AGENDA ITEM SA
April 22, 2014
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Atto~~
Josh Hamlin, Legislative
Attome~
Action:
Bi1l2-14, Environmental Sustainability - Buildings
4
~
SUBJECT:
Benchmarking
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee recommendation
(2-1):
enact Bill 2-14 with amendments to:
• delete the energy audit and retro-commissioning requirements;
• apply benchmarking only to nonresidential buildings;
• adjust the reporting timeframe so that benchmarking is required for County buildings
beginning in June 2015, Group 1 covered buildings in December 2016, and Group 2
covered buildings in December 2017;
• create a Benchmarking Work Group to review the implementation of the law as it is
applied to County buildings and submit a report in September 2015 with any
recommendations regarding how benchmarking should be implemented for privately­
owned buildings, including any recommended amendments to County law.
• change the implementing department to the Department of Environmental Protection.
Councilmember Floreen did not support Bill 2-14 or the Committee amendments.
Bill 2-14, Environmental Sustainability - Buildings - Benchmarking, sponsored by
Councilmembers Berliner, Floreen, Riemer, Andrews, and Navarro, was introduced on January 28, 2014.
A public hearing was held by the Committee on February 11 and a Transportation, Infrastructure,
Energy and Environment Committee worksession was held on March 24.
As introduced, Bill 2-14 would require the owners of certain buildings to benchmark the energy
use of certain buildings and retro-commission certain building systems to improve their energy
efficiency. Modeled after laws in New York, Chicago, and
the
District of Columbia, Bill 2-14 would
require building owners to measure the energy efficiency of their buildings, make that information
public, and periodically commit to assuring that their energy efficiency equipment is working properly.
A chart comparing select jurisdictions that have benchmarking laws is on ©87.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Councilmember Berliner explained the purpose of this Bill in his January 14 memorandum
describing his proposed energy/environmental package (see ©20). This Bill is designed to work with the
recently enacted PACE program to create market-based incentives for building owners to increase the
efficiency of their buildings. Infonnation provided would aid tenants in forecasting future utility costs.
An
informative fact sheet about benchmarking from the Department of Energy's State and Local Energy
Efficiency Action Network is on ©81.
The Fiscal and Economic Impact statements for this Bill are on ©75. According to both DEP and
DGS, one new position (for each Department) resulting from the implementation of Bill 6-14 (Office of
Sustainability) could also implement the requirements of Bill 2-14. OMB estimates the fiscal impact of
Bill 2-14 in FY15 would be $263,712 ($95,346 in personnel costs, 16,666 in operating costs, and
151,700 in one time expenses).
Summary
of Testimony
The Council heard testimony and received correspondence from several people raising a variety
of concerns. These include:
• Calvert Investments, Boland Trane Services, and the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association supported Bill 2-14.
• The U.S. Green Building Council, Montgomery County Chapter, the Greater Bethesda-Chevy
Chase Chamber of Commerce and Greater Silver Spring Chamber of Commerce, and others
raised several concerns regarding the auditing and retro-commissioning portion of Bill 2-14,
including the costs associated with an energy audit.
• The County Chamber of Commerce recommended that if the county requires benchmarking of
private buildings, then the County should also participate in the program. The US Green
Building Council, Montgomery County Chapter urged that benchmarking should first apply to
County buildings and to private buildings after a successful program is implemented with
County buildings.
• The County Chamber of Commerce recommended that for older buildings that are likely to be
less efficient than newer buildings, the County provide a process to help with mitigation.
Examples the Chamber mentioned include priority for County programs or other education to
address efficiency problems.
• The Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Greater Silver Spring Chambers of Commerce and
Guardian Realty Management raised concerns about the disclosure requirement and questioned
whether proprietary information would be protected.
• The Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association and Montgomery Housing
Partnership supported the concept of encouraging and supporting efforts to benchmark the
energy use of buildings, but urged the Council to establish a working group to identify ways to
create, support, and measure building energy use.
• The Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Greater Silver Spring Chambers of Commerce raised a
variety of specific questions, including whether the waiver provisions are adequate, and what the
costs are for benchmarking, energy audits, and retro-commissioning.
• The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission questioned whether
benchmarking would be required for buildings that are scheduled to be demolished.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Department of Environmental Protection Comments
Before the Committee worksession, the Department of Environmental Protection provided a
helpful review of Bill 2-14 (©72). Included in their review were the following recommended
amendments:
delete the energy audit and retro-commissioning requirements;
change the implementing department from Permitting Services to Environmental Protection;
require benchmarking for County buildings before applying the law to private buildings;
establish a work group to develop a Benchmarking Reporting Protocol for how the
benchmarking process should work in the County;
The Department noted that additional resources would be required to implement the bill.
Committee DiscussionlRecommendation
Councilmember Berliner amendment
Councilmember Berliner offered an amendment to Bill
2-14 that addressed several of the concerns raised in testimony and correspondence. This amendment
would:
• delete the energy audit and retro-commissioning requirements;
• apply benchmarking only to nonresidential buildings;
• adjust the reporting time frame so that benchmarking is required for County buildings beginning
in June 2015, Group I covered buildings in December 2016 , and Group 2 covered buildings in
December 2017;
• create a Benchmarking Work Group to review the implementation of the law as it is applied to
County buildings and submit a report in September 20 IS with any recommendations regarding
how benchmarking should be implemented for privately-owned buildings, including any
recommended amendments to County law.
Council member Berliner also asked Council staff to ensure that the Bill as amended would
include the same minimum size criteria as for private buildings (50,000 square feet). This is included on
the attached bill at ©2, lines 20-23. The Committee (2-1) supported this amendment. Councilmember
Floreen dissented.
What County department should be the implementing department?
As drafted, Bill 2-14 would
be implemented and enforced by the Department of Permitting Services. DEP Comments recommend
changing this to the Department of Environmental Protection. The Committee recommended
changing the implementing Department to the Department of Environmental Protection.
Should benchmarking be required for buildings that are scheduled to be demolished?
The
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission recommends that a building that is scheduled
to be demolished within 4 years be excluded from the benchmarking requirement. The Bill as drafted
does not exclude these buildings. The Committee did not address this issue.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
What benchmarking information must be disclosed?
Bill 2-14 requires the Department to make
reported benchmarking information readily available to the public. Some Chambers of Commerce and
Guardian Realty Management raised concerns about this requirement and questioned whether
proprietary information would be protected. Council
staff
notes that this section briefly restates portions
of the State Public Information Act. To the extent that information reported is exempt from disclosure
under State law, it would be withheld.
What is the potential cost to building owners?
Committee members discussed the potential cost
to perform the requirements ofBi1l2-14. The economic impact statement addresses this issue:
It
is not possible to ascertain the costs incurred by building owners related to
benchmarking. The benchmarking process requires the use of EPA's ENERGY STAR
Portfolio Manager, which is a free software tooL Many building owners in the County
already utilize this tool, so there would be no or minimal costs to these building owners.
Property owners that are not currently using this tool may incur some expense to gather
the building energy data that is required. That expense is offset by higher occupancy rates
whereby there is an increase in the demand by tenants, greater business income through
higher rents, and greater property values. The results of benchmarking could have a
positive economic effect on investment, business income, and property values.
This packet contains:
Circle
#
Bil12-14
1
Legislative Request Report
19
Councilmember Berliner Memo
20
OMB and Finance Memo
24
Select Correspondence
County Executive
25
American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter
26
Boland Trane Services
32
Calvert Investments
36
Charles Nulsen, III
38
Greater B-CC and Greater Silver Spring Chambers
42
Guardian Realty Management
44
46
Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
48
62
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
65
Montgomery Housing Partnership
67
National Electrical Manufactures Association
69
U.S. Green Building Council, Montgomery County Branch
72
DEPMemo
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements
75
DOE fact sheet
81
87
Chart of laws in other jurisdictions
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\Action Memo.Doc
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
2-14
Concerning: Environmental Sustainabilitv
- Buildings - Benchmarking
Revised:
4/3/2014
Draft No._5_
Introduced:
January 28. 2014
Expires:
July 28,2015
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Berliner, Floreen, Riemer, Andrews and Navarro
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)]]
require the owners of certain buildings to benchmark the energy use of certain
buildings;
require the Director of the Department of Permitting Services to issue an annual rort
to review and evaluate energy efficiency in certain covered buildings;
require the Director make certain benchmarking infonnation readily available to the
public;
allow the Director to waive certain requirements; and
[[require the owners of certain buildings to have an energy audit performed on
certain buildings;
require the owners of certain buildings to assure that retro-commissioning is
performed on certain buildings; and
generally amend County law regarding energy efficiency and environmental
sustainability.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Article 5
Sections 18A-34, 18A-35, 18A-36, and 18A-37
Article
6
Sections [[18A-38, 18A-37,]] 18A-38, 18A-39, 18A-40, 18A-41, 18A-42, and 18A-43
([Article
7
Sections 18A-44, 18A-45, 18A-46, 18A-47, 18A-48, 18A-49, and 18A-50J]
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law Wlaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
1
Sec. 1. Chapter 18A is amended
by
[[adding]] amending Article 5 to add
Sections 18A-34, 18A-35, 18A-36, and 18A-37; Article 6, consisting of Sections
18A-38, 18A-39, 18A-40, 18A-41, 18A-42, and 18A-43[[; and Article 7,
consisting of Sections 18A-44, 18A-45, 18A-46, 18A-47, 18A-48, 18A-49, and
18A-50]] as follows:
Article 5. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy Program.
18A-34 -18A-37. Reserved.
Article 6. Buildine Energy Use Benchmarking.
18A-38.
Definitions.
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
In
this Article, the following words have the meanings indicated:
Benchmark
means to track and input
11
12
13
building's energy consumption data
and other relevant building information for 12 consecutive months, as
required
Qy
the benchmarking tool, to quantify the building's energy use.
Benchmarking tool
means the website-based software, commonly known as
14
15
16
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, or any successor system. developed
and maintained
Qy
the United States Environmental Protection Agency to
track and assess the relative energy use of buildings nationwide.
Certificate gfuse and occupancy
means the certificate issued
Qy
the Director
17
18
19
20
21
that allows
~
building to be occupied and used.
County building
means any building owned by the County. or any group of
buildings owned by the County that have the same property identification
number. that equals or exceeds 50,000 square feet
likntified by the Director
Covered building
means any [[building owned by the]] County building,
grOSS
22
23
24
25
floor area. as
Group! covered buildin& or Group
~
covered building[[.1 as defined in this
26
27
28
Article]].:.
Covered building
does not include any building with more than
10% occupancy which is used for
ill
public assembly in
l!
build®Without walls;
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
29
30
31
32
33
ill
ill
(4)
warehousing;
self storage; or
f!
use classified as manufacturing and industrial or transportation,
communication, and utilities.
Data center
means
f!
space designed and equipped to meet the needs of
high
34
35
36
density computing equipment such as server racks, used for data storage and
processing, as defined
Qy
the benchmarking tool.
Department
means the Department of [[Permitting Services]] Environme.mal
37
38
Protection.
Director
means the Director of the Department or the Director's designee.
Energy perfOrmance score
or
ENERGY STAR
score means the numerical
39
40
41
42
43
score produced
by
the benchmarking tool, or any successor score, that
assesses
f!
building's energy performance compared to similar buildings.
based on source energy use, operating characteristics, and geographic
location.
Energy use intensity
or
EUI
means
f!
numerIC value calculated
Qy
the
44
45
benchmarking tool that represents the energy consumed
by
f!
building
relative to its size.
Group
46
47
48
49
50
1
covered building
means any nonresidential building, or any group
of nonresidential buildings that have the same property identification
number, not owned by the County that equals or exceeds 250,000 square feet
gross floor area, as identified
by
the Director.
Group
51
52
53
54
55
1.
covered building
means any illLnresidential building, or any group
of nonresidential buildings that have the same property identification
number, not owned by the County that equals or exceeds 50,000 square feet
gross floor area but is less than 250,000 square feet gross floor area, as
identified
by
the Director.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
56
57
58
59
60
61
Gross floor area
means the sum of the gross horizontal area of the several
floors of
£!
building or structure measured from the exterior faces of the
exterior walls or from the center line of
~
walls.
In
£!
covered but
unenclosed area, such as
£!
set of gasoline pumps or
£!
drive-through area,
gross floor area means the covered area.
Gross floor area
does not include
any:
62
63
64
65
66
ill
basement or attic area with
£!
headroom less than
1
feet
.Q
inches;
[[(Jill]
al
area devoted to unenclosed mechanical, heating, air conditioning,
[[ful]]
or ventilating equipment;
Hw]]
ill
parking structure; or
[[@]]
~
accessory structure to
£!
residential building.
67
68
Licensed professional
means
£!
professional engineer or
£!
registered architect
licensed in the State, or another trained individual as defined in applicable
County regulations.
69
70
Reported benchmarking infOrmation
means the descriptive information
about
£!
building, its operating characteristics, and information generated
hY
the benchmarking tool regarding the building'S energy consumption and
efficiency.
71
72
73
74
Reported benchmarking infOrmation
includes the building
identification number, address, gross floor area, energy performance score,
energy use intensity, and annual greenhouse gas emissions.
75
76
77
78
79
Residential occupancy
means the occupancy of dwelling units m any
building that includes one or more dwellings.
18A-39.
ful
Energy
~
benchmarking.
County buildings.
No later than June
1.
2015. and every June 1
80
thereafter. the County must benchmark all buildings owned by the
County for the previous calendar year.
81
F:\LAw\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee.
Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
82
83
£:bJ
Group
1
covered buildings.
No later than [[June
L
2014]]
~mber
1.
2016, and every [[June]] December
1
thereafter, the owner of any
84
85
1
covered building must benchmark the building for the
previous calendar year. [[However, the owner of any Group
1
Group
covered building with at least 10% residential occupancy, as measured
Qy
square footage, must benchmark the building for the previous
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
calendar year no later than June
L
2015, and no later than June 1st
each year thereafter.]]
The owner must report the benchmarking
information to the Department no later than [[July]] January
1
each
year.
[[(hl]]
!£l
Group
1
covered buildings.
No later than [[June
L
2015]]
December
1.
2017, and [[no later than June 1st each year]] every
December 1 thereafter, the owner of any Group
2
covered building
must benchmark the building for the previous calendar year.
[[However, the owner of any Group
2
covered building with 10% or
more residential occupancy must benchmark the building for the
previous calendar year no later than June
L
2016, and no later than
June 1st each year thereafter.]]
January
1
each year.
@
The owner must report the
100
101
benchmarking information to the Department no later than [[July]]
Waiver.
The Director may waive the requirements of this Section if
102
103
104
105
the owner of
~
covered building documents, in
regulation, that the building:
~
form required
Qy
ill
is in financial distress, defined as
~
building that:
106
107
108
CA)
is the subject of
~
tax lien sale or public auction due to
property tax arrearages;
an
is controlled
Qy
~
court appointed receiver; or
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiU 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
109
110
(Q
was recently acquired
Qy
~
deed in lieu of foreclosure;
ill
ill
had average physical occupancy of less than 50% throughout
the calendar year for which benchmarking is required; or
is new construction and received its certificate of use and
occupancy during the calendar yeat for which benchmarking is
required.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
18A-40.
Data Verification.
.cru
Verification required.
Before the first benchmarking deadline
required
Qy
Section 18A-39, and before each third benchmarking
deadline thereafter, the owner of each covered building must assure
that reported benchmarking information for that year is verified
Qy
~
licensed professional. The verification must be
~
stamped and signed
statement
Qy
~
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
licensed professional attesting to the accuracy of the
information. If the Director requests, the owner of
~
covered building
must produce the statement available for the most recent year in
which verification was required.
(Q)
Waiver.
The Director may waive the requirements of this Section if
the owner shows that compliance with this Section will cause undue
financial hardship.
option.
18A-41.
Solicitation of compliance information from tenants.
If
~
no-cost or low-cost verification option is
available, the Director may require the owner to use the alternative
.cru
Solicitation
gf
information from tenant.
An
owner of
~
covered
~
building must request relevant information from any tenant in
covered building no later than. March
~
~
1
of each year in which
benchmarking is required
Qy
Section 18A-39. If the owner receives
notice that
tenant intends to vacate
unit which is subject to this
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\Bill5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
136
137
138
139
Section, the owner must request the information within 10 days after
receiving the notice to vacate.
(hl
Tenant response.
Within 30 days after receIvmg
f!
request for
information from the building owner, each tenant of
f!
unit in
f!
covered building must provide the building owner with all
information that the owner cannot otherwise acquire that is necessary
to comply with this Article.
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
18A-42.
(£2
Failure gftenant to provide information.
ill
If any tenant does not provide the information required under
this Section to the owner of
f!
covered building, that fact does
not relieve the owner of the obligation to benchmark the
building under Section 18A-39, using all information otherwise
available to the owner.
ill
If
f!
tenant of
f!
unit in
~
covered building does not provide
information to the owner of the building under this Section, the
Director must consider the owner to be in compliance with
Section 18A-39 if:
®
ill}
the owner shows that the owner requested the tenant to
provide the information under this Section; and
the owner benchmarked the building under Section 18A­
39, using all information otherwise available to the
owner.
Annual report; disclosure of benchmarking information.
(ill
Annual report required
By October
1
of each year, the Director must
submit
f!
benchmarking report to the County Executive and County
Council. The report must review and evaluate energy efficiency in
covered buildings, including:
(j)
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
ill
ill
!ll
summary statistics on the most recent reported energy
benchmarking information;
[[andl1
discussion of any energy efficiency trends, cost savings, and job
creation resulting from energy efficiency improvements: and
for County buildings:
(A)
the scores of County buildings benchmarked: and
wh~ther
au
(hl
the Director recommends any energy efficiency
improvemellts for specific buildings.
Disclosure
Q[
benchmarking information.
The Director must make
reported benchmarking information readily available to the pUblic,
including on the open data website created under Section 2-154, and
the Director may exempt information from disclosure only to the
extent that disclosure is prohibited under federal or state law.
ill
Exceptions to disclosure.
To the extent allowable under state law, the
Director must not make the following readily available to the public:
ill
any
individually-attributable
reported
benchmarking
information from the first calendar year that
S!
covered building
is required to benchmark; and
ill
any
individually-attributable
reported
benchmarking
information relating to
S!
covered building that contains
S!
data
center, television studio, or trading floor that together exceeds
10% of the gross square footage of the individual building until
the Director finds that the benchmarking tool can make
adequate adjustments for these facilities.
When the Director
finds that the benchmarking tool can make adequate
adjustments, the Director must report this data in the annual
report.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Bencbmarking\BiII 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
18A-43.
Regulations; penalties.
The County Executive may issue Method
ill
regulations to administer
this Article.
tru
(Q)
Any violation of this Article is
S!
Class A violation.
[[Article 7. Energy Audits and Retro-Commissioning of Base Buildin2
Systems.]]
[[18A-44.
Definitions.
In this Article, the following words have the meanings indicated:
ASHRAE
means the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air­
199
200
conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Base building system
means each system or subsystem of
S!
building that
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
uses energy or impacts energy consumption, including:
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
the building envelope;
any heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system;
any conveying system;
any domestic hot water system; and
any electrical or lighting system.
Base Building system
does not include any industrial process that occurs in
S!
208
209
210
211
212
213
covered building or any system or subsystem owned
Qy
S!
tenant (other than
S!
net lessee for
S!
term of 49 years or more, including any renewal option),
condominium unit owner, or cooperative unit shareholder, or
S!
system or
subsystem for which
S!
tenant bears full maintenance responsibility and that
is located in the tenant's leased space or exclusively serves that leased space.
Building management system
means
S!
computer-based system that monitors
214
215
216
and controls
S!
building'S mechanical and electrical equipment, such as its
HV AC, lighting, power, fire, and security system, including, at least, control
of the heating equipment using interior temperature sensors.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Bencbmarking\BilJ 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
217
218
County building
means
!!
covered building that is owned by the County and
for which the County regularly
.Qill
all or part of the energy bills.
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
Covered building
means
ill
ill
ill
1
building that exceeds 50,000 gross square feet;
2:
or more buildings on the same tax identification number that
together exceed 100,000 gross square feet; or
2:
or more buildings held in the condominium form of ownership that
are governed by the same board of managers and that together exceed
100,000 gross square feet.
226
227
228
229
230
Covered building
does not include any
L 2.t
or 3-family residential building.
Current facility requirements
means the owner's current operational needs
and requirements for
!!
building, including temperature and humidity set
points, operating hours, filtration, and any integrated requirements such as
controls, warranty review, and service contract review.
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
Department
means the Department of Environmental Protection.
Director
means the Director ofthe Department or the Director's designee.
Energy audit
or
audit
means
!!
systematic process to identify and develop
improvements to any base building system, including any alteration of that
system and the installation of new equipment, insulation, or other generally
recognized energy efficiency technology to optimize energy performance of
the building and achieve energy savings.
238
239
Energy auditor
means an individual the Department authorizes to perform
energy audits and certify audit reports required by this Article.
240
241
242
243
Energy management system
means
!!
system incorporating interior
temperature sensors and
!!
central processing unit and controls, which are
used to monitor and control electricity,
applicable, based on the need for heating.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchrnarking\BiII 5 Committee.Doc
~
steam, and oil usage, as
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
244
245
Energy efficiency report
means the report required under Section 18A-47.
Financial hardship
g[
fI
building
means
~
building that:
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
ill
ill
was included on the Department of Finance's tax lien sale list within
2.
years before an energy efficiency report was due; or
is exempt from real property taxes under Maryland Code, Tax­
Property Article, Sections 7-201, 7-202, and 7-204, or any successor
provisions, and had negative revenue less expenses during the
2.
tax
years before an energy efficiency report was due.
Green Building Council
means the U.S. Green Building Council, an
253
254
255
organization that has developed and published the LEED rating system to
measure the energy and environmental performance of
~
building.
LEED
.
refers to the series of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
256
257
Design (LEED) rating systems developed
Qy
the Green Building Council.
Owner
means:
258
259
260
261
262
ill
ill
ill
the owner of record of
~
covered building;
the net lessee in the case of
~
net lease of an entire building for
~
term
of 49 years or more, including any renewal option;
the board of directors or similar body if the covered building is
cooperative apartment or condominium corporation.
~
263
264
265
Registered design protessional
has the meaning in the latest version of the
ICC International Building Code or another building code that the County
adopts.
Retro-commissioning
means
~
266
267
268
269
systematic process applied to an existing
building that has never been commissioned to assure that the building'S
systems are designed, installed, functionally tested, and can be operated and
maintained according to the owner's operational needs.
F:\LAw\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BilI 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
270
Simple payback
means the number of years for projected annual energy
271
272
273
savings to equal the amount invested in an energy conservation measure, as
determined
Qy
dividing the investment
Qy
the annual energy
saving~.
Space
means an area in
~
building enclosed
Qy
floor to ceiling walls,
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
partitions, windows and doors.]]
[[18A-45.
Energy audits required.
Audit required.
ill
The owner must assure that an energy audit is
performed on the base building systems of
~
covered building before
filing an energy efficiency report required
Qy
this Article. Except as
otherwise provided in Section 18A-49, an energy audit must be
performed
Qy
or under the supervision of an energy auditor and must
be performed in accordance with applicable regulations. The audit
process must cover the base building system and must at least
identify:
ill
any reasonable measure, including any capital improvement,
that would reduce energy use or the cost of operating the
building;
ill
for each measure, the associated annual energy savings, the cost
to implement, and the simple payback, calculated
Qy
approved
Qy
the Department;
~
method
ill
the building's benchmarking output consistent with the United
States Environmental Protection Administration Portfolio
Manager tool or another method the Director finds equivalent;
ill
~
break-down of energy usage
Qy
system and predicted energy
system after any proposed
measures
are
savings
Qy
implemented; and
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiIl 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
ill
~
general assessment of how the major energy consummg
~
equipment and systems used in tenant spaces impact the energy
consumption of the base building systems, based on
representative sample of spaces.
@
Audit process.
The energy audit process must be at least as stringent
as the Level II Energy Survey and Engineering Analysis of the 2004
edition of Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits
published
Qy
the ASHRAE, or another process the Director finds
equivalent.
W
Qualifications
gf
auditor.
An energy auditor must be
~
registered
design professional with any other certification or Qualification the
Director finds appropriate.
@
Contents
gf
audit report.
The energy auditor must prepare and certify
~
report of the energy audit. Except as otherwise provided in Section
18A-49, the audit report must include information relating to the audit
as reQuired
Qy
applicable regulations, including the date when the
audit was completed and the information reQuired
Qy
subsection
hl
.313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
liU
Compliance with landmarks laws.
The cost estimates for any covered
building that is regulated
Qy
any state or federal law regulating
landmarks or historic buildings must include all added costs necessary
for the proposed work to comply with that law.
ill
Timing
gf
energy audit.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 18A­
49, the energy audit must be completed no earlier than
~
years before
the date when
~
covered building's energy efficiency report is filed
under this Article.
F:\LA
W\B
lLLS\l402 Benchmarking\BiIl 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
(g)
Exceptions.
An
energy audit is not required if
~
registered design
professional certifies that the building complies with any of the
following requirements:
ill
The covered building received an EPA Energy Star label for at
least
2.
of the
J
years before the building's energy efficiency
~
report is filed.
ill
No EPA Energy Star rating is available for the building
and
~
registered design professional documents that the
building's energy performance is 25 or more points better than
the performance of an average building of its
~
over
~
2-year
period during the
J
years before an energy efficiency report is
filed, consistent with the methodology of the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design 2009 rating system for
Existing Buildings published
Qy
the United States Green
Building Councilor other rating system or methodology for
existing buildings, as determined
Qy
the Department.
ill
The covered building received certification under the LEED
2009 rating system for Existing Buildings. or another rating
system for existing buildings the Director fmds equivalent,
within
filed.]]
~
years before the building's energy efficiency report is
[[18A-46.
Retro-commissioning required.
Retro-commissioning required.
The owner of
~
covered building must
W
assure that retro-commissioning is performed on the base building
system of
~
covered building before filing an energy efficiency report
as required
Qy
this Article. Except as otherwise provided in Section
18A-49, retro-commissioning must be performed
Qy
or under the
F:\LAW\BILLS\l402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
supervision of
$!
retro-commissioning agent, as required Qy applicable
regulations issued under subsection
(Q1
{hl
Regulations.
The County Executive must issue regulations requiring
that sufficient analysis, corrections and testing have been done so that
each base building system demonstrates efficient operation.
ill
Contents
Q[
retro-commissioning report.
The retro-commissioning
agent must prepare and certify
$!
retro-commissioning report. Each
retro-commissioning report must include information relating to the
retro-commissioning as specified in applicable regulations.
@
Timing
Q[
retro-commissioning
Except as otherwise provided
In
Section 18A-49, each retro-commissioning must be completed no
earlier than
1.
years before
$!
covered building's energy efficiency
report is filed with the Department under this Article.
W
Documentation
gf
retro-commissioning.
The owner must maintain
QQpy
$!
of the latest up-to-date equipment manual and the most recent
retro-commissioning report at every covered building and must make
either available to the Department for inspection on request.
ill
Exceptions.
A retro-commissioning is not required if the covered
building received certification under the LEED 2009 rating system for
Existing Buildings, or another rating system for existing buildings the
Department finds equivalent, within
2.
years before the building'S
energy efficiency report is filed and earned the LEED point for
Existing Building Commissioning investigation and analysis and the
LEED point for Existing Building Commissioning implementation.]]
[[18A-47.
Energy efficiency report required.
Report required.
Except as provided in Section 18A-49, the owner of
!ill
each covered building must file an energy efficiency report for the
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\Bill 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
building during the calendar year when the report is due under this
Section and every tenth calendar year thereafter.
(hl
Content
gf
report.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 18A-49,
each energy efficiency report must include, in
the Department:
~
format approved
Qy
ill
ill
W
the building's energy audit report or documentation that an
exception applies to the building; and
the building's retro-commissioning report or documentation
that an exception applies to the building.
Due dates.
The first energy efficiency report for each covered
building in existence on July
1,.
2014, and for each new building must
be due, beginning with calendar year 2015, in the calendar year with
~
final digit that is the same as the last digit of the building'S property
identification number, as illustrated in the following chart:
Last
digit of
property
ID
number
Year
first
EER
due
..
Q
1
2
3
4
5
§
1
8
9
.
I
I
2020 2021
!
i
2022 2023 2024 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
IS
_
..
_
..
..-~.
390
391
@
Deferral
gf
energy efficiency report.
An
owner of
~
covered building
may defer submitting an energy efficiency report for
~
covered
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403 .
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
building until the tenth year after the year identified in subsection
f£}
if the building:
ill
ill
is less than 10 years old at the beginning of its first assigned
calendar year; or
has undergone substantial rehabilitation, as certified
Qy
~
registered design professional, within 10 years before the
calendar year when an energy efficiency report is due, if at the
beginning of the calendar year the base building systems of the
building comply with County law in effect for new buildings
constructed on and after July
L
2010 or in effect on the date of
the substantial rehabilitation, whichever is later.
W
Exceptions.
ill
The Director may allow an extension of time to file an energy
efficiency report if the building's owner shows that, despite the
owner's good faith efforts, the owner could not complete the
required energy audit and retro-commissioning before the due
date for the report. The Director may allow no more than
2.
extensions of no more than one year each.
dates for any later energy efficiency report.
Any extension
allowed under this Section must not extend the scheduled due
411
412
413
ill
The Director may allow one or more annual extensions of time
to file an energy efficiency report because of financial hardship
of the building.
414
415
416
417
418
ill
Due dates for County buildings.
buildings must follow
~
The first due dates for County
staggered schedule, from calendar year 2015
through calendar year 2023, for each building in use on July
L
2014.
The Director must add each County building opened to use after that
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchrnarking\BiIl 5 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 2-14
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
date to the schedule within 10 years after the Department of
Permitting Services issues the certificate of use and occupancy for the
building.
{g}
Combined audit and retro-commissioning.
An owner may perform
the audit and retro-commissioning of
~
building in
~
combined process
if that process meets all requirements of Sections 18A-45 and 18A­
46.]]
[[18A-48.
Notice.
The Department must notify the owner of each covered building of the
requirements of this Article no later than
J
years before the calendar year when the
covered building'S energy efficiency report is due and in the calendar year before
the calendar year when the report is
due.]]
[[18A-49.
Early compliance.
The Department may allow an owner of
~
covered building to comply with
this Article before the deadline specified in Section 18A-47.]]
[[18A-50.
{ill
Regulations; penalties.
The County Executive may issue Method
ill
regulations to administer
this Article.
(hl
Any:
violation of this Article is
f!
Class A violation.]]
438
F:\LAW\BILLS\1402 Benchmarking\BiII 5 Committee. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bil12-14
Environmental Sustainability
-
Buildings
-
Benchmarking
DESCRIPTION:
Would require the owners of certain buildings to benchmark the
energy use of certain buildings and retro-commission certain building
systems to improve their energy efficiency. Modeled after laws in
New York, Chicago, and the District of Columbia, would require
building owners to measure the energy efficiency of their buildings,
make that infonnation public, and periodically commit to ensuring that
their energy efficiency equipment is working properly. This Bill is
designed to work with the recently enacted PACE program to create
market based incentives for building owners to increase the efficiency
of their buildings. Infonnation provided would aid tenants in
forecasting future utility costs.
Insufficient attention is often paid to the energy efficiency of existing
commercial buildings.
To improve the energy efficiency of existing and future commercial
buildings.
Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Pennitting
Services
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Amanda Mihill, 240-777-7815
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Class A.
F:\LAw\BILLS\1402 Benchmarldng\LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL.
Rot)l:;R;
BERLiNER
CO\,.tNCtLMEM.lU',R
t1fSTR1C1' I
CliAIRMAN
TRANSPORTAnON.1'NFRASTRUCiUR.l!
ENERGY
&:EN"'UU'~M£N1'
COM·M1Tif:£
January
14,2014
Dear Colleagues.
Next week I
will
be
introducing a package of
13
energy/en~ironmentalmeasures
that
are
designed
to
ensure
that
Montgomery
County remainS
at
tbesustainability
forefront
I
would
be
pleasedro
have youcospoo,sor some or all
ofthesemeuures.
These measuresfocus on.renewable energy,
energy efficiency;
transportation, and
government accountability.
I
have attached
a:
fact sheet
tba~
gives a
~rief
description
of
each.
of
them,
and
of course would.
be
happy
to
discuss
any
of
them
in
greater
detail
.
should you have questions.
I
was
insp.iredby our Council's decision
to
assert its leadership in the
conte>..1of
redue,ing
the
gap
in
income disparities
by
passings
local
niinimum v.rage
bfW. I
think
all
ofus appreciate
that
the
federal government
has
become
$0
dYsf\mctiotW that
we
can
expe¢t
Uttle
progress on
many
of
the.lsStleS
we
care
deeply
about
Indeed,
BPlce
Katz
of
Brookingsrecently'deseribed
the
federatgovemment ass '''large·health insurance '
company
with
an
anny.~
9i$ thesis,
\\4lich I
share~ ist~t
our governing paradigm has
shifted from.
Ii
top down
led
by
the federal government tOa bottom
up
led
by
local
govellU1leIl1&
like
ours.
1
say all
of
this because we
n~
to
do more
if
we are
to
address climate cha:nge.
It
is
obvioitS.ly
not
a hoax and we know what we need to do to address it. We need
to
use
Jessenerg)' and
cleaner
energy.
Period. This
package ofbil1s
is
taken
in
matty
instances
from \vhatother
leadingjurisdictiom
are doing.-
from
Cbicag:a
to $cattle
to
California·
and
New York states.
They
are a
mix
of
leadin$
byexatnpi¢,
rewarding
green
businesses. supporting market forees, l;ldoptingmore exacting
standards.
and
holding
our
countygoveJ'IUllentaceouutability.
Holding ourselvesaecountiWIe is important. When the Council passed a similar
package
in
2()08~
we
tasked
l
SustainabiUty Working Group with the principle
responsibility
fur
guiding our County to
achieve our
fonnalgoal.of
reducing greenhouse
~
emissions
by
80pereent
by
2050. It is time now
to
make this a core government
STaIJ.
B. WERNER OFFICE SUlWIN(; • lOOMAA"f\:ANO
AVENU~t
6
1f1
F~
ROoor1llft
MMYLANtI' 20850
24o-m-7828 OIl
2,40-777~7900,11Y
240-777-7914, FAX 240--777·7989
WWW.~YCOUNfYMD.r»J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
responsibility~
and
this
packageincludesameasurc that will.creatc an
Offi~
of
Sustainability \\iithin DEI> whose
principal
responsibility will
betomonjtot
bow
we
are
doing and
to
help
develop
the
policies
ami
practices
tIu1t
~i11 g~
us
to
",,'here
wen~to
be.
I hope
you
wiU
join me
in
making sure Montgomery
Countybumishes
its
reputation as a CQmmunitythat embmces sustaitntbility
at
oureate.
Sincerely~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FACT
SHEer
ON
COUNCtLMEMIJER SERLINER'S13 mERGY/ENVIRONMENT
lfGISLAnVE fN'TfATJVE$
Col.lncilrt'lember
Roger
Berliner
(O-l)t
Chair oftheMontgomeryCOunty Transporta.tion,
Infri9stfuc;;ture,
~nergy&~nvironmeot
CQrnmittee,
wi.llbe
introducing
13,energy/environmental
measures on January
21. The measures atedesignedto
underscote.andsupport the. <:ountv's
commitmentto
sus~jnallUitv
and
would {I).
promote
Increa~ed
energy
efficiency;
(2)
Increase.
use
of
ren.ewable
energy; (3) decrease.consumptlonof
gaso1ineandsupport electric
vehJc.;\es;and(4)
create'
more
accountability
and
resP()n~ibility
wlth,in
Countygovernmel'lt
for
achieving
the County's goalof
redudnggreenhouse
gas
emIssions
8O%:by 2050.
BeJowisa brief
dese.ription
of
each
of these
measures:
RcmewaLlle Enem
Reneytabl~
Energy
putCha~lng
...,50% Renewablesbv
2015;
100%
by 20iO ...
Tqday
the
County
purthasesapproxfmatefy
3()%
onts
energy from
renewable
energy resources.
Washington,
DC;; Austin,
Te~~s;
and
Pordand
ener~.
l
Oregona~~
akeadyat
100% renew!lble
• ReneWables Onsite - This
bitt, modeled
after
i
recerttlypassetflaw
in
Prince
George's
County, would req\iire new or
extensively
remodeled
county
builejings.
togenera,te
.at,le~st
1kifowatt of
tenewableenergy
for every
1;000
square feetoffloor
area.
• GreentsRitm
SOlar:'"
Two of
the impediments
to increased sola{utiJization
arethe
eostan.d
time involved
in
getting permjts.
Thismeasure~
pattemedafter
a
SucceSSful
pro.gram
In
Chi~goi
requires
our
Departmental
permittingSe""icesto
devise
an expedited and
Jess
costly
process
for solar related· permits.
• Solar
Zc:mingAccommodation-
Current
set
back requirements
limit
the
use
of
solar
in
resiQenti!)Ldwellings.
this
iTA
would modestly
~mendourzoning
lawsto
permit
solano
E!Sttend
2.,
feet
into
the side or
rear
setback.
Enemy Efflclen,v
• Ben<::hmarkingBuildings - This
legislation,
modeled
after laWs
in New Vork.
Chicago..
and
the District
of
Ccllumbia
l
woqld
require f:)uilding owners to measure the energy efficiency of
their buildings
t
make
that
information
publiCi
arid
periodically commit to
ensuring that
theft
energy effidenCY
equipment
is
working properly,
It. is
designed
to work
with
the
r~c~ntly
pasSed
.PACE
program
to
create
market
based incentives
for bdildingownets
to
ihcr-e:ase
the
effiCiency of
their
buildings.
Infoonation
provided would
aid
tenants
in forecasting
futl.!re
utility
costs.
• Silver tEED
for
New Buildings- Current county
Jaw
requires
new commerdal buitdiogsJo/be
LEEO certified, while
county buildings
must meet the more I!nvironmentallV$tringent
Sllv~r
standard. This bill
would
require
aU
new
commercial
buildings to meet Silver
LEED.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Cost
ofC8rbon _. The use of conventional fuels, particularly
coal,
extracts
a
cost on
society
that:
is not reflected
in
its
prite.
These'"
external" costs
should·
be:
f3.l;toredin~
ttl€!.
Cost/benefit
ca1cLllatlons
that the
C9unty
litlllzes when
it·
assesses
the .potential for
energy
efficiency
Improvements. This bill
would
require theCQuoty to
use EPA's
"soqal
cos~
of
carbonI>!
calculation
or
aoornpar'abl~
methodology
for
thQ$e
purpo~s.
• LEO Street lighting
··Ifis
generally
recognized that
lED
lighting
is
far
more
energy efficient
and req.uites far less
mainten.,nce,
This bill would
require
DOT,
upon the
expiration
of
tts
~urrent
wntract for street
lighting,
to contra.ctwith
ari
lED
company.
Transl!Omtjoll
• EVlnfrastructyrlg -
ElectricVehideswilloi11y
become
mainstream
when
ther~are ~fflci~nt
charging
stations
to
inspire
confidence in
thep.ublic!
California
recently
pa~
fegistatiQt\
requiring
aifnew bUildings
9ver
acerta.in
slzeto
be
'~E\I
ready." This
trAwauld
require
newbuiJdinss
to
instattl
EV cttargingstatio!1 for
ellery$Oparkjng
spaces.
ar.
• GreentafliIiREV§!itions-
JustiS
in
solqr
Installations, EVcharglng
stations
can
besubjecHo
a lengthy
and costly.
permitting process.
This bill
Would require DPS to
institute
an
expedited and Jess
costly
permitting
prQ£ess.
• Telewgrtdng ':"' Te'leworking
is
becoming
far
moretOi11tnon
ahdaccepted.Other
jurisdictions,
including
HUdaK,
havemadesfgnificantly
more
prog{essinestablishlng
teJeworlting
goals
and
meeting
them.
This
legislation
would
require the
COIlOty
Executive
to
pubJjsh
reguJations that
set
forth
a
definitiVetelewQrkiogPQlicyand
a
requirement
to
designat.e a
tel~()rnmutingmanager.
Government'nc:entives
&
AccountabilitY
• Create an
Office of
Sustainability
within
DEP-Thisbill
would create 81'1ewOffice of
Sustainability
with.ln
DEP•. W.h:en
the
CQundJ
passed legls!atipn.in2Qas,
it
tasked a
Sustainability
Working Group
with
the
responsibility
of
guiding
our
Count;y's greenhouse
gas.
reduction impl$lTlentation.
It
Isnowtime to
m.ifce
this a
fund.,mental
resPQnsibUitY of
the
ctnmty
.gollernrnent
and
to
hold
ourselves
accountable.
• County Green Ci!rtifled 8usinesses- The
COlJntyhais
cre,ated
a
program whereby
a
10!;i!l
business
can
be
"gre~ncecrtifietr
bvadoptinggood
sustainable
practices.
This
bill.
calls
upon the COunty ExecutIVe
to issue
regulations that
wbuldghtea
preference!n
contracting
to
localbuslhessesthat are
green
certified.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVltLE,
,lvi,A.RYLAND
MEMORANDUM
'February 5,
2014
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECTS:
Ice of
Management and Budget
cpartrnent of Finance
Bill 2-14,
Ellvironme~tal
Sustainability -
Buildings -,
Benchmarking
Bin
3-14,
Buildings '... Energy
Efficiency- Energy Standards
Bill 4-14. Street and Roads .... County Street Lights
BiJ/5-1.4, Environmental Sustainability,···
Social Cost
of Carbon Assessments
Bill 6-14,
Environmental
Sustainability - Office
of
Sustainability -
Established
Bill 7-14,
Contracts
and
Procurement -
Certified Green
Business
Program
Bill 8-14, Buildings - ComIty
Buildings .....
Clean Energy Renewable Technology
Bil I 9-14,
Environments
I Sustainability -- Rene\vable
Energy ­ County
Purchase
Bill
10-14, Buildings - Solar Permits - Expedited Review
Bill 11-14, Buildings . '. Electric
Vehicle
Charging Station
Permits -
Expedited
Review
As required by Section 2-8lA of
the
County Code, we are infimning you that transm ittal of
the fiscal and economic impact statements for
the
above referenced legislation will be delayed
because
more time
is needed
to coordinate
with the affected departments, collect
information,
and
complete our analysis ofthc fiscal and economic impacts. While we are not able to conduct the
required detailed analyses
at
this time,
it.
is clear thut a number of these bills could have significant
fiscal impacts,
Due to this
year's
heavy workload on
Executive
branch staff in
developing
both a
full
capital
budget
and an operating budget, the fiscal and economic
statemcnL'i will
be transmitted after March
17,2014.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa
Austin, Offices
of
the County
Executive
Joy Nunni,
Special
Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public lnil)rmation Office
Marc
P.
Hansen, Office of the
County
Attorney
Robct1 Hagedoom,
. Department of Finance
David
Platt
Department of Finance
Alex
Espinosa,
Office of Management and Budget
Mary Beck. Office of Management and Budget
Naeern Mia. Oftice of
Management
and Budget
Felicia Zhang, Office of
Management and
Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE ISIAH LEGGETT
ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY PACKAGE
Bills 2-14, 3-14,4-14,5-14,6-14,7-14,8-14,9-14,10-14,11-14,12-14
February 11,2014
Good evening Council President Rice and members of the County Council. My name is Bonnie
Kirkland and I am pleased to be here on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett to testify on
the package of environmental and sustainability measures introduced on February 4, 2014 by
Councilmember Berliner and others.
Mr.
Leggett supports Councilmember Berliner's initiative
and the Council's efforts to address the need for more sustainable development in Montgomery
County. Following up on recommendations from the Sustainability Workgroup, this package of
renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainability measures will take the County to the next
level of environmental excellence.
Sustainable development has been defined as meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
1
The path forward·
requires understanding and plahning: understanding how existing bUildings peiform and how
planned buildings are expected to perform; and designing buildings and other infrastructure that
reduce materials consumption, reuse materials, reduce energy consumption and maximize the
use of renewable resources.
County Executive Leggett recognizes that the patoh forward will involve substantial change and
commitment on the part of both the public sector and the private sector. He is committed to
working with the Council on this package during the coming weeks to develop the most
progressive and reasonable legislation achievable that will balance both the compelling need to
achieve sustainable development and the budgetary realities faced by the County and our local
businesses to fully implement the approved changes the legislative package requires.
Stewardship for future generations has been a cornerstone of
Mr.
Leggett's Smart Growth
Initiative in terms of planning for future growth at appropriate transit oriented locations. The
County Executive applauds Councilmember Berliner's and the sponsoring council members'
vision and recognition of the need for stewardship of our precious resources for future
generations.
1
International Institute for Sustainable Development quoting from the World Commission on Environment and
Developm~nt
(WCED).
Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AIA
Potomac Valley
A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
Date:
To:
February 11, 2014
Roger Berliner, Nancy Floreen, Hans Reimer
Montgomery County Council, Transportation and Energy Committee Members
American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter
From:
Subject: February 11, 2014, Public Hearing on Proposed Environmental and Energy Bills
The local American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter (AIA-PV) is writing to provide comment
on proposed environmental, sustainability, green building and energy legislation that is summarized in
Attachment
A.
Throughout 2013, the AIA-PV has been working to assist the Department of Permitting Services by
providing multi-disciplinary expert review and comment on green building codes that the county is
considering adopting. We have submitted detailed comments to the Department and urged them to
proceed slowly and cautiously in order to give design profeSSionals, builders, and owners time to acclimate
to the requirements, especially criteria that have the potential to slow economic development in the county.
We advise you to do the same before moving forward to adopt new or revised environmental and energy
legislation.
In addition, we advise you to seek green building
code solutions
that are effective industry-standard tools
to achieve your goals and avoid regulations that make development more time consuming and confusing.
Sincerely,
Eileen Emmet, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, eemmeLaia@gmail.com
William (Bill) LeRoy, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, wI70@icloud.com
cc:
Loreen Arnold, AIA-PV President 2014, larnold@ktgY.com
Scott Knudson, AlA; AIA-PV Past-President 2013, sdgknudson@gmail.com
Ralph Bennett, AIA-PV, IgCC Task Force, ralph@bfmarch.com
Dan Coffey, AIA-PV, IgCC Task Force, dcoffey@therrienwaddell.com
Attachment A: AIA-PV July 30, 20131gCC Executive Summary
Attachment B: AIA-PV Feb. 4, 2014 Letter to Diane Schwartz-Jones w/AIA-PV Executive Summary
7.30.2013
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AlA
Potomac Valley
A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
Attachment A
2-14: Benchmarking
Benchmarking typically means a baseline against which performance is measured. Reporting for a year is
required here (reasonable given seasonal variation) using Portfolio Manager (appropriate), but continuing
energy reporting is inevitable and could be addressed by the legislation.
3-14: Building Energy Efficiency - Countywide
The County adopted the International Energy Conservation Code in 2013. This proposal refers to other
energy codes included in' LEED, and its impact should be assessed. Assumedly, the law intends to include
LEED v.3; it should specify since vA is more stringent. LEED addresses many more issues than energy; if
energy is the concern, it may be better to use energy codes.
4-14: County Street Lights
The assumed purpose is to reduce energy costs while maintaining appropriate lighting levels. LEED may
not be, and is not the only answer here. So energy performance of possible alternatives should be
addressed.
5-14: Social Costs of Carbon
Good intention - Many sectors of the economy exist only by shedding externality costs onto others. This
also addresses the equity leg of the three-legged stool of sustainability.
Metrics here are new, unevenly available, and contentious. As long as the measurements are for
information and not used to penalize or qualify projects, this may be a useful window into real sustainability.
6-14: Office of Sustainability
Parallels such agencies elsewhere - their success should be studied before full commitment. Full inclusion
of appropriate agencies should be mandated - turf wars are inherent in the placement of such an agency
within DEP. Implementation expertise is in permitting. Consider attaching to the Executive.
7-14: Certified Green Business Program
Which Certification will DEP use? Without this, it is difficult to know what the impact will be. The procedures
included for selection of a system or systems will take a year, at least.
8-14: County Buildings, Renewable Energy Technology
This assumes that all county buildings can feasibly provide 1kw/1 000 sf by photovoltaic generation. This
may not be feasible for all buildings - offsets and other on-site energy technologies should be permitted
including ground source heat pumps which LEED does not recognize as on-site energy. Renewable Energy
Credits be clarified in lieu of 'Offsets.'
9-14: Renewable Energy Purchase: 50% by next year; 100% by 2020
Assumedly, this addresses County government's energy use. Will this extend to quasi-government
agencies like HOC? Do they know about this?
10-14: Expedited Review of Solar Permits; 50% permit fee reduction.
Good idea.
11-14: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permits; 50% permit fee reduction
Good idea.
12-14: County Employee Telecommuting
Good idea.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AlA Potomac
Valley
A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
ATTACHMENT A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AlA-PV IgCC Task Force
July 30, 2013
Start Small:
There are many reasons to start small and expand with subsequent revision cycles. This allows time for the
industry to come to grips with the new requirements of green codes.
It
also allows the opportunity to gather
real data on the costs and benefits of its implementation.
Montgomery County has diverse building types in urban, suburban and rural settings therefore allowing
altemative compliance paths is helpful and necessary to address these varying conditions.
One method for a phased approach is to make compliance optional and create incentives for complying
with the code. Incentives can take the form of tax breaks, expedited permitting, or reduced permitting fees.
Another method is to make the most demanding requirements electives and specify a minimum number
required. This also provides the opportunity to collect real world data. There is still skepticism about the
business model for green building and energy efficient operational directives. Carefully crafted electives
and pilot studies can help address that issue. This is the approach taken in the PV-Task Force's detailed
recommendations in Attachment B.
Administrative Provisions:
The manner in which the DPS will manage review of projects under the green code is critical to its success.
The PV-TF recommends that the DPS create standard forms, templates, and electronic submission
protocols and have them in place on the date of adoption in order to administer the requirements in an
efficient and effective manner. The requirements of the code also indicate a need for additional DPS
review staff to avoid lengthening already long review times. DPS staff will need to be educated and fluent
in the code criteria of several compliance paths because alternative compliance paths will have the best
chance of a successful implementation process.
Jurisdictional Requirements:
Chapter 3 Jurisdictional Requirement 301.1.1, Scope Application: The task force recommends retaining
the option of IgCC
Q!
ASHRAE 189,1 compliance paths, thus retaining maximum flexibility for the design
team to choose the compliance path applicable to the building type and location. The task force further
recommends that LEED Silver should be allowed as an altemative, non-mandatory, compliance path,
because it has an established format, method of compliance, and documentation templates,
Electives:
Table 302,1! Requirements Determined by the Jurisdiction: The task force r.ecommends striking the
adoption of Table 302.1, the list of 22 additional requirements to be designated by the AHJ, The group
feels that the overall number of electives required should apply to the entire code with some exceptions as
noted in the Detailed Chapter Analysis and Recommendations,
Flexibility for the applicant is important. For new construction, 20% of electives are a reasonable number if
the credits are spread among a minimum of four chapter categories. For existing buildings, 15% of
electives are a reasonable number if the credits are spread among a minimum of two chapter categories.
1
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AlA
Potomac Valley
A Chapler of the American Institute of Architects
Square Footage (SF) Size Thresholds:
Across-the-board square-footage size requirements will make adoption of the IgCC a hardship for many
project types. The recommendation is to scale the SF thresholds based on the industry standards for type
of use and energy use because the variables fall into three categories: a) applicability of the code, b)
mechanical systems, and 3) envelope design. This will take more time to analyze and the PV-Task Force
can assist the DPS to better define these thresholds.
Adoption in Other Jurisdictions:
While the scope of regional adoption of the IgCC was not a primary task for the PV-Task Force, the group
notes the following observations in regard to green code adoption in the region:
Baltimore City Adoption
• In Baltimore City all newly constructed, extensively modified buildings that have or will have at least
10,000 square feet must be LEED-Silver certified or comply with the Baltimore City Green Building
Standards (a LEED-like standard).
• Baltimore City is soon to introduce legislation expanding the options for building owners to select
from a menu such that a project can be: LEED-Silver certified, or complies with the IgCC, or meets
the ASHRAE 189.1 standard, or satisfies Enterprise Green Communities requirements, or
complies with ICC 700. (This menu approach is similar to what DC is moving to.)
• The menu approach under legislative consideration will amend the existing Baltimore City Green
Building Law whereby the listed options may be available in
4th
quarter 2013 and the existing
city-drafted regulatory alternative to LEED will remain available until June 1,2015.
• The only real controversy in proposed legislation has been about the definitions for modified (i.e.
the threshold for renovated buildings) structures and in the newly proposed code nearly all
renovations will have to comply with the law.
Washington, D.C.
• Although typically slower than Maryland in adopting new code cycles, DC includes stakeholders in
the process of code adoption. In the case of the IgCC, to date the input seems to be a great
success.
• DC is considered a national green building leader. Green building standards there do not seem to
be a deterrent to development.
• DC has adopted a modified approach to IgCC adoption. They moved many items to the Appendix
section and recommended 15 credits be achieved, in any category, from 75 credit options.
• DC is more urban than Montgomery County, yet has several paths to compliance: IgCC, ASHRAE
189.1, LEED, and Enterprise Green Communities
Virginia Adoption
Adoption of the IgCC does not seem imminent. In conversations with VA officials, one of the main
issues in adopting the IgCC is related to the land use, zoning, related impact the overlay code might
have. Since the state of Virginia sets building codes, without local amendments, the IgCC might be
considered too difficult to implement with such a diverse landscape, the officials stated that they do
not plan to adopt at this time. If less restrictive to permit there, it could be perceived as an economic
disadvantage to build or renovate in Montgomery County.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AlA Potomac
Valley
A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
February 4,2014
Ms. Diane Schwartz-Jones, Director
Department of Permitting Services
255 Rockville Pike, 2nd Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850-4166
Dear Ms. Schwartz-Jones,
Copy via email to diane.jones@montgomerycountymd.qov
Re: AlA-Potomac Valley Chapter, IgCC/ASHRAE 189.1 Task Force Recommendations
On July 30,2013, the AlA-Potomac Valley Chapter (AIA-PV) submitted recommendations to you in regard
to possible adoption of the International Green Construction Code (lgCC). As you know, the AIA-PV has a
task force group who has been working together on this subject matter for some time. The group is
comprised of a multi-disciplinary group of design professionals: architects, engineers, a
developer/landscape architect, a builder, and others.
This letter provides supplemental information that responds to your staffs request that our group also
review and make recommendations in regard to possible adoption of the ANSI/ASHRAElUSGBC/IES
Standard 189.1-2011
--
Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings, Except Low-rise
Residential Buildings (also referred to as ASH RAE 189.1, 2011. ASHRAE 189.1 Is an alternative means
of compliance incorporated into the IgCC 2012 codebook. We hope this additional information meets your
needs:
As mentioned in our July 30, 2013 letter, the AIA-PV group still recommends that Montgomery County:
Refer to our July 30, 2013 Executive Summary (Attachment A) and detailed recommendations
previously submitted
Proceed slowly and cautiously in order to give design professionals, builders, and owner's time to
acclimate to the requirements, especially criteria that have the potential to slow economic
development in the county while other nearby jurisdictions are taking a measured approach or not
yet shifting to these codes.
• Adopt the IgCC and alternative compliance paths (including ASHRAE 189.1) and do away with the
current Montgomery County Green Building Law.
In addition, we recommend you create an industry advisory panel to make a solid implementation plan with
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). We feel this is important because most of the details
and issues to implement the County Council's proposed green building legislation are at the direction and
responsibility of the Director of DEP and because those legislations overlap with requirements in green
building codes that DPS is proposing.
The following items in Attachment B summarize the detailed analYSis and recommendations of the
AIA-PV-Task Force in regard to ASH RAE 189.1*:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
5, Site Sustainability
6, Water Use Efficiency
7, Energy Efficiency
8, Indoor Environmental Quality
9, The Building's Impact on the Atmosphere, Materials, and Resources
10, Construciton and Plans for Operation
* Unlike the IgCC, ASHRAE 189.1 does not have a chapter for historic and existing buildings so
comments on those building types have been incorporated into each section's recommendations.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AlA
Potomac Valley
A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
Once you have had a chance to review our recommendations, the PV-Task Force members would be
pleased to meet with you in person to answer questions, clarify our recommendations, or address any item
of interest that we may have overlooked. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Scott Knudson, AlA; AIA-PV Past-President 2013, sdgknudson@gmail.com
Eileen Emmet, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, eemmet.aia@gmail.com
William (Bill) LeRoy, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, wI70@icloud.com
Attachment A: AIA-PV July 30, 2013 IgCC Executive Summary
Attachment B: AIA-PV ASHRAE 189.1 Recommendations
cc DPS: Hadi Mansouri, hadLmansouri@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Mark Nauman, mark.nauman@montgomerycountymd.gov
Hemal Mustafa, hemal.mustafa@montgomerycountymd.gov
Cc: IgCC/ASHRAE 189.1 Task Force Members:
Ralph Bennett, AlA; Bennett. Frank. McCarthy Architects
Bruce Blanchard, Senior Consultant, Polysonics Acoustics & Technology Consulting
Daniel Coffey. Vice President, Therrien Waddell, Inc., Chairman USGBC-NCR, Montgomery County
Chapter
Stephen Kirk, International Code Council, Associate Member
Suketu Patel AlA LEED AP BD+C; President, Integrated Design Studio LLC
Kirill Pivovarov, AlA, LEED AP; Principal, RTKL Associates Inc.
Steven Schwartzman, AlA, LEED AP; Associate Principal, WDG ARCHITECTURE
Geoff Sharpe, ASLA
Catherine
E.
Sheehan, AlA, LEED AP
Adam Spatz, PE, LEED AP; Senior Mechanical Engineer, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Paul Tseng, PE, CxAP, CPMP, CMVP CEM, LEED AP; President, Founder, Advanced Building Performance
Amy Upton, LEED AP BD+C; Director of Environmental Design, Senior AssOCiate, Grimm + Parker
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
7
BOLAND
Council Bill 2-14 - Favorable
Testimony of Steven Beatrice, Boland Trane Services, Inc.
To the County Council for Montgomery County
February 11, 2014
I thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of Bill 2-14, requiring energy
performance ratings for large, existing commercial buildings in Montgomery County.
Boland Trane Services, Inc. (Boland)
Boland was founded in 1960 by louis
J.
Boland, Sr. and has grown from a small HVAC
equipment sales and service company to a Professional Services company, with just over three
hundred employees in our Gaithersburg headquarters, providing a complete slate of building
Energy Service solutions. Thirty-six Boland employees hold one or more of the following
professional or industry certifications: Professional Engineer, Certified Energy Manager, lEED
Accredited Professional/Green Associate, Certified Sustainable Development Professional and
Certified Buildings Systems Commissioning. Boland provides energy benchmarking services,
energy audits, building energy modeling, re- and retro-commissioning, building energy
management system design and construction and HVAC equipment upgrades.
A Property's Single Largest Operating Expense
According to the EPA, energy represents 30 percent of the typical office building's costs and is a
property's single largest operating expense. Building energy benchmarking provides property
owners with the information to compare building energy performance across a portfolio or
with comparable buildings within the same region and will identify opportunities for Significant
reductions in operating costs resulting in increased profitability and competitiveness of their
business.
Retro-commissioning and Energy Auditing
On a higher level, an Energy Services Company (ESCO) such as Boland may be brought in to
perform retro-commissioning (retro-cx) and auditing of a building. Retro-commissioning looks
at the entire building as a system to identify and rank all possible energy efficiency measures,
everything from simple maintenance procedures to building envelope improvements to adding
solar or wind renewable energy sources. As Boland's energy professionals identify and qualify
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
energy saving opportunities with a building owner other trades and contractors will be engaged
to provide specialized skills, products and systems furthering the growth of Montgomery
County's workforce.
Recent technological advances associated with Advanced Metering, Data Acquisition and Data
Analysis have reduced the costs of retro-cx and auditing. These technologies enable Boland to
incorporate the retro-cx and auditing into an annual maintenance contract. Also, Boland can
make more precise and quicker evaluations of a building's energy performance - think of it as
having and MRI of a building's energy performance over a year (Figure 1), being able to record
in 1S-minute intervals ongoing performance data of all control points from the EMS (Figure 2)
and automatic monthly updates of Energy Stars Portfolio Manager account (Figure
3).
400
300
I.
kW
400
I -300
, -200
Man 12i17i12
Sat
11j17j12
lhu 10;18;12
lile
9/18112
Sun 8i19112
Frl
7;'20112
Woo
6/'20/12
Mon5;'21j12
Figure 1.
1
"The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning,"
lawrence Berkeley National laboratory. http://eetd.lbLgov/EMilis/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Benefits.html
2
http://www.boma.org/research/newsroom/press-room/2013/Pages/EPA-Recognizes-BOMA-lnternationaJ..with-2013-ENERGY-STAR%C2%AE­
Partner-of-the-Year-Sustained-Excellence-Award.aspx
3http://www.energystar.gov/lndeLcfm?currenC:sort...coIumn=SECTOR&current_SOft_order=ASC&resuItsPerPage=20&fuseaction=partnerJlSt.snowPartnerResults&s_code=ALL
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Figure 2.
Property Profile \
r:-
erfonT,anCe
1
83
Site Energy Use SummalY
Facility Overliew
Energy intensity
Emissions
Figure 3.
1
"The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning,»
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://eetd.lbl.gov/EMiIIs/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Benefits.html
2 http://www.boma.org/research/newsroom/press-room/2013/Pages/EPA-Recognizes-BOMA-lntemational-with-2013-ENERGY-STAR%C2%AE­
Partner-of-the-Year-Sustained-Excellence-Award.aspx
3http://www.energystar.gav!lndex.dm?current_sort_column=SECTOR&current_soTt_order=ASC&resuItsPerPage=20&fuseactlon=partner_listshowPartnerRe$U1!S&s_wde:AI.L
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Why Enact Disclosure of Energy Benchmarking Information?
• The voluntary users of benchmarking understand the benefits of energy efficient
buildings; a benchmarking law would universally touch all others.
• Energy Star as a standard, third-party program, becoming mainstreamed, will make
building energy ratings as ubiquitous as the gas mileage ratings of autos and as easily
understandable - bogus or abnormal ratings will immediately raise a flag with
prospective buyers or tenants.
• The real estate industry has embraced the use of Energy Star benchmarking:
o BOMA has received multi-year EPA Energy Star Partner of the Year awards and
received the Energy Star Sustained Excellence Award in 2009, 2010,2012 and
2
2013
o Thirteen of 162 2010 EPA Energy Star leaders are Commercial Real Estate.
3
companies
As
building owners increasingly recognize the importance to their bottom line of reducing their
environmental impact and increasing asset value they turn to energy experts for solutions. As
the demand for energy efficiency solutions grows so does the demand for companies who can
identify the solutions and companies who can provide these services. As with other Energy
Services Companies, Boland recognizes the financial and environmental benefits of applying
energy benchmarking and retro-commissioning to the stock of Montgomery County's existing·
buildings. A result of this focus on energy services, over the past few years of economic
downturn, Boland has maintained our workforce with no expectations for downsizing. A
favorable review of Bill 2-14 wiJI demonstrate your commitment to stimulating Montgomery
County's economy with more green jobs and to promoting an environmentally attractive
commercial real estate market.
Thank you to the Chair and Council members for your time today. Feel free to contact me with
any follow up questions or information requests.
Contact Information:
Steven O. Beatrice, CEM, lEEO AP+OM, CSOP
240.306.3202
steve.beatrice@boland.com
Boland Trane Services, Inc.
30 West Watkins Mill Road
Gaithersburg, MO 20878
1
"The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning,"
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://eetd.lbl.gov/EMills/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Beneflts.html
2
http://www.boma.orgjresearch/newsroom/press-room/2013/Pages/EPA-Recognizes-BOMA-lnternational-with-2013..ENERGY..STAR%C2%AE..
Partner..
of..
the-Year..Sustained-Excellence-Award.aspx
3http://www.energystar.SO>l/index.cfm?current_sort_eoIumn--5ECTOR&current_sort_order=ASC&resultsPerPage=20&fuseaction=partnerJist.snowPartnerResults&s_code=ALL
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Calvert
INVESTMENTS
February 19, 2014
-
=
=
-
_
tis·;o
J;k;n
il;~tiHi(l
y
~\Vr:nth',
rid
ljl,t·~dd, ~J~D
}
(l}n1
'Ol~Ir.,t..:\~QtJ
I
W;f:,tyv.(,-l!l.:erL,:(Irt1
Councilmember Roger Berliner
Chair, Montgomery County Transportation, Infrastructure. Energy
&
Environment Committee
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: Calvert Investments Support for Bill
#
2-14, Environmental Sustainability - Buildings
Benchmarking
Dear Councilmember Berliner:
I am writing on behalf of Calvert Investments, a longstanding Montgomery County business to
support Bill
#
2-14, Environmental Sustainability - Buildings Benchmarking.
Building disclosure standards help markets work by providing more information, and well­
functioning markets can yield more efficient and sustainable buildings. Investors have an
interest in more efficient and sustainable buildings as they are more sustainable investments
from a financial and environmental perspective.
Building energy benchmarking and disclosure standards are valuable to tenants who may wish
to understand and reduce their energy use and costs, and minimize their environmental
footprint.
As
a tenant in an office building in downtown Bethesda, Calvert has sought to better
understand its own energy use and the related energy efficiency of the building where its offices
are located. Improved disclosure requirements would help Calvert and other building tenants
across the County to do that. Improved disclosure often leads to better management and
improved performance, which is a potential source of costs savings and greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. In addition, requiring commissioning at certain buildings, as the Bill would
do, is an important way to ensure that such buildings are operating efficiently, as intended.
From the investor perspective, energy efficiency is critical throughout the economy given volatile
energy prices and concerns related to climate change. Calvert and a growing number of
institutional investors in the United States and around the world look at corporate energy
efficiency as part of their investment process. This applies particularly to residential and
commercial buildings. Indeed, Calvert released reports in 2008 and 2010 that benchmarked the
sustainability practices of large U.S. homebUilders, with a special emphasis on energy
efficiency. The purpose of these reports was to better understand which companies were best
managing environmental and energy risks and opportunities, and by extension, which
companies were positioned to meet the growing consumer interest in green building attributes.
In addition to addressing investor and consumer interest in energy performance, this bill can
help reduce energy consumption. Buildings represent a particularly compelling energy savings
opportunity, using approximately 40% of the world's primary energy. Simply benchmarking
buildings has been shown to reduce energy use (and the subsequent emissions) by 7%.
Furthermore, green buildings are attractive to investors, because they can contribute to higher
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
rents, ROI improvement, building value increases, and higher occupancy rates, all of which can
lead to increased shareholder value.
1
Fortunately, the Commercial Real Estate industry can invest profitably in energy efficiency.
According to a McKinsey report, commercial buildings account for 32% of the "efficiency
potential in stationary uses of energy" in terms of primary energy. McKinsey finds that "only a
small share of the commercial sector's energy productivity potential is currently being captured."
Investments in energy efficiency make a great deal of sense. In 2008, McKinsey estimated that
worldwide, $170 billion could be invested yearly in energy efficiency with an average annual
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 17%. (By comparison, ten year U.S. treasury notes currently
yield below 1.7% annually). By 2020, these investments could produce billions in annual energy
savings.
Indeed, many companies have already benefited from their investments in energy efficiency.
Between 2000 and 2006, Trizec (now Brookfield Properties Corporation) invested $20 million in
efficiency upgrades. The company achieved an average payback time of less than 2.2 years
and cut its energy bill by 16%. The owners of the Empire State Building also invested in energy
efficiency retrofits, and earned a 30.8% annual return.
Many cities and other jurisdictions have established building energy disclosure, including New
York City. Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, and
Washington, DC. These governments see the value in improving the energy productivity of
their buildings and understand that being known as leaders in sustainability can help attract
business and investment.
Montgomery County has demonstrated a commitment to sustainability. Approving this bill will
help to bolster the County's leadership on this set of issues.
Respectfully submitted,
~
D
f\
U
iis
A
e;tv\e/
f2.
fl .)
Ronald M. Wolfsheimer
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Calvert Investments, Inc.
McGraw Hill Construction, "Green Outlook 2011: Green Trends Driving Growth", November 2010,
http://aiacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/greenoutlook2011.pdf. Ranges result from differences between
retrofits and new buildings.
.
1
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5
Charles K. Nulsen, 111- Speaker #5
Against Bills 2,3, 5, and 6-14
Outline Testimony
I.
Thank you for letting me speak tonight. My name is Charlie Nulsen. I am the
President and Owner of Washington Property Company, a small Bethesda
based real estate company. I have worked in real estate in Montgomery
County for 35 years. I am here to speak in opposition of 4 of the bills. #2, 3,
5, and 6, I disapprove more than just these 4. I have been warned that I will
speak to you in English, but you will hear a foreign language. Not a great
characterization from my business brothers, but bad communication is a 2
way street and I am here for the first time as my attempt to help address this
issue.
II.
I want to start with big picture
a. Montgomery County is in a double dip recession of the likes it has never
seen. Ever!
b. The Federal Government's economic impact on Montgomery County will
be declining for the next 20 years - It is a technology thing -Montgomery
County for the first time must rely heavily on private sector growth.
c. Our commercial tenant base is dwindling - 25% vacancy in our office
market is structural.
d. WPC's commercial property taxes have decreased 30% in last five years
and I predict another 15-20% drop in the next two because of lower rents,
increased vacancy, causing lower assessments. I have commercial
lof4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
properties in Bethesda, Silver Spring, Rockville, 1-270; they are all at the
distressed stage.
e. Montgomery County has supplemented this loss in commercial real estate
income with taxes - particularly on utilities to the tune of $233M in 2013.
Montgomery County Energy Tax accounts for approximately 30% of
commercial Pepco bill and 15% of residential Pepco bill.
III.
Bill 2-14 - Environmental Sustainability - Buildings Benchmarking
a. Modelled after the District - creates 2 weeks of reporting man hours for
the owner. Probably 3 times that on the Government side. D.C. owners
do their own energy assessments as a matter of business. So do
Montgomery County owners.
b. Taken in the context of Montgomery County.
i.
It will highlight to corporate tenants a Corporate Energy Tax that
could be highest in the country! Montgomery County utility bills are
30% higher than DC or VA. Montgomery County collects more for
the distribution of electricity than Pepco itself. What policy goal are
we serving here?
ii. It comes at a terrible time for the commercial industry. More cost­
zero pay back. "The house is on fire, but turn out the lights before
you leave."
IV.
Bill 3-14 Silver LEED requirements
a. Silver LEED for residential is very hard to obtain and further drives up the
cost of rental and for-sale product.
2of4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
b. Commercial Construction is dead - inside beltway development activity is
11-1 residential
I
office. Why throw up another road block to commercial
growth?
c. County Buildings - ok
V.
Bill 5-14 Carbon Assessment
a. If you have a Silver LEED requirement for County Buildings why is there a
need for social carbon assessment?
VI.
Bill 6-14 Office of SustainablHty
a. Does the County, within it's current budget constraints, really have the
resources to add an additional department?
b. Sustainability is an often used term: but let's look at Montgomery County's
overall direction: Decreasing commercial tax base
I
exploding residential
base (especially rental) Is this really sustainable?
I am the poster child for a real estate owner in Montgomery County. I had
a $16M office building on 270, then Lockheed moved out. An appraisal 2
weeks ago (done by lender) gave the value at $6M. Basically the value of
the ground. But, in 2 months I will be starting my 3
rd
apartment project in
Montgomery County, which will bring in more renters that need County
services.
I don't think this path is sustainable for a healthy Montgomery County. We
need balance.
30f4
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
To put it in another context - over the past 8 years Montgomery County
has gotten an A- in environmental stewardship and an F in economic
stewardship_ I suggest we collectively, as a community, focus on pulling
our F up to a C instead of our A- to an A so we may pass on to future
generations a healthy, sustainable Montgomery County.
Thank you.
4of4
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MEAra
CffAMSfll
Of
COIIIMI'RCf
SILVER
SPRING
February 11, 2014
The Honorable Craig Rice
President, Montgomery County Council
Stella B. Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE:
Bill 2-14, "Environmental Sustainability - Buildings - Benchmarking" and Bill 3-14, "Buildings - Energy
Efficiency Energy Standards" (together, the "Environmental Bills", or "Bills")
Dear Council President Rice and Members of Council:
The Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber ofCommerce and the Greater Silver Spring Chamber ofCommerce (together,
the "GB-CC and GSS Chambers") recently met with Council member Berliner, representatives of his staff, and
representatives from other county chambers to discuss the above-referenced environmental bills, provide general comments,
and pose our preliminary questions and concerns. The GB-CC and GSS Chambers collectively represent the interests of
nearly a thousand business members in Montgomery County.
Both our Chambers are very concerned that the Environmental Bills are being introduced at an inopportune time, given that
the County's commercial real estate industry is experiencing tremendous difficulty and strain due to record high vacancy
rates. While we recognize the importance of the policies and goals that the Environmental Bills seek to address - making
sure that the County is more "green," more "sustainable," and more energy efficient we strongly believe that regulatory
measures of this kind need
to
be structured and analyzed in a deliberate manner to ensure that the efforts to attain the stated
policies and goals will be successful, without resulting in increased costs or unintended consequences. Sufficient time and
attention to detail will be necessary to ensure that the bills are workable both for the County and for the businesses and
individuals who will be subject to their requirements, especially in these difficult times for building owners.
We strongly believe that incentives work better than mandates for the purpose of encouraging building owners to increase
the efficiency of their buildings and to promote sustainability. Thus, we are very concerned about Bill 2-14, "Environmental
Sustainability - Building Energy and Benchmarking." The bill, as currently drafted, is vague in certain respects but has
potential implications for the business community and County taxpayers that could be significant. At the same time, other
than collecting infonnation for County government at the expense ofbuHding owners, no purpose is provided for the use of
this infonnation. While not an exhaustive list, some of the important questions that are raised by - but not answered in ­
the bill are as follows:
• The bill applies to two groups of buildings, defined in the bill as "Group 1 Covered Buildings" and "Group 2 Covered
Buildings." Does the County know how many ofeach group type exist in the County? Before the legislation is enacted,
shouldn't that infonnation
be
known to determine the scope of the legislation and to assess the potential costs associated
with implementation and compliance?
• The bill's definition of "gross floor area" differs from that in the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance. Is this
intentional? If so, why?
• Are the "waiver" provisions adequate to protect owners of older buildings? Are vacancy and other thresholds set at
appropriate levels?
• Why is the benchmarking infonnation supplied by an owner not sufficient? Why does thisinfonnation have to be
verified by a "licensed professional"? What will it cost the building owner to have the information verified?
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
• If certain infonnation is to be provided by a tenant but the tenant does not provide it, how can the owner supply it? Yet,
under Section 18A-41(c) of the bill, the onus is on the owner, who is "not relieved of the obligation to benchmark the
building". The owner's infonnation, without input from the tenant, may not be accurate, despite the owner's good faith
efforts to comply. How will that inaccuracy be factored in the undescribed use of the infonnation?
• The bill requires the director of the Department of Environmental Protection to submit an annual report to the County
each year. Will the "disclosure of benchmarking information" under 18A-42(c) protect proprietary infonnation of
businesses? The chambers strongly believe that it should.
• The energy audit provisions of the bill define "covered buildings" differently
than
the deftnition in the benchmarking
provisions of the bill. Why?
• What will an energy audit cost? Who will pay the cost? How will "any reasonable measures" to reduce energy use or
the costs of operating a building be determined? Who will make that detennination? Will implementation of such
measures be required?
• We understand that commissioning is an expensive and time-consuming process. How much will retro-commissioning
cost?
In order to address the concerns of the GB-CC and GSS Chambers and others, we believe that the County should conduct a
"pilot program" on one of its older buildings (perhaps the County Offtce building at 100 Maryland Avenue) to demonstrate
how Bill 2-14 would affect owners and possibly tenants in a real world environment before deciding to launch the program
County-wide. Such a demonstration would allow the County to study the impacts of the bill to ensure that its goal of
increasing energy efftciency will accomplish its intended result and will not cost more than it will save. This would go a
long way towards encouraging building owner and tenants to support the bill.
We have a number of similar concerns about Bill 3-14, "Buildings Energy Efftciency Energy Standards." Principally,
we understand that sustainable design and construction practices are being gradually incorporated into the building codes
promulgated by the International Code Council and adopted with increasing frequency by municipalities. In response, in
order to protect its position as a market leader, the U.S. Green Building Council is continually refining and making the
necessary requirements for LEED certiftcation more stringent. Has the County considered or evaluated the ever-increasing
costs of compliance with the ever-changing LEED standards or the certiftcation program? Additionally, has there been any
study of development under the County's current Green Buildings Law? Finally, in what respect has the current law proven
to be insufftcient to meet policy objectives so as to call for changes?
While we do not support the Environmental Bills as currently drafted, we look forward to working with the County to
further define the language in these bills, to revise them as necessary to prevent any unintended consequences, and to further
understand the implications the bills will have for our members.
.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~~vIJM;ww
Ginanne Italiano, President & CEO
Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber
cc:
~~~.-
Jane Redicker, President & CEO
Greater Silver Spring Chamber
Manual Ocasio, Chair, GSSCC
Andy Shulman, Chair, GB-CCCC
William Kominers, Chair, GSSCC Government Affairs Committee
Christopher Ruhlen, Vice President, GB-CCCC Economic Development
&
Government Affairs
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
GUARDIAN
--------~cRbr-------­
REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
February 11,2014
The Honorable Craig Rice
President, Montgomery County Council
Stella
B.
Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor
Rockville, MD
20850
Re:
Councilmember Berliner's Energy/Environment Legislative Initiatives
Bill
2-14,
Environmental Sustain ability
-
Buildings
-
Benchmarking
Bil13-14,
Buildings
-
Energy Efficiency
-
Energy Standards
Dear Council President Rice and Members of Council,
On behalf of Guardian Realty Management, please accept this letter in opposition to Bill 2-14,
Environmental Sustainability
-
Buildings Benchmarking,
and Bill 3-14,
Buildings Energy Efficiency­
Energy Standards
(together, the "Energy/Environment Initiatives"). The Energy/Environment Initiatives
are overly aggressive in their approach to energy conservation and sustainable development policy.
Without additional incentives and carve-outs, the Energy/Environmental Initiatives will
disproportionately impact the owners of older, mature buildings in Montgomery County by increasing
financial costs, administrative complexity and, potentially, producing disincentives for reinvestment. Our
specific concerns are as follows.
We are extremely concerned about BilI2-14's requirements for the public Disclosure of building
energy performance information. Such mandatory disclosure is invasive and lacks fundamental
protections for privacy and proprietary information, and does not advance any legitimate public interest.
Energy efficiency information is routinely provided between buyers and sellers, and between commercial
landlords and tenants. FUl1hermore, to the extent that publication of sllch information may chill
transactions involving mature buildings, such a requirement will have negative consequences. This is
particularly disconcerting, given that commercial building owners in the County continue to struggle with
difficult economic conditions, evidenced by continued high vacancy rates.
With regard to Bill 2-14,
Environmental Sustainability
-
Buildings
-
Benchmarking,
we note that
there are no provisions for the kinds of financial incentives that have ensured the success of
benchmarking legislation in other jurisdictions. Energy audits and retro-commissioning are not cost-free
to building owners. While we understand that the County has recently adopted legislation to facilitate a
commercial propel1y assessed clean energy ("PACE") program, this program addresses the costs
associated with energy efficient improvements, not audits or retro-commissioning expenses. PACE
financing also requires lender approval and, therefore, cannot
be
guaranteed. To achieve the desired
policy outcomes, the County must provide proven incentives (e.g., grants, tax credits, tax rebates). Such
6000 Executive Boulevard· Suite 400 • North Bethesda, MD 20852-3847
Tel:
(301) 770-5930· www.guardianrealty.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
incentives recognize that greater gains in energy efficiency can be made through an investment-driven,
rather than strictly regulatory, approach.
Regarding Bill 3-14,
Buildings Energy Efficiency Energy Standards,
LEED Silver
certification is simply too onerous for properties that are not located in "Smart Growth" areas. Achieving
any LEED rating becomes more difficult over time, as newer, more stringent versions of the rating
systems are released in response to the standardization of sustainable development principles and
practices into municipal building codes. We are very concerned that requiring LEED Silver certification
will make desirable, necessary renovations more costly, and thus potentially bar reinvestment in older
buildings. Certain "extensive modifications" to existing buildings (Le., structural modifications altering
more than 50% of the building gross floor area of a covered building) would become subject to LEED
review based on factors that were not contemplated at the time of development.
It
may even be the case
that even a Celtified level rating (as required under the existing law) is not achievable for certain existing
mature buildings in desperate need of renovation. The County should consider exempting extensive
building modifications from
I!DY
LEED rating requirements in connection with Bill 3-14.
The County should undertake a comprehensive, comparative fiscal review of the costs that the
Energy/Environment Initiatives propose to impose on the private sector, so that the consequences of
approval are understood and transparent. We believe the financial implications for building owners are
significant.
Furthennore, the Energy/Environment Initiatives raise issues that are worthy of careful, deliberate
analysis. We strongly believe that the Council should task an informal "commission" comprised of local
building owners or their representatives to study these issues, and to work with the Council towards
refining the proposed Energy/Environment Initiatives. This common-sense approach would serve to
avoid unintended consequences, and we would be more than happy to palticipate.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.
Very truly yours,
~~
//:/'':<''/
.
Brian R. Lang .
Senior Vice
PresideUt_~
~
/
GUard~n
Realty
M~an2~gement.
Inc.
,/
~
BRLlsm
cc: Patricia Harris, Esquire
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mihill, Amanda
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Faden, Michael
Tuesday, February
11, 20141:24
PM
Mihill, Amanda
FW: Energy Bills Testimony
From: Robert Kaufman [mailto:rkaufman@mncbia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:44 PM
To: Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Riemer's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's
Office, Councilmember; Rice's Office, Councilmember; Eirich's Office, Councilmember; Andrews's Office, Councilmember;
Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Branson's Office, Councilrnember; Hoyt, Bob
Cc: Goldstein, Steven; Gibson, Cindy; Faust, Josh; Healy, SOnya; Jones, Diane; Wright, Gwen; Zyontz, Jeffrey; Orlin,
Glenn; Faden, Michael; Michaelson, Marlene; McMillan, Linda; Kelly Grudziecki; Bruce H.
Lee;
Bryant F. Foulger; Bob
Harris; William Kominers; selmendorf@linowes-Iaw.com; tdugan@shulmanrogers.com; Montenegror@ballardspahr.com;
Pharr, Shaun; Clark Wagner; JRussel@rodgers.com; Paul Chod; Steve Robins; Steve Orens; Ilaya Hopkins; IIana Branda;
lisetracey@yahoo.com; gitaliano@bccchamber.org; Jane Redicker; Annette Rosenblum; mjackson@mncbia.org;
dswenson@mncbia.org
Subject: Energy Bills Testimony
Please accept the following as Testimony on behalf of the MNCBIA concerning the various Energy related bills
introduced by Couneilmember Berliner and others.
Bills
11-14
and
10-14
Expedited Review
We understand and appreciate the desire to provide an expedited review as an incentive to promote use of energy
saving technology, the facts however suggest that all new buildings and remodeling meet substantially higher standards
of energy efficiency and all deserve efficient review and approval. Especially since passage of the
2012
Building and
Energy Code changes, all new and remodeled buildings today provide substantial energy savings and efficiencies.
Additionally, identifying specific permits to expedite may not be as simple as it seems given the complexities of today's
permits and construction techniques. The Solar permits or charging permits may be part of a much larger permit
application and may net be easily separated for expedited review. The MNCBIA recently established a Solar Energy
Program with ASTRUM Solar to encourage use of Solar installations on new homes and would in fact benefit from an
expedited process.
Instead, however, we urge the County to continue to improve the overall permit review and approval process so that
an expedited review becomes moot. We draw attention to and gratefully acknowledge the recent announcement by
DPS to institute an electroniC plan submission for new construction and right-of-way permits and look forward to other
improvements.
Bill
6-14
Environmental Sustainability Office
Given the real world changes to our land use regulations and building codes, an office of sustainability best serves the
County as a comprehensive planning approach that encourages coordination and balance to maximize use and
maintenance of our complex systems that tie together smart growth planning, land use planning, building use, land use
and transportation. We support encouraging MNCPPC to create a position of a sustainability planner in MNCPPC
where we do our forward thinking. The Department of Environmental Protection provides guidance and support for
land use related issues and environmental stewardship of our land. Sustainability implies economics, construction,
1
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
government policy, business management, coordination, building technology as well as land use most of which remain
outside the purview of DEP.
Bill 3-14 Building Standards - LEED Silver
New buildings today increasing meet a minimum of LEED or other similar certification such as IgCC and Green Globes.
The LEED Silver level continues to evolve and relies on land use based issues as well and energy efficiencies that cannot
be easily achieved. We prefer continuing to allow the market place to work toward green options particularly in light
of the new energy and building codes and prefer capitalizing on the current market tren'd toward green certification at
the LEED certified, tgCC and Green Globes levels.
Bill 2-14 Benchmarking
Currently we operate on a whole new set of energy saving requirements for all new and remodeled buildings based on
the
2012
Building and Energy Codes. In addition, nearly all new buildings today meet LEED certified or similar standard.
Benchmarking becomes excessive under these circumstances. Additionally, we need to agree on what purpose the
benchmarking serves. As currently developed by EPA, the benchmarking relates largely to greenhouse gas emissions
and not costs or energy use. This promotes use of natural gas and renewable energy sources over use of coal, oil, or
other carbon based fuel. Today the cost of gas remains comparatively low, this results often in cost savings, however,
most users have little say over the source of fuel used to generate electricity and cannot easily switch to gas or
renewable sources. Should gas prices rise, than any cost savings may evaporate. Nonetheless, we support the concept
of encouraging and supporting efforts to benchmark the energy use of buildings if only to set goals for energy savings
over time. We urge the Council to set up a working group to identify ways to best create, support, encourage and
measure building energy use that can be cost effective and manageable. Especially problematic concerns the
requirement to set up benchmarking apparatuses for residential and commercial tenants, or owners of condo space
within buildings.
The use of benchmarking can result in the highest energy savings with existing buildings. This unfortunately places the
greatest cost burden on the most affordable buildings with the lowest rents, both residential and commercial. Clearly if
the investment in energy savings saves money, the owners, tenants and the County have a natural incentive to set up
benchmarking. We urge the County to form a working groups of existing building owners and tenants to consider the
most effective way to encourage, support and afford energy re-commissioning.
S.
Robert Kaufman
Vice President. Government Affairs
Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association
1738 Elton Road
Suite 200
Silver Spring. Maryland 20903
bkaufman(il1mncbia.org
(301) 445-5408 Office
(301) 768-0346 Cell
BIA's Networking Happy Hour - Feb. 20
&
FREE Business Development Class
Click here for details and to register
Fil
Speaker Series with Bryant Foulger- Feb. 21
Join us for breakfast. Click here
Celebrity Chefs
&
Tabletop Night - March 27
Be a Chef or just come to eat. Click here for details
Check out NAHB's Member Advantage Program at www.nahb.org/ma
BUILDING HOMES
&
CREATING NEIGHBORHOODS FOR 60 YEARS
1954-2014
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
March 12, 2014
Ms. Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorney
,Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20805
RE: County Council Bills on Sustainability and Energy Conservation
Dear Ms. Mihill,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 13 County Council Bills for Sustainability
and Energy Conservation.
I have attached a copy of our own Sustainability Practice 6-40 for your information. M-NCPPC and the
Department of Parks are committed to environmental stewardship. Our organization has employed
energy conservation measures in many of our parks, facilities and operations over the past several
years. These measures include building temperature control, high efficiency HVAC units, low
consumption lighting and an aggressive recycling program. I am proud of our staff and their
achievements in reducing the environmental footprint of our extensive operations. The attached
Practice 6-40 provides documentation of our commitment to these important issues. We also provide
cost savings data in an annual energy conservation report available to the County Council, and our
progress has been significant.
For clarification on the pending legislation, please consider the following questions and comments:
2-14
• If we own land, but not buildings, will benchmarking be provided by building owners? For example,
aquatic centers or community centers located on park property might be affected.
• Does the benchmarking apply to buildings that are to be demolished within 4 years?
8-14
• We recommend that historic buildings as well as small buildings, such as restroom buildings and
storage sheds, be exempt. Language to define limits on the size or purpose of the buildings affected
is strongly recommended.
• If there are several buildings in a facility, would the requirements apply to every building contained
within the facility? A definition of "facility" may be required here.
• If the cost of renewable energy exceeds 2% of the total construction cost, funding equivalent to 2% of
the cost may be transferred to another project. Does it mean a project that has qualified renewable
energy cost can help other projects to be exempt? If so, do we need to identify which?
• We are concerned about the definition of "Director" in the definitions section of this bill. Currently,
we have many county-financed structures (generally as a result of G.O. bonds) on parkland, and the
DGS Director currently has no role in managing or benchmarking such structures. We recommend
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
clarifying language that the "Director" means the DGS Director OR the Director of the agency
managing the affected property.
Please keep in mind the Parks infrastructure is quite complex, including many structures that do not fit
the traditional definition of office building or warehouse structure. We also have hundreds of aged and
often historic buildings, smaU service buildings, structures or buildings of varying sizes in remote or
constrained locations, and a variety of other specialized facilities. Broad-based legislation that could
include all of these could ultimately impact us significantly in the benchmarking process. We request
clarification regarding the total impact some portions of this legislation may have on such facilities.
Suggested amendments are attached for your consideration.
Overall, we are encouraged by Councilmember Berliners goals to advance sustainability in buildings
and operations. Such conservation is a core mission of the Department of Parks and a mission we have
already committed to achieve.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mary R. Bradford
Director
Department of Parks-Montgomery County
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Attachments: Practice 6-40
Legislative matrix analysis
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
county Council Bills on Sustainability and Energy Conservation
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Bill 2-14 Environmental Sustainability - Buildings - Benchmarking
18A-38
Definitions
Line
21 :
...
Covered building
does not include buildings that are to be demolished within 4 years
or any building with more than 10% occupancy which is used for...
Bill 8-14 Buildings - County Buildings - Clean Energy Renewable Technology
8-54.
Definitions
To modify line 22:
Director
means the Director of the Department or the Director's designee; or the Director of the
agency managing the affected property.
8-55
Clean energy renewable technology required
To add:
(d) All historic buildings and any other buildings that are smaller than 100,000 square feet are
exempt from this requirement.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
I
...J
OJ
[Bill
rn
TI0
~
rn
Approved by
The Commission
Initially issued: 11/1/76
last amended: 11/19/2012
last reviewed:
11/19/2012
I
No.
6-40
i
M-NCPPC Sustainability Standards
AUTHORITY
This Administrative Practice was initially approved by the Executive Committee at its
meeting on October 4,1976, and last amended by the Commission on November 19,
2012.
~~
Patricia Barney, Executive Director
RESCISSION
The Practice, as amended on November 19, 2012, updates and replaces all other
internal sustainability procedures.
PURPOSE AND
BACKGROUND
This Practice (originally titled Commission Resource Conservation Program) was initially
established to communicate agency-wide policy on the conservation of utilities sources,
such as electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and motor fuel. The Practice was revised on
November 19. 2012 to update and replace initial measures through a broader
understanding of sustain ability standards, which benefit the environment, our
workplace, and the communities we serve.
The Practice, as originally approved, has been revised as follows:
• May 1, 1979 and January 9, 1980: Incorporated updated responsibilities due to
agency restructuring.
• November 19, 2012: Policy amended to:
o Reflect more modern concepts in the area of sustainability, including:
Green building management strategies which meet nationally accepted
sustainability certifications forenergy conservation and use of renewable
resources;
• Procurement of goods and services aimed at high efficiency products and
other sustainable practices;
• Implementation of green development strategies in community planning,
landscape design and other site planning;
• Elements aimed to foster ongoing awareness among our employees and
patrons on sustainability objectives and programs; and
• Updated County and State sustainability mandates.
REFERENCES
Federal/State/local Standards:
• Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and accompanying Environmental
Site Design Standards
• Maryland Code, State Finance and Procurement,
§
5-312, High Performance Building
Act
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
• Prince George's County Executive Order 22-2007, Goes Green Program
• Prince George's County Energy Policy
• Montgomery County Bill 32-07, Environmental Sustainability Climate Protection