation questions. We’re here to listen to your thoughts about the recommendations. We don’t provide ‘how’ we’re going to get [to the emissions reduction goals], but rather ‘what’ we want to do.” The report is meant to be a guide for the Legislature, the departments, and rulemaking authorities. These bodies will need to take strong action on the heels of the report, yet implementation typically falls short of high-minded guidelines. So it’s crucial that the Recommendation Report provide the most practical, achievable and high-impact solutions to meet the state’s emissions reduction goals.

Green Building was the topic at this morning’s meeting, and about 60 people attended, representing various NJ departments (DEP, Office of Planning, BPU, Consumer Affairs, others), building-related groups (U.S. Green Building Council NJ, private developers, others), environmental groups (Sierra Club NJ, Environment NJ, others), and other groups.

Among the lead moderators were Marjorie Kaplan, new manager of the DEP’s Office of Climate & Energy, and Kerry Pflugh of the DEP. They organized the stakeholder feedback along four main questions:

• What are the current incentives/disincentives to green buildings today, both in NJ and elsewhere?
• What specific incentives are lacking in NJ to promote green building design?
• What is the right balance of mandatory requirements and incentives (financial and otherwise) to generate green building in NJ?
• Is making green buildings a mandatory standard cost prohibitive for affordable housing in NJ?

The DEP will provide summaries of all six meetings within a couple of weeks of the last meeting (Jan. 16), so hopefully my early notes today will be useful to readers, even though I’m only covering a few of the points at the meeting.

• First, I learned that NJ is creating a comprehensive standards manual for green buildings, to be made available in mid-2010. The initiative was launched by the state in the fall of ’08, and Rutgers will be organizing the process. This seemed to be news today to several of the building-industry participants as well.

• The room embraced suggestions that non-financial incentives for green building should be expanded. For instance, one participant noted that a Philadelphia-area developer was granted the right to build about 25% more units in a location as a result of its green building plans. These “density bonuses” were a popular notion during a few minutes of discussion. (Note too that density can often present inherent efficiencies.) Numerous participants strongly suggested that the DEP should wave fees and generally streamline the approval process for green building applications. There was some discussion of how Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have a central group of officials – case managers -- who help companies entering the states navigate the entire permitting process across the different departments.

• In the area of financial incentives, many participants urged the state to focus on reducing the “first costs” of green buildings. One participant estimated that green building costs run 2-9% higher than standard building costs, and up to 16% higher if incorporating renewable fuels. Even though this extra cost might be fully justified in the long run, the “first costs” were a disincentive to build green. Tax incentives and abatements that aimed to overcome this initial cost disadvantage would be productive, several people said. Anecdotally, an attending engineer stated that PNC Bank’s LEED-certified buildings in NJ are less expensive than standard buildings to build and maintain.

• Many people stated that clear NJ State green building guidelines would be far preferable to expanding the number of municipal guidelines. Too many guidelines suppresses investment. Implementing LEED more rigorously throughout state rulemaking was one of the proposals. There are other existing U.S. green building standards for NJ to leverage, as well.

• Energy efficiency was, happily, a major focus of the entire meeting. It’s widely acknowledged – though not yet enough – that increasing efficiency is the lowest-hanging fruit of all greenhouse gas and resource-reduction initiatives. How to encourage it? Suggestions ranged from mining utilities’ data on its customers, to strengthening building codes on walls/doors/windows/insulation, to providing standards for “smart meters” that will tell building occupants in real-time what their utility charges will be. Another idea, which I suggested at the meeting, is to mandate increased disclosure of utility expenses. For instance, if average monthly utility bills had to be disclosed by property sellers, then buyers and renters would pay more attention to this, and often choose to occupy more efficient spaces. Such a rule would also encourage existing owners to cut utility costs and invest in efficiencies, so that the property is easier to sell. In looking at 1500-2000 square-foot homes recently, I found some with monthly bills of $650 and others with $150 bills. I doubt most buyers consider this crucial aspect of the buying decision, because the information isn’t readily available.

• Education became a big topic at today’s meeting. Several people suggested ways to better educate municipal building permitters, inspectors, realtors, building occupants, technical school students, and others. One of the only contentious moments of the meeting today centered on the issue of how well municipal building permit employees enforce existing code. A representative from the Department of Consumer Affairs / Division of Codes and Standards implied that permit officers are doing a very good job, and that the current requirement of 1.5 continuing education credits every 3 years is sufficient. The U.S. Green Building Council NJ representatives strongly disagreed. Yet the Dept of Consumer Affairs representative seemed open to strengthening continuing education requirements specifically for energy efficiency.

• Some ideas not ready for prime time policy? Several participants talked about the need to reduce the “lifecycle costs” of buildings, i.e. by using more efficient designs, using less material, using materials that require fewer resources and carbon-emissions to produce, etc. We need more of this kind of thinking. Yet there wasn’t much follow-up on these points, perhaps because it’s not yet generally understood how to broadly quantify and implement these ideas. Clearly though, less is more: The most “green building” is the building that isn’t built. The most “green tenant” is one that occupies an existing structure (which it makes more efficient), and in accordance with smart land-use policies. “Green Buildings” are part of a much wider discussion.

Again, I’m not representing these notes as exhaustive, but hopefully you find the timeliness helpful. Look for the DEP’s notes some time after the Jan 16 stakeholder session.

The DEP hopes to provide a “Final” Recommendation Report in March.

Stakeholder session 2 of 6 is today/Tuesday, weather permitting.

Related Articles - Most Recent (And see "Labels" at right for more).