T&E ITEM 5
February 26,2014
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorney
~
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession: Bill 8-14, Buildings
Renewable Technology
County Buildings - Clean Energy
SUBJECT:
Bill 8-14, Buildings - County Buildings - Clean Energy Renewable Technology,
sponsored by Councilmembers Berliner, Floreen, Riemer, Eirich, Andrews, and Navarro, was
introduced on January 28, 2014. A public hearing was held by the Committee on February 11.
At the hearing, a representative of the Executive expressed the Executive's general support for
the package of environmental initiatives (©17). Council staff will transmit any specific
comments on these bills from the Executive when they are received.
Bill 8-14 would require new or extensively remodeled county buildings to generate at
least 1 kilowatt of renewable energy for every 1,000 square feet of floor area. Current County
law does not set specific standards for the use of renewable technology in County buildings. Bill
8-14 was modeled after a recently-enacted Prince George's County law.
Councilmember Berliner explained the purpose of this Bill in his January 14
memorandum describing his proposed energy/environmental package. See ©5 of Bill 4-14, T&E
Item
1.
The Fiscal and Economic Impact statement for this Bill will be transmitted after March
17 (see ©7).
Issues for Committee Discussion
Should Bill
8-14
be a mandate or goal?
The Montgomery County Chapter of the US
Green Building Council (USGBC) urged that the requirements of Bill 8-14 be a goal, not a
mandate. They argued that most buildings would not be able to meet this goal with other
building regulations and that the cost ratio of meeting the renewable requirement to the total
project cost is high. Council staff notes the cost limit
in
Bill 8-14, generally speaking, is limited
to 2% of the total cost of the proj ect. The County chapter of the USGBC is correct in that funds
for capital projects are limited and would compete with other County projects. This is a policy
consideration for the Committee. If the Committee shares similar concerns, one option would be
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
to provide a waiver mechanism where the Director could waive the clean renewable energy
technology requirement if the Director finds that including such technology would be cost
prohibitive.
What type of renewable energy technologies should be permitted?
As noted above, Bill
8-14
would require a newly constructed or extensively remodeled county building
I
to generate at
least 1kw of renewable energy for every 1,000 square feet of floor area. The American Institute
of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter assumed that the bill required that renewable energy be
provided by photovoltaic generation and urged that other on-site energy technologies should be
permitted. As drafted, "clean renewable energy technology" would encompass more than
photo voltaic generation. "Clean renewable energy technology" would be defined, in part, as "a
technology or system that uses geothermal heating and cooling, solar hot water heating, wind
power, solar electricity generation, or solar thermal generation.
This packet contains:
Circle
#
1
Bill 8-14
Legislative Request Report
6
OMB and Finance Memo
7
Select correspondence
American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter
8
USGBC-NCR Montgomery County Branch
14
County Executive
17
F:\LAW\BILLS\1408 County Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Technology\T &E Memo,Doc
I
It
is not clear at this point if the County could apply Bill 8-14 to certain agencies such as Montgomery County
Public Schools; Council staff continues to research this issue.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
8-14
Concerning: Buildings
County
Buildings - Clean Energy Renewable
Technology
Revised:
1211212013
Draft No. 1
Introduced:
January 28, 2014
Expires:
July 28, 2015
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: --=--=-No=n.;.;:e'--_ _ _ _ __
Ch.
Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council members Berliner, Floreen, Riemer, EIrich, Andrews, and Navarro
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(2)
require use of certain clean energy renewable technology in the construction or
extensive modification of certain County buildings;
require the Director of the Department of General Services to conduct a clean
renewable energy technology project feasibility assessment on certain County
buildings; and
generally amend County law regarding building, energy, and environmental policy_
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 8, Buildings
Article VIII, Clean Renewable Energy Technology
Sections 8-54, 8-55, 8-56, 8-57, 8-58
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 unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 8·14
1
Sec. 1. Article VIII (Sections 8-54, 8-55, 8-56, 8-57, 8-58) is added to
Chapter 8 as follows:
Article VIII. Clean Renewable Energy Technology.
8-54. Definitions.
In this Article, the following words have the meanings indicated:
Clean renewable energy technology
means
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
technology or system that uses
geothermal heating and cooling, solar hot water heating, wind power, solar
electricity generation, or solar thermal generation.
Clean renewable energy
technology
includes passive solar energy generation that reduces energy use
from other sources
Qy
at least20%.
Cost effective
means where the cost of installing clean renewable energy
technology on
~
10
11
12
covered County building is not projected to exceed the
13
14
15
16
projected cost savings of the installation within the first
li
years after the
installation of the technology begins.
County building
means any building for which the County government
finances at least 30% of the cost of:
17
18
ill
ill
construction, for
~
newly constructed building; or
modification, for
~
building that is extensively modified.
~
19
20
Covered County building
means
modified County building.
newly constructed or extensively
21
22
Department
means the Department ofGeneral Services.
Director
means the Director of the Department or the Director's designee.
Extensively modi6; or modified
refers to any structural modification which
alters more than 50% of
~
23
24
25
building'S gross floor area, as shown on an
application for
~
building permit.
Projected total cost
means the estimated cost required to construct or
renovate
~
26
27
building, including any building system, interior finish, site
F:\LA W\BILL®08 County Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Technology\BiIl I.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 8-14
28
infrastructure, connection to any existing utility, landscaping, and sidewalk
and parking lot built for the immediate use of occupants of the building.
8-55. Clean energy renewable technology required.
29
30
31
32
33
34
W
Any contract to build or extensively modify
~
County building must
Except as
require the use of clean renewable energy technology.
provided in subsection
ili1
~
covered County building must have
installed at least
1
kilowatt of clean renewable energy technology for
every 1,000 square feet of gross Hoor area. This requirement may be
met
Qy
using ground mounted clean renewable energy technology on
or directly adjacent to the building lot.
(hl
35
36
37
38
39
Each appropriation to build or extensively modify
~
County building
must include an additional amount of 2% to the projected total cost
funded
Qy
the County, as shown in the project description form,
subject to subsection
~
40
41
42
43
44
f.£1
The Director must limit the size of the clean renewable energy
technology installation if the initial cost of the installation is projected
to exceed 2% of the projected total cost of the new building or
renovation. However, if the Director transfers expenditures to the
project under subsection
hl
the initial cost of the installation must not
exceed 4% of the projected total cost.
45
46
47
48
8-56. Project feasibility assessment.
49
W
The Director must perform
~
feasibility assessment to find whether
~
50
covered County building can be retrofitted cost effectively to include
clean renewable energy technology. The Director may consider other
factors, including:
51
52
53
54
ill
ill
the cost to the County;
any safety or security issue;
F:\LA
W\BILLS\I4~untY
Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Technology\BiII I,Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 8-14
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
ill
ill
ill
®
ill
any cost savings from the installation;
any clean energy job creation;
the clean renewable energy technology capacity of the building;
environmental benefits;
the technological feasibility of
£!
retrofit; and
applicable zoning requirements.
tID
!hl
If the Director finds that installing clean renewable energy technology
on
£!
covered County building would not be cost effective, the Director
must transfer expenditures from the covered County building project
equivalent to 2% of the projected total cost for use in another
applicable project, unless no applicable project is approved in the
Capital Improvement Program. The County Council must approve
any fund transfer between projects under this Section
Qy
resolution.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
8-57. Alternative financing.
69
70
71
72
W
An alternative financing arrangement which allows leveraging of
federal, state, utility, and other incentives, including any grant, lease­
purchase agreement, power purchase agreement, or energy savings
performance contract, may meet the clean renewable energy
technology requirement under this Article.
73
74
75
!hl
The purchase of Renewable Energy Credits does not meet the clean
renewable energy technology requirement under this Article.
76
77
8-58. Administration; reporting.
W
W
The Department must administer this Article using accepted principles
of sound accounting and fiscal management.
The Department must submit an annual report to the County Council
and County Executive
Qy
April
1
each year describing:
78
79
80
(i)
F:\LA W\BILLS\1408 County Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Technology\BiII I.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 8-14
81
ill
the added clean renewable energy technology generation .!2y
each project;
82
83
84
85
86
ill
ill
ill
the revenues and expenditures of each project;
each project supported.!2y the Program; and
the annual savings to the County's utility costs from each
supported project.
87
88
89
Sec. 2. Effective date.
Article VIII, inserted by Section 1 of this Act,
applies to each new or major renovation public building project for which an
application for a building permit is filed on or after January 1, 2014.
Approved:
90
91
92
93
94
Craig L. Rice, President, County Council
Approved:
Date
95
96
97
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Date
98
99
100
101
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
F:\LA
w\BILLS\14~untY
Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Teehnology\Bill l.Doe
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Buildings
BiIlS-14
County Buildings Clean Energy Renewable Technology
DESCRIPTION:
Would require new or extensively remodeled county buildings, to
generate at least 1 kilowatt of renewable energy for every 1,000
square feet of floor area.
Current County law does not set specific standards for the use of
renewable technology in County buildings!
To achieve greater use of clean renewable technology in the
construction or extensive modification of County buildings.
Department of General Services, Office of Management and Budget
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:
Not applicable.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1408 County Buildings-Clean Energy Renewable Technology\LEGISLATlVE REQUEST REPORT.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKViLLE,MARYLi\ND
MEMORANDUM
Fcbnlary 5, 2014
TO:
FROM:
Craig Rice,
t"'S,ident,
County Council
Jennifer AMr hes"
, ' I c e
of Management and Budget
Joseph F"
B~a(;
I,
nt'
mtment of Fimmce
\..../
l
~
","" ..
~
SUBJECTS:
Biil2-14,
Environnlc{ltal Sustainability - Buildings-·
Benchmarking
Bill 14, Buildings Energy Efncicncy····· Energy Standards
Bill 4-14.
Street
and
Roads County Street Lights
Bill 5- J4, Environmental Sustainability-· Social Cost of Carholl Assessments
Bill 6-14,
Environmental Sustainability - Office of Sustainability
~
Established
Bill 7
~
14, Contracts and Procurement -
Certined
Green Business Program
Bill 8-14, Buildings .-. County Bu
i
tdings Clean Energy Renewab
Ie
Technology
Bill 9-14, Environmental Sustainahility -. Rcnc\vable Energy - County Purchase
Bill 10-] 4, Buildings
S(}jar
Pl;!rmits I::xpcditcd Review
Bill 11-14, Buildings . . Electric Vehicle
Charging
Staljon
Permils"Expedited
Review
As required by Section 2-81 A of the County
Code,
we are in
fbnning
you that transmittal of
the fiscal and economic
impact
statements for the above
referenced
legislt\tion
will
be delayed
because more time is needed to
coordinate
with the affected departments, coHeet information, and
complete our analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts. While we
an~
not able to conduct the
required detailed analyses
at
this time, it is clear that 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
niH
capital
budg~t
and
an operating
budgt't,
the
fiscal and
economic
statements \viIl be transmitted after March
17,2014.
JAB:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy
NurmL
Special
Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Direcr.or, Public Jnformation Office
Marc
P. Hansen, Office of
the County
Attorney
Robertilagedoorn,
Department of Finance
David Plmt.
IJepaltmellt
of
FinanCt}
Alex Espinosa, Office of
rvll:magemcnt and
Budget
Mary
Beck, Office of Management and Budget
NaeemMia, Office
Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang, Offic·e of Management and Budget
 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
February 11,2014, Public Hearing on Proposed Environmental and Energy Bills
From:
Subject:
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, eemmet.aia@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, 2013 IgCC 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 v.4 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
AIA-PV Igee 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
alternative 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
or
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 alternative, 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 recommends 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 Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
Square Footage (SF) Size Thresholds:
Across-the-board square-footage size requirements will make adoption of the (gCC 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 ASH RAE 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 deveiopment.
• 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
AIA 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.gov
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
developerflandscape architect, a builder, and others.
This letter provides supplemental information that responds to your staff's request that our group also
review and make recommendations in regard to possible adoption of the ANSIIASHRAE/USGBCIIES
Standard 189.1-2011 -- Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings, Except Low-rise
Residential Buildings (also referred to as ASHRAE 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 ASH RAE 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 ASHRAE 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
AIA 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 meetwith you in person to answer questions, clarify our recommendations. or address any item
of interest thatwe 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
Montgomery County
Finding ways to better share monthly aggregated energy data with building owners/operators is
critical to understanding and improving building performance across our region. But it's easier
said than done, since it requires cooperation among industry stakeholders. On October 30, the
USGBC-NCR Montgomery County Branch convened a group of local stakeholders, including
building owners, utilities, governments and advocacy groups, to discuss ways to improve the
flow of building data in Montgomery County, MD.
There are several structural constraints and obstacles that prevent utilities from providing
actionable energy data to building owners. In many cases, utilities across the country do not have
the technical infrastructure or staff resources in place to provide aggregate energy usage data to
building owners. However, building owners have market-established tools at their disposal, like
the Environmental Protection Agency's Ponfolio Manager, which they can use to track building
performance. Additionally, utilities must meet rules and regulations of state public utility
commissions, which can unintentionally create additional barriers to how utilities are able to
share data. Many of these restrictions are related to privacy concerns associated with sharing
individual tenant data.
The Montgomery County Energy Summit, sponsored by the IDG Companies, Pepco and Boland,
brought experts together to discuss the barriers and explore solutions for improving access to
aggregated energy building data. Access to this critical data will empower building owners to
make smarter energy decisions and better enable benchmarking of public and commercial
properties, ultimately helping improve performance and reduce energy usage. The summit
brought together local utilities and commercial real estate owners and operators, including local
staff from Pepco, Baltimore Gas
&
Electric, The Tower Companies, Brandywine Realty Trust,
Akridge, and First Potomac. Additionally, the summit drew several Maryland state and
Montgomery County officials and local advocacy groups to discuss the current barriers to
sharing energy data and opportunities to improve this process.
Dialogues like the one in Montgomery County show that private sector stakeholders can have a
unified voice in support of improved data sharing policies. While the County is considering a
benchmarking and disclosure law, USGBC-NCR's Montgomery County Branch believes
proactive conversations on data access between all interested parties is the most effective way to
ensure cooperation and the establishment of best practices in pursuit of energy efficiency.
For that reason, the Branch has formed a working group to continue discussing opportunities to
improve access to utility data. For more information on becoming part of the group, please
contact us.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ENVIRONMENTAL BilLS (2-14 THROUGH 14-14) RESPONSES: .
The USGBC NCR Montgomery County Branch has had the opportunity to review the packet of energy and
environmental measures proposed by Councilmember Roger Berliner and many of his colleagues.
We believe revised language within the thirteen proposed bills is required to provide clarity, using lessons
learned from other jurisdictions, which have hastily adopted legislation without fully understanding the fiscal
impact or administrative barriers. Over time those jurisdictions have been forced to correct issues and have
consequently wasted resources, while frustrating residents and businesses. While some of the proposed
legislation may have a small impact, others might have a much larger price tag.
The true impact on Montgomery County for implementing the proposed legislation should be assessed taking
into account the diversity of our county. We have environments that range from urban to rural. The future
plans for growth incorporating recommendations from organizations and agencies such as USGBC, Maryland
Energy Administration (MEA), Department of Energy (DOE), and many others that are well versed in these
issues. We recommend the County Council allow time for discernment and discussion of concerns among its
stakeholders prior to taking a position on these bills.
In regards to the specific proposed bills we have the following comments:
Bill 2·14 - Environmental Sustainability - Buildings· Benchmarking.
The USGBC NCR Montgomery County Branch had an Energy Data Sharing Summit in October 2013 to discuss
this issue with many key stakeholders like County, State, and Federal Agencies, utilities, property owners,
technical experts, other local jurisdictions, and industry professionals. Through this forum we have identified
the folloWing issues to be addressed prior to implementing required benchmarking of buildings in our county:
• Benchmarking reqUirements should first apply to County owned and leased buildings and the information
should be publically available. Once the county can show they have worked through administrative issues
then it would be appropriate to roll out to the private sector.
• Energy auditing and retro commissioning is expensive and the industry does not have a pool of adequately
trained professionals to fulfill this requirement. However, new data access
&
analysis technology will
reduce the cost of audits and retro commissioning and facilitate ongoing virtual building performance
monitoring.
• Data provided by the utility companies must be in a clear and consistent format and be flexible to allow for
automatic uploading to uniform platform such as ENERGY STAR, DOE/ASHRAE smart meter interfaces, etc.
• The benefits to data access are known by the industry and the first step is getting the needed data from
the utilities. Utility commissions and elected officials should coordinate on data access so that utilities and
building owners have clarity on how data should be tracked and presented to eliminate privacy concerns
and stili provide usable data to owners. Condo communities with one master meter are common in the
County. Enhanced access to meter data would be helpful, but many have expressed interest in cost
effective solutions to sub-metering.
• Pepco is currently aware of this issue and is providing aggregated data, directly uploaded to ENERGY STAR
in the District of Columbia, following the Sustainable DC II Legislation.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The key findings regarding Bill 2-14 is there will be a fiscal impact for businesses in terms of benchmarking and
the required energy audit. The cost to property owners should be assessed and determined if the financial
burden is reasonable prior to passage of the bill. There may be opportunities for incentives to help with
implementation for small businesses in our county. They have not taken advantage of existing state incentive
dollars due to a distrust of the current program. This is attributed to the complexity of the process and
experiences of other business owners where misinformation and errors have increased cost instead of saving
money.
Bill 3-14, Buildings - Energy Efficiency - Energy Standards
• The bill should focus on moving toward a sustainability code solution like the IgCC or ASHRE 189.1 with
modifications to coordinate with current codes and regulations.
• Offering a multiple compliance path option between LEED V3, IgCC, or ASHRE 189.1 should be allowed
until the codes have been better coordinated.
• Significant issues have arisen in jurisdictions where new codes conflicted with existing regulations.
• The County should conduct an industry impact study to fully understand the economic impact to
businesses, our community and county agencies. The intent of this regulation should show a leadership
path for a successful sustainable future.
Bill 4-14 Streets and Roads - County Street lights
• The county should allow an appropriate engineering solution for each location, along with Ufe Cycle
Assessment, to determine the most effective lighting solution in lieu of a straight LED requirement.
• This alternative allows for site specific engineering solutions, for location effectiveness and efficiency, not
merely complying with a regulatory requirement.
• Lighting technology is consistently changing and any legislation should be adaptable to the future changes.
BiIIS-14 Buildings - County Buildings - Clean Energy Renewables
• This bill should be a goal; not a mandate. A better solution is to consider the life cycle cost
effectiveness of this requirement and how it would be implemented by county capital construction
and operated and maintained by the county staff.
• Most bUildings will not be able to meet this goal along with other building regulations; such as storm
water management, HVAC systems, etc.
• Long term monitoring and maintenance of these systems is challenging and there is a high risk of
failure.
• The cost ratio of meeting the renewable requirements to the total project cost is very high and
competes with overall county efforts to limit capital building spending, posing financial problems for
many county projects.
• County agencies have experience with Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) where a private entity owns
and operates much larger systems. Although this has met with some success, the current PPA financial
climate has made building size systems less than attractive to PPA providers.
An alternative compliance path may be to allow purchasing renewable energy credits (REC), which are
currently available and comply with the current legislated mandate. The county agencies are currently
required to purchase at least 20% of their annual electrical load in REC's.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these bills. We may have further comments as additional
discussions and comments identify other impacts.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE ISIAB 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.! The path forward
requires understanding and planning: understanding how existing buildings perform and how
planned buildings are expected to perfotm; 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 path 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
Development (WCED}.
Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.