T&E ITEM 3
February 26,2014
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2014
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attorney~
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession: Bill 6-14, Environmental Sustainability - Office of Sustainability ­
Established
.
SUBJECT:
Bill 6-14, Environmental Sustainability
Office of Sustainability - Established,
sponsored by Councilmembers Berliner, Floreen, and Riemer, Council Vice President Leventhal,
and Councilmembers Andrews, and Navarro, was introduced on January 28, 2014. A public
hearing was held on February
II.
At the hearing, a representative of the Executive expressed the
Executive's general support for the package of environmental initiatives (©21). Council staff
will transmit any specific comments on these bills from the Executive when they are received.
Bill 6-14 would create an Office of Sustainability in the Department of Environmental
Protection. In 2008, the Council tasked a Sustainability Working Group with the responsibility
of guiding the County's greenhouse gas reduction implementation. The Working Group has not
met or produced anything in recent years.
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 ©20).
Issues for Committee Discussion
Should the Office ofSustain ability be in the Department ofEnvironmental Protection?
Several individuals or organizations questioned whether there should be an Office of
Sustainability, and if so, if it should be in the Department of Environmental Protection. The
American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter urged that full inclusion of appropriate
agencies should be mandated and because turf wars could arise, the Office should be under the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive. The Chamber of Commerce recommended that there should be an economic incentive
to this initiative and coordination with the land use and transportation work between County
government and Park and Planning. Similarly, the Maryland National Capital Building Industry
Association (BIA) noted its view that sustainability includes environmental policy, business
management, building technology, and land use, some of which is outside DEP's expertise. The
Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association recommended the Council encourage
Park and Planning to create a position of sustainability planner in that agency.
Council staff concurs that sustainability encompasses more than environmental protection
and that coordination between County departments and agencies could be crucial to successful
implementation of sustainability programs. Therefore, Council staff recommends language be
added to Bill 6-14 requiring coordination between Executive departments and County agencies.
What quantifiable goals should be in Bill
6-14? In its testimony, the Sierra Club
recommended that Bill 6-14 create quantifiable goals for greenhouse gas reduction. Council staff
notes that Section 18A-14 of the County Code sets the County's goals for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions at 80% by Jan I, 2050.
How should the Office be funded?
The Sierra Club noted that the Office of
Sustainability had wide-ranging responsibilities and recommended the Council provide a
dedicated source of funding for the Office. Funding for the Office is an important consideration.
However, as noted above, the fiscal impact statement will not be transmitted until after March
17. Ultimately, however, no amendments are needed to Bill 6-14 regarding funding as that issue
will be determined during the budget process.
Should the duties ofthe Office ofSustainability be modified?
Home Energy Score.
The Sierra Club recommended that the Orfice of Sustainability
evaluate whether home sellers should be required to provide home buyers with a Home Energy
Score. The United States Department of Energy developed a metric that allows a homeowner to
compare the energy performance of their home to other homes nationwide. The Home Energy
Score is comprised of three parts including:
I)
the Score itself, 2) facts about your home, and
3)
recommended improvements to increase your Score. See ©49 for F AQs about the Home Energy
Score program. In a similar vein, Michael Heavener, on behalf of Geosolar Energy, proposed
legislation to require homebuilders to include an energy guide in marketing and sales material for
new home sales, including annual cost to heat and cool home by various energy sources (see
©43).
During FY2014 budget discussions in March 2013, the Committee discussed a home
energy score concept as part of a larger discussion on energy efficiency initiatives. The Council
funded a $40,000 pilot program in the Department of Environmental Protection's budget.
Committee members may wish to receive an update from Executive staff on this pilot project.
Energy Scoring Card
The Sierra Club recommended that the Office of Sustainability
apply a scoring system - such as one created by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (see 2013 Scorecard summary on ©57 - that compares local jurisdictions on energy
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
efficiency policies and programs. According to the Sierra Club, this would offer a roadmap for a
government to improve its energy efficiency and learn from other jurisdictions. Council staff
agrees that being aware of policies and laws in other jurisdictions can be beneficial for the
Office. However, Office staff could do this without the application of a "scorecard".
Should a new advisory committee be established to advise the Office of
Sustain ability?
The Sierra Club recommended that the Council create a resident advisory committee to advise
the Office and ensure that there is regular public input, support, and accountability. Currently,
the Department of Environmental Protection provides staff support for 6 advisory committees:
Dickerson Area Facilities Implementation Group, Energy and Air Quality Advisory Group,
Forest Conservation Advisory Committee, Noise Control Advisory Board, Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, and Water Quality Advisory Group. Council staff agrees that public input is
important. Committee members may wish to discuss with Executive staff whether the duties of
one of these advisory committees - perhaps the Energy and Air Quality Advisory Group - could
be broadened in a subsequent bill to include this function rather than establishing a separate
advisory committee.
This packet contains:
Bill 6-14
Legislative Request Report
OMB and Finance Memo
Select Testimony
County Executive
American Institute of Architects, Potomac Valley Chapter
Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
Montgomery County Sierra Club
Charles Nulsen
Geosolar Energy
DOE Home Energy Score FAQ
ACEEE 2013 Scorecard Executive Summary
1
19
20
21
22
28
30
33
39
43
49
53
F:\LAW\BILLS\ I406 Office Of Sustainability\T&E Memo.Doc
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
6-14
Conceming: Environmental Sustainability
- Office of Sustainabilitv - Established
Revised:
1/10/2014
Draft No.
Introduced:
January 28, 2014
Expires:
July 28, 2015
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: --'-'.N""onc.:.::e<---_ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Berliner, Floreen, and Riemer, Council Vice President Leventhal, and
Councilmembers Andrews, and Navarro
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
create a Office of Sustainability in the Department of Environmental Protection;
specify the duties ofthe Office;
repeal and reassign the duties of the Sustainability Working Group; and
generally amend County law on environmental sustainability.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 8, Buildings
Section 8A-14B
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Sections 18A-12, 18A-13, 18A-14, 18A-17, 18A-19, 18A-20, and 18A-23
Chapter 40, Real Property
Section 40-13B
By deleting
Chapter 8, Buildings
Section 8-14C and 8-53
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Sections 18A-15 and 18A-16
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 unqffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
1
Sec. 1. Sections 8-14B, 18A-12, 18A-13, 18A-14, 18A-17, 18A-19, 18A-20,
18A-23, and Section 40-13B are amended, and Sections 8-14C, 8-53, 18A-15, and
18A-16 are deleted as follows:
8-14B.
County buildings - energy unit savings plans, energy cost savings
2
3
4
5
plans, and energy performance contracts.
(a)
Definitions.
In
this Section, the following words have the meanings
6
7
8
9
indicated:
["]County building["]
means a building which is owned or leased by the
County.
["]Energy baseline["]
means the amount of energy consumed each year
10
11
by a County building based on historical metered data, engineering
calculations, submetering of buildings or energy consuming systems,
building load simulation models, statistical regression analysis, or any
combination of those methods.
["]Energy cost savings plan["]
means a plan to reduce a County
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
building's energy costs, including related operation and maintenance
costs.
["]Energy performance contract["]
means a contract which provides for
the performance of services for the design, acquisition, installation,
testing, operation, maintenance, or repair of an identified energy
conservation measure or series of measures in a County building.
["]ENERGY STAR rating["]
means the ENERGY STAR rating
21
22
23
24
25
developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency which
reflects a building'S energy efficiency.
["]Energy unit savings plan["]
means a plan to reduce the amount of
26
27
energy used by a County building, as measured in kilowatt hours or
British thermal units.
f:\law\bills\1406 office of suslainabilily\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
28
29
30
31
Office
g[
Sustainability
or
Office
means the Office of Sustainability
created under Section 18A-13.
["]National energy performance rating system["]
means the rating
system developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
under which a building may obtain the ENERGY STAR rating.
["Sustainability Working Group" means the Group defined in Section
18A-13.]
(b)
Requirements.
The Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must:
32
33
34
35
36
37
(1)
develop an energy baseline, energy unit savings plan, and energy
cost savings plan for each County building;
38
39
(2)
submit an initial report to the County Executive and County
Council by January 15, [2009] 2015 which summarizes the
energy baseline, energy unit savings plan, and energy cost
savings plan for each County building; and
40
41
42
43
44
45
(3)
submit an annual report to the County Executive and County
Council by January 15 of each year that summarizes the steps
taken in the preceding fiscal year to implement the energy unit
savings plan and energy cost savings plan for each County
building.
46
47
48
49
(c)
Energy performance contracts.
Each energy unit savings plan and
energy cost savings plan that the [Sustainability Working Group] Office
prepares under subsection (b) must include a plan to use an energy
performance contract unless the [Sustainability Working Group] Office
finds that the cost of using an energy performance contract outweighs
the benefit.
50
51
52
53
54
[8-14C.
[(a)
Private buildings - incentives.]
Study.
The Sustainability Working Group must evaluate:
f:\Iaw\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 6-14
55
56
57
(1)
options for creating incentives for the owners of commercial,
multi-family residential, or single-family residential buildings to
modify the buildings to increase their energy efficiency and
58
59
60
61
(2) options to minimize the impact on affordable housing of
achieving the ENERGY STAR rating under the national energy
performance rating system.
(b)
Report.
The Sustainability Working Group must submit a report to the
62
63
County Executive and County Council by January 15, 2009 regarding
the Group's findings and recommendations.]
[8-53.
ASHRAEIUSGBCIIESNA standards.]
64
65
66
[(a)
Definitions.
"ASHRAEIUSGBC/IESNA
Standard 189.1" means the standard for
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
high-performance green buildings developed by the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the U.S.
Green Buildings Council, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America.
(b)
The Sustainability Working Group must:
(l)
evaluate
the
costs
and
benefits
of
adopting
the
ASRAEIUSGBVCIIESNA Standard 189.1; and
(2) recommend to the County Executive and County Council by
January 15, 2009, whether the County should adopt the
ASHRAEIUSGBC/IESNA
Standard
75
76
77
78
189.1, particularly the
energy efficiency section, or any other building performance
standard.]
18A-12.
Definitions.
79
80
In
this Article, the following words have the meanings indicated:
f:\Iaw\bills\1406 office of sustainabllity\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
6-14
81
82
["]Cap and trade program["]
means a program that places a limit on the
aggregate net greenhouse gas emissions of the participants, while allowing the
transfer or sale of greenhouse gas emission allowances.
["]
Carbon dioxide equivalent["]
means a given weight of a greenhouse gas
83
84
85
86
that has the same global warming potential, measured over a specified time, as
a given weight of carbon dioxide.
["]Climate Protection Plan["]
means the plan to reduce the level of
Countywide greenhouse gas emissions prepared under Section 18A-14.
["]Countywide greenhouse gas emissions["]
means the total annual greenhouse
gas emissions in the County, measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents,
including all emissions from electricity generated outside the County but
consumed
in
the County.
["]Department["]
means the Department of Environmental Protection.
["]Director["]
means the Director of the Department or the Director's
designee.
["]
Greenhouse gas["]
includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
hydro fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and any other
gas or substance the Director finds to be a significant contributor to global
warmmg.
OOlce
gf
Sustainability
or
O(fice
means the Office of Sustainability created in
Section 18A-13.
100
101
102
103
18A.13.
[(a)
[Sustainability Working Group] Office of Sustainability.
Definition.
In
this Section, "Group" means the Sustainability Working
Group.]
104
105
106
107
[(b)
Established.
The Executive must appoint, subject to confirmation by
the Council, a Sustainability Working Group.]
[(c)
Members.
f:\law\bills\ 1406 offICe of sustainability\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
108
109
110
III
(1)
(2)
The Group has 26 members.
The Executive must appoint a representative from each of the
following Departments to serve as an ex officio member:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Environmental Protection;
Economic Development;
Finance;
General Services;
Management and Budget;
Permitting Services;
Public Information; and
Transportation
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
(3)
The Executive must invite one representative from each of the
following to serve as an ex officio member:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
County Council;
County Planning Board;
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission;
Montgomery County Public Schools;
Montgomery College;
a municipal government in the County; and
an appropriate regional organization.
The public
(4)
The Executive must appoint 11 public members.
members should include:
(A)
(B)
(C)
representatives ofthe business community;
representatives of land development or building interests;
representatives of energy distribution or supply firms;
persons with expertise in stormwater management;
persons with expertise in clean energy and air quality;
(0)
(E)
G
f:\law\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
135
136
137
138
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
persons with expertise in forest and habitat protection;
members of civic organizations active in County affairs;
persons with scientific and academic expertise; and
representatives of communications and media interests.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
(5)
The term of each member is 3 years. If a member is appointed to
fill a vacancy before a term expires, the successor serves the rest
of the unexpired term.]
[(d)
Voting, officers, chairs, meetings, and compensation.
(1)
(2)
Each member of the Group is a voting member.
The Executive must designate the Director of the Department of
Environmental Protection and a public member to be Co-chairs.
(3)
The Group meets at the call of the Co-chairs. The Group must
meet as often as necessary to perform its duties, but not less than
quarterly.
(4)
A member serves without compensation. However, a member
may request reimbursement for mileage and dependent care costs
at rates established by the County.]
[(e)
Subcommittees.
The Co-chairs, with the approval of the Group, may
create one or more subcommittees to assist
in
carrying out any function
of the Group. Any subcommittee must consist of at least 3 members.
Any subcommittee action is not the action of the Group and must not
bind the Group or its members. The Co-chairs must select the chair and
members of each subcommittee, which may include persons who are
not members of the Group. However, the chair of each subcommittee
must be a member ofthe Group.]
[(t)
Duties.
By January 15,2009, the Group must:
f:\law\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
161
162
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
(1)
conduct the greenhouse gas emissions inventory and recommend
the Climate Protection Plan as required under Section 18A-14;
(2)
conduct the annual inventory of the County's sport utility
vehicles and develop criteria to identify positions in County
government that should be assigned sports utility vehicles as
required under Section 18A-19;
(3)
evaluate the costs and benefits of a car share program as required
under Section 18A-22;
(4)
prepare a Telecommuting Action Plan as required under Section
33-24;
(5)
develop an energy baseline, energy unit savings plan, and energy
cost savings plan for each County building as required under
Section 8-14B;
(6)
evaluate options to create incentives for owners of commercial,
multi-family residential, and single-family residential buildings to
modify those buildings to increase their energy efficiency as
required under Section 8-14C;
(7)
evaluate options to minimize the impact on affordable housing of
achieving the ENERGY STAR rating as required under Section
8-14C;
(8)
evaluate options to encourage homeowners to conduct energy
audits as required under Section 40-13B;
(9)
prepare a Renewable Energy Action Plan as required under
Section 18A-16 and
(I
0) evaluate
the
costs
and
benefits
of
adopting
the
ASHRAEIUSGBCIIESNA Standard 189.1 as required under
Section 8-53.]
f:\law\bills\1406 office ofsustainability\bjlf 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
No. 6-14
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
[(g)
Additional duties.
The Group may also recommend, as appropriate, any
action that promotes the improvement of air and water quality, habitat
restoration, economic vitality, and a high quality of life for
a~l
County
residents. This and other duties of the Group must not infringe on or
restrict the County Planning Board's authority under state and County
laws to conduct land use and transportation planning and other relevant
planning and analysis.]
[(h)
Annual report.
By January 15 each year, the Group must submit to the
Executive and Council an annual report on:
(1)
(2)
its activities, accomplishments, plans, and objectives;
actions taken to implement the Climate Protection Plan, and
whether the County is meeting the goals identified in the Climate
Protection Plan as required under Section
18A-14;
(3)
the use of biodiesel fuels in County vehicles, results of the sport
utility vehicle inventory, and the average fuel economy for
passenger vehicles and light trucks in the County fleet as required
under Section
18A-23;
(4)
action taken
in the preceding year to implement the
Telecommuting Action Plan as required under Section 33-24; and
(5)
steps taking in the preceding year to implement the energy unit
savings plan and energy cost savings plan for each County
building as required under Section 8-14B.]
[(i)
Advocacy.
The Group must not engage in any legislative advocacy at
the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved by the Office
of Intergovernmental Relations.]
[G)
Staff.
The Chief Administrative Officer must provide appropriate staff
214
to the Group.]
(i)
f:\Iaw\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
ill)
Created.
The Department of Environmental Protection must create an
Office of Sustainability.
(Q)
Duties~
The Office must:
ill
ill
update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory as required under
Section 18A-14;
conduct the annual inventory of the County's sport utility
vehicles and develop criteria to identify positions in County
government that should be assigned sport utility vehicles as
required under Section 18A-19;
ill
develop an energy baseline, energy unit savings plan, and energy
cost savings plan for each County building as required under
Section 8-14B;
(i}
evaluate options to encourage homeowners to conduct energy
audits as required under Section 40-13B; and
prepare an annual report, as required in subsection
hl
ill
(£}
Annual report.
By January
U
each year, the Office must submit to the
County Executive and County Council an annual report on:
ill
ill
its activities, accomplishments, plans, and objectives;
actions taken to implement the Climate Protection Plan, and
whether the County is meeting the goals identified in the Climate
Protection Plan as required under Section 18A-14;
ill
the use of biodiesel fuels in County vehicles, results of the sport
utility vehicle inventory, and the average fuel economy for
passenger vehicles and ligh! trucks in the County fleet as required
under Section 18A-23; and
.@
f:\lawlbills\1406 office of sustainabililylbill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
6-14
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
ill
steps taken in the preceding year to implement the energy unit
savings plan and energy cost savings plan for each County
building as required under Section 8-14B.
18A-14.
Climate Protection Plan.
(a)
Inventory.
The Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must [conduct
a] update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory to determine the
amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the County and submit a written
report on the inventory to the County Executive and County Council by
January 15, [2009] 2015.
(b)
Reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions.
The [Sustainability Working
Group] Office must [prepare a] update the County Climate Protection
Plan by January 15, [2009 that outlines] 2015. This update must outline
a plan to reduce Countywide greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below
the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the base year identified in
the inventory prepared under subsection (a) by January 1, 2050,
including a plan to [stop increasing Countywide greenhouse gas
emissions by 2010 and] achieve a 10% reduction every 5 years through
2050.
*
(d)
*
*
Preparation.
In
preparing the update to the Climate Protection Plan, the
Office [Sustainability Working Group] must:
(1)
consider greenhouse gas emissions reduction programs in other
jurisdictions;
(2)
evaluate the potential costs and benefits of different options for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the County's economy,
environment, health, safety, and welfare; and
®
f:\law\bills\1406 office
of
sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
(3)
use the best available economic models, emissions estimating
techniques, and other scientific methods.
(e)
Annual report.
The [Sustainability Working Group] Office must submit
a report to the County Executive and County Council by January 15 of
each year that specifies:
(1)
the actions taken to implement the Climate Protection Plan in the
preceding fiscal year; and
(2)
whether the County is meeting the goals identified in the Climate
Protection Plan.
[18A-IS.
[(a)
Carbon tax] Resenred.
In this Section, the following words have the meanings indicated:
"Carbon tax' means a tax that is proportionate to the amount of carbon
dioxide produced by an energy source.
"Fuel energy tax" means the fuel energy tax imposed under Section 52­
14.
(b)
The Sustainability Working Group must:
(1)
evaluate the costs and benefits of converting the fuel energy tax
to a carbon tax; and
(2)
submit findings and recommendations to the County Executive
and County Council by January
15, 2009, including a
recommended methodology for converting the fuel energy tax to
a carbon tax.]
I8A-16.
[(a)
[Renewable Energy Action Plan] Resenred.
Definitions.
In this Section, the following words have the meanings
indicated:
"Department" means the Department of Environmental Protection.
f:\law\bills\1406 office
of
sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
"Director" means the Director of the Department or the Director's
designee.
"Renewable energy" means the following energy sources or technology:
(1)
solar;
wind-
,
geothermal;
tidal;
methane from anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in a
landfill or wastewater treatment plant; and
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
any other energy source or technology which the Director finds is
derived from natural processes that do not involve the
consumption of exhaustible resources_
"Sustainability Energy Fund" means a non-profit organization which:
(1)
develops end-user markets for products and services relating to
energy efficiency and renewable energy; and
(2)
serves as a point-of-contact for end-users to obtain information
about products and services relating to energy efficience and
renewable energy_
"Sustainability Working Group" means the Group defined in Section
18A-13.]
[(b)
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
Study.
The Sustainability Working Group must prepare a Renewable
Energy Action Plan after evaluating the costs and benefits of options to
increase renewable energy use in and by the County, including the
feasibility of creating a Sustainability Energy Fund.]
[(c)
Initial report.
The Sustainability Working Group must submit a report
to the County Executive and County Council by January 15, 2009 that
identifies the components ofthe Renewable Energy Action
Plan.]
f:\law\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 6-14
319
320
321
322
323
[(d)
Energy work program.
The County Executive's energy work program,
required by Section 18A-2, must identify any action necessary to
implement the Renewable Energy Action Plan.]
18A-17.
Definitions.
In this Article, the following words have the meanings indicated:
["]ASTM["]
means the American Society for Testing and Materials.
324
325
326
["]B20["]
means a biodiesel blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel
fuels.
327
328
["]Biodiesel["]
means any biomass-based diesel fuel certified by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
329
330
["]Biodiesel blend["]
means a blend of biodiesel fuel, designated BXX, where
XX represents the volume percentage ofbiodiesel fuel in the blend.
331
332
333
334
335
["]Car share program["]
means a program that allows County employees to
conduct County business using motor vehicles which:
(1)
(2)
are owned or leased by the County; and
County residents and businesses can lease when they are not being used
for County business.
336
337
["]County fleet["]
means all passenger vehicles and light trucks owned or
leased by the County.
338
339
340
341
342
["]County vehicle["]
means any motor vehicle owned or leased by the County.
["]Department["]
means the Department of General Services.
["]Diesel fuel["]
means a distillate fuel for use in diesel engines.
["]Director["]·
means the Director of the Department or the Director's
designee.
343
344
["]Fuel economy["]
means the federal Environmental Protection Agency's
combined (city and highway) fuel economy estimate for a vehicle.
@
f:lJaw\bills\1406 office of sustainabiJity\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 6-14
345
346
347
348
349
350
["]Light truck["J
means a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of less
than 8,500 pounds which is:
(1)
(2)
designed primarily for transporting property;
designed primarily for transporting persons and has a capacity of more
than 12 persons; or
(3)
available with special features that enable off-road operation or use.
351
352
["]Miles per gallon["]
means the distance traveled in a vehicle powered by one
gallon of fuel.
Office
Q[
Sustainability
or
Office
means the Office of Sustainability created in
353
354
Section 18A-13.
["]Passenger vehicle["]
means a motor vehicle, except a light truck or
355
356
motorcycle, designed to carry no more than 12 persons.
["]Public safety vehicle["]
means a motor vehicle whose primary purpose is
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
patrol, transport, emergency response, or another purpose that requires
specialized equipment or capabilities, which is used by:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
the Department of Police;
the Fire and Rescue Service;
the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation; or
any other County department or agency.
["Sustainability Working Group" means the Group defmed in Section 18A­
13.]
18A-19.
Sport utility vehicles.
(a)
The Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must conduct an annual
inventory ofthe County's sport utility vehicles and:
(1)
identify the function that each sport utility vehicle performs;
@
f:\law\bills\1406 office of sustainability\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
.390
391
392
393
394
395
(2)
identify the most fuel-efficient type of vehicle that could
reasonably and satisfactorily perform the function that each sport
utility vehicle performs; and
(3)
eliminate or replace any sport utility vehicle for which a more
fuel-efficient vehicle could reasonably and satisfactorily perform
the identified function.
(b)
The [Sustainability Working Group] Office must develop criteria to
identify which positions in County government should be assigned a
sport utility vehicle from the County fleet. The Director must follow
this criteria when assigning vehicles from the County fleet.
18A-20.
Fuel economy
standards.
The Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must develop a strategy
to achieve a significant improvement in average County fleet fuel
economy standards as part of the Climate Protection Plan required
under Section 18A-14.
(a)
(b)
18A-23.
[Applicability.]
This Section does not apply to public safety vehicles.
Annual report.
By January 15 each year, the Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must
submit to the County Executive and, County Council a report on the:
(a)
use ofbiodiesel in County vehicles, including the quantity, blend, price
per gallon, and average fuel consumption;
(b)
results of the inventory of sport utility vehicles conducted under Section
18A-19; and
(c)
average fuel economy for passenger vehicles and light trucks in the
County fleet.
40-13B.
Energy performance audits-single family
homes.
@
f:\Iaw\bills\1406 office of sustainabifity\bill1 ,doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.
6-14
396
397
398
399
(a)
Definitions.
In
this Section, the following words have the meanings
indicated:
["]Department["]
means the Department ofEnvironmental Protection.
["]Director["]
means the Director of the Department or the Director's
designee.
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
["]Home energy audit["]
means an evaluation of the energy efficiency
of a home which includes any test or diagnostic measurement which the
Department fmds necessary to:
(1)
(2)
ensure that a home's energy efficiency is accurately measured; or
identify steps that can be taken to improve a home's energy
efficiency.
OUice
gf
Sustainability
or
Office
means the Office of Sustainability
created in Section 18A-13.
["]Single:family homel"]
means a single-family detached or attached
residential building.
["Sustainability Working Group" means the Group defined in Section
18A-13.]
(b)
Before signing a contract for the sale of a single-family home, the seller
must provide the buyer with:
(1)
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
material approved by the Department that gives information
about home energy efficiency improvements, including the
benefit of conducting a home energy audit; and
(2)
copies of the electric, gas, and home heating oil bills or cost and
usage history for the single-family home for the immediate prior
12 months, unless the single- family home was unoccupied for
the entire prior 12 months. lfthe seller did not occupy the single­
family home for the entire prior 12 months, the seller must
®
f:\lawlbills\1406 office of sustainabilitylbill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 6-14
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
provide the buyer with the required inforrrlation for that part of
the prior 12 months, if any, that the seller occupied the single­
family home.
(c)
The Office of Sustainability [Working Group] must evaluate options to
encourage homeowners to conduct a home energy audit, including
whether the County should require a home energy audit to be conducted
before the sale of a single-family home.
Approved:
430
431
Craig
L.
Rice, President, County Council
Date
432
433
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
434
435
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\Iaw\billS\1406 office
of
sustainability\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLA"rIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 6-14
Environmental Sustainability
-
Office ofSustainability
-
Established
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
Would create an Office of Sustainability in the Department of
Environmental Protection.
In 2008, the Council tasked a Sustainability Working Group with the
responsibility of guiding our County's greenhouse gas reduction
implementation. The Working Group has not met or produced
anything in recent years.
To make greenhouse gas reduction policy and its implementation a
fundamental responsibility of County government, with concomitant
accountability.
Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Management and
Budget, County Executive
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Amanda Mihill, 240-777-7815
To be researched.
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORlVIATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable.
F:\LAw\BILLS\1406 Office OfSustainability\LEGlSLAT1VE REQUEST REPORT.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
tvlARY1J\.]\J D
MEMORANDUM
February 5, 21H4
1'0:
FROM:
Craig Rice,
Jennifer A.
Jos(''Ph F. Fllle, I,
'-./
~~ce
r
of Management and Budget
paltment of Finance
SUBJECTS:
Bill
Enviromiic1ltal
Sustainability - Buildings-Benchmarking
Bill 3-14, Buildings·... Energy Efficiency····· Energy Standards
Bill 4-14, Street and Roads .... County Street Lights
Bill 5·l4, Environmental Sustainability·· Social Cost of Carbon Assessments
Bill 6-14, Environmental Sustalnability - Office of Sustain ability - Established
Bill
7·14, Contracts llnd Procurement - Certified Green Business Program
Bill 8-14, Buildings - County Buildings ..... Clean Energy Renc\vable Technology
Bill ]4, Environmental Sustainability - Renewable Energy - County Purchase
BiU 10-14, Buildings --
Solar Permits- Expt;:dited
Review
Bill 11
Buildings ... Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permits ,- Expedited
Review
As required
by
Section 2-811\ ofthe Coumy Code, we are infonning you that transmittal of
the fiscal and economic irnpact
~lat0rnents
for the above referenced legislation
will
be delayed
because more time is needed to coordillate with the affected departrnents, collect 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
fitll
capital
budget and an ,)perating budget, rhe l1scnl and economic statements
will
be transmitted after March
17,2014,
JAH:fz
cc; Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Excctltive
Joy Nurmi. Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lncefield, Director, Public Information Office
Marc P. Bansen,
Office
of the
COllnty
Attorney
Robert
Department of Finance
Dnvid
Platt
Department of Finance
Alex Espinosa,
of Management and Budget
Mary
Beck, Office of
Mallagement
and Budget
NaeemMia. Office of Management
lInd
Budget
Fel icia
Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTTh'lONY 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 planning: understanding how existing buildings perform 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 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.
 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,
~
i
(In
\\1.,.../
I
h·-'
V'"
w
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 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 1
kw/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
ASH RAE 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.
 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 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
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 (lgCe). 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
developerllandscape 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 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 .Iuly 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
8
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, ASH RAE 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 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@qmail.com
Eileen Emmet, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, eemmet.aia@qmail.com
William (Bill) LeRoy, AlA, IgCC Task Force Co-Chair, wI70@icioud.com
Attachment A: AIA-PV July 30, 2013 IgCC Executive Summary
Attachment B: AIA-PV ASH RAE 189.1 Recommendations
cc DPS: Hadi Mansouri, hadl.mansouri@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Mark Nauman, mark.nauman@montgomerycountymd.gov
Hemal Mustafa, hemal.mustafa@montgomervcountymd.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
Mihill. Amanda
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Faden, Michael
Tuesday, February 11,
2014
1
: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, touncilmember; Eirich's Office, Councilmember; Andrews's Office, Councilmember;
Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Branson's Office, Councilmember; 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 Councilmember 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 trend toward green certification at
the LEED certified, IgCC 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 benchmarktng 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(U;mncbia.or!r
(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
Join us for breakfast. Cllck here
Feb. 21
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
THE
VOICE
OF
MONTGOldERY COUNTY BUSINESS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
BILLS 2-14 THROUGH 12-14
FEBRUARY 10,2014
As a Chamber of Commerce that recognizes the economic and environmental imperative of
greening the way we do business, we commend the County Council for the intent of this package
of bills. We believe that positioning our county as a place to do green business is a compelling
competitive advantage in today's marketplace. Supporting a green infrastructure is critical, as is
growing the number of green jobs that are created to meet the needs of the new marketplace.
There are, however, areas of concern with regard to the package. Below are specific comments on
a few of the bills. Broadly speaking, the fiscal impact statements will likely address the costs
associated with the various activities.
It
will be important to review these so as not to impose
undo burden as we try to move the marketplace. Where possible, incentives should be deployed
to encourage adoption of new practices and attainment of environmentally sustainable goals. We
would also like to see these bills work in concert with other county regulations so there is not
confusion in following or enforcing the regulations.
We see green as part of a larger economic development strategy for the county. The Green
Business Certification program is a terrific example of the business community working
partnership with the Department of Environmental Protection and Montgomery College to
achieve environmental goals through a voluntary program. We look forward to working with you,
the County Council, to make sure this package is able to realize the stated intention of addressing
climate change at the local level to the greatest extent possible.
in
Comments on specific bills:
Bill 7-14 Contracts and Procurement -Certified Green Business Program
We applaud the County Council for recognizing the Montgomery County Green Business
Certification Program and finding ways to incentivize those companies interested in working with
the county to participate. We encourage the county government - or units within it - to become
"Green Certified" and to green its own supply chain by using environmentally preferable
purchasing of products and practices where appropriate. There is a green procurement bill
requested by DGS (HB 629) pending at the state which could serve as a guide.
According to the information provided by the Council staff, "The goal is to encourage businesses to
develop strategies for protecting the environment in their day to day operations." If the goal is
Gigi Godwin, President and CEO
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
51 Monroe Street, Suite 1800 Rockville, MD 20850
301-738-0015
www.montgomerycountychamber.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,.
{
indeed to encourage more businesses to adopt green practices internally (such that they can be
certified by Montgomery County or another comparable entity), the county may also want to
explore using one or more of the many tools available outside of the county procurement process
and appropriate to all businesses to incentivize that initiative.
Coincidentally, there is also a bill in the General Assembly that focuses on creating Green Business
Incentive Zones (HB 473/SB 787) which also encourages the growth and success of this new
market player by offering incentives such as tax credits.
This bilt as drafted, uses the procurement process and the opportunity to gain preference as an
incentive. The procurement process is complex. Any modification to that process should be to
make it easier to do business with the county. We are concerned that by restricting the language
to "percentage price preference companies that do have the right products or services, but have
not met the green business certification preference, may be at a disadvantage that ultimately
undermines the overall effort to reduce our collective ecological footprint. Therefore, we suggest
reviewing the ways that the procurement process can be used effectively, perhaps by including
green certification in the evaluation criteria or as a "tip over:' This may more effectively
encourage companies to green themselves without inadvertently making the procurement
process more cumbersome and ultimately counter-productive in meeting the goal. It is worth
noting that ilpercentage price preference" language was struck from HB 629 mentioned above.
IJ
Bill
2-141
Environmental Sustainability - Buildings - Benchmarking
To the extent that buildings are a critical piece ofthe climate puzzle, it is important to understand
energy usage and work to conserve where we can. That being said, we encourage the Council to
look to federal regulations as many tenants in the county are federal offices or contract with the
federal government. Therefore, any new requirements for owners and/or tenants should conform
to federal standards.
Second, we firmly believe that if the county requires benchmarking of private property owners,
the county must be able to participate in the program as well. Taxpayers should know the
efficiency of the buildings they are paying to operate. Last, for those older buildings that will be
among the least efficient, the program must provide some process to help with mitigation,
whether it be providing priority for county programs or other education and incentives to address
problems.
Bill
5-141
Environmental Sustainability - Social Cost of Carbon Assessments
It is unclear, based on our reading of this bilt how the EPA method that was developed for
regulations/legislation would be applied to Capital Improvement Projects or energy efficiency
improvements in general.
It
is also unclear how information gleaned from the calculation would
be used to reach any conclusion on the viability of a project.
Gigi Godwin, President and CEO
Montgomery County 01amber of Commerce
51
Monroe Street, Suite
1800
Rockville, MD
20850
301-738-0015
www.moJ1tgomerycountychamber.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill 6-14, Environmental Sustainability- Office of Sustainability - Established
Based on the bill as written, this new office would record and manage the county's greenhouse gas
emissions. We see Montgomery County's position as a leader in sustainability as a driver of
economic development. We therefore believe that this effort should include an economic
development component as well as clear coordination with the extensive land use and
transportation work that happens throughout the county government and with Park and
Planning. In addition to producing an annual report, there should be some demonstrable gain to
county taxpayers to justify the creation of a new office, which will require additional staffing and
new responsibilities.
With regard to the remaining bills that are part of this package, we would encourage Council
Members to be mindful of hidden costs and unintended consequences that may arise from the
adoption of some of these bills. We hope that the fiscal impact statement will speak to some of
these and that the committee work sessions will be constructive and produce useful information.
As mentioned at the outset, we see green as part of a larger economic development strategy for
the county. We look forward to working with you to make sure this package is able to realize the
stated intention of addressing climate change at the local level to the greatest extent possible.
Gigi Godwin, President and CEO
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
51 Monroe Street, Suite 1800 Rockville, MD 20850
301-738-0015
www.montgomerycountychamber.com
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.3
Testimony of Montgomery County Sierra Club
Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Michal
Freedman and I am here as a member of the Montgomery County Sierra Club Executive
Committee, representing the more than 5,000 Sierra Club members in Montgomery County.
We applaud Councilmember Roger Berliner and the cosponsors for introducing this suite of
bills. We support these bills because they demonstrate a commitment to the crucial goals of
climate mitigation and sustainability.
Our organization, the Sierra Club, has made averting climate change a core goal. Michael Brune,
the Executive Director, said: "we are watching a global crisis unfold before our eyes, and to
stand aside and let it happen - even though we know how to stop it - would be
unconscionable."
Climate change calls for national and international responses, but greenhouse gas emissions are
generated
loc~lIy.
Some cities across the country are making aggressive efforts to reduce their
contribution to climate change. But it is rare to hear of counties taking on climate change. By·
taking the lead on curbing fossil fuel use, Montgomery County can serve as a model for other
counties.
There are a few key elements to successful public initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
First, set clear, quantifiable goals for reducing energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, ensure that information on progress or lack of it is fully available to the public,
both to ensure public accountability and to make private markets in energy
consumption work better. Good data drives market energy choices and innovation.
Third, allocate sufficient resources to effectively carry out the new, official duties.
These are the elements we want to focus on: quantifiable goals, public data, adequate
resources. In our comments we will highlight the importance of these elements and, in some
cases, advocate for strengthening the bills to help achieve them.
The first key element we have emphasized for reducing fossil fuel consumption - setting a
clear, quantifiable goal- is illustrated by Bill
9-14,
which requires the County to purchase
specific percentages of renewable energy. The goal is absolutely clear and quantifiable. By
2020, the county's electric power usage should be supplied entirely by renewable energy.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill 2-14, the Benchmarking bill, relies on the second element, the power of public information
to reduce energy use and fossil fuel consumption. The bill would require large building owners
to measure the energy efficiency of their buildings and make that information public.
Building owners and real estate companies will have the information they need to make cost­
saving energy investments. The Chairman and CEO of a large real estate company, U.S. Equities,
said "U.S. Equities includes benchmarking energy use ofthe buildings in our portfolio and using
that data to drive results. Our buildings see better financial and leasing performance as their
environmental performance improves."
A Chicago ordinance on benchmarking that serves as a model for this bill was backed by a
coalition of more than 80 leading organizations from Chicago's real estate, energy, and
environmental communities. More than 50 national, regional and local governments around
the world have rating and disclosure policies for commercial buildings.
According to the EPA, benchmarking buildings have achieved an average energy savings of 7%
over a recent three year period. If all buildings in the U.S. followed this trend, over 18 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents could be saved each year, the equivalent of
eliminating car emissions from about 3 million cars each year. For these reasons the
Montgomery County Sierra Club strongly supports this bill.
Now, I want to turn now to Bill 6-14, which would create a new Office of Sustainability within
the Department of Environmental Protection, authorized to carry out a number of critical
duties. These include updating the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the County;
updating the Climate Protection Plan to ensure reducing Countywide greenhouse gas emissions
to a specific level at a specific rate of reduction; and issuing an annual report on whether the
County is meeting these goals. So for the County as a whole, the bill sets a quantitative goal for
greenhouse gas emissions and requires reports on whether the goal is being met.
But the bill also would attempt to address the County's own contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions. And here we recommend adding explicit goals for the County's own operations. The
bill would require the Office of Sustainabilityto develop energy saving plans for County
buildings and the submission of reports annually on "steps taken" to implement the plans. The
bill, however, would not set a goal for reducing County government energy consumption or
greenhouse gas emissions, as the Climate Protection Plan does for county-wide greenhouse gas
emissions. Without explicit goals, there is no basis for determining whether the steps taken are
adequate and effective.
Establishing clear, quantifiable county government goals is the way to reduce government
emissions and can lead to reductions in non-governmental emissions as well. New York City set
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030. Its emissions dropped 19%
between 2005 and 2013. But the effects of the city goal went beyond reduced city emissions.
Mayor Bloomberg challenged the city's universities and hospitals to do better than the
Government and reduce their emissions by 30% in 10 years. Seventeen of NYC's universities
and 11 of its major hospital systems agreed to the challenge. Five of these institutions have
already achieved the goal.
In Boston Mayor Menino set a goal to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels by
2012. By 2011 Boston had reduced city emissions by 9%.
In 2009 the City of Phoenix completed a Climate Action Plan to reduce city greenhouse gas
emissions to 5% below the 2005 levels by 2015. The city exceeded this goal in four years.
Our County can do this as well.
Recommendation #1: We recommend that Bill 6-14 set a quantifiable goal for greenhouse gas
reduction in Montgomery County Government operations.
Bill 6-14 also would work to encourage greater fuel economy in the County fleet. The bill would
require the Office to decide when sports utility vehicles should be replaced by more fuel­
efficient vehicles and discourage excessive use of fuels in other ways. But the bill sets no
specific goal for fuel reduction. Setting a goal encourages the Government to consider a range
of fuel-saving behaviors, like car-pooling and telephone conferencing. As we have emphasized,
a quantifiable goal provides a yardstick to measure progress. The City of Boston set a goal of
reducing total fuel consumption by 5% over five years by 2012. Our County could adopt a goal
like this as well.
Bill 6-14 creates a new Office of Sustainability that is tasked with wide-ranging responsibilities
for guiding our County's greenhouse gas reduction implementation. In order for the Office to
achieve its goals, it must be provided with adequate financial resources. Currently, most of the
budget of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is provided by dedicated funds for
water quality and waste disposal that would be unavailable for the new Office of Sustain ability.
Recommendation #2: We recommend dedicated funding to support the extra DEP positions
required to undertake the Office's new duties and for any additional technical assistance that
may be needed, such as consultants. A dedicated fund (comparable to that for water quality
and waste disposal) for sustainability and carbon reduction work could be obtained from
sources such as the energy tax.
Bill 6-14 requires the Office of Sustainability to create energy cost savings and other plans for
County buildings across departments. Fostering coordination for such interdepartmental
3
35,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
programs strengthens their efficacy. Whether through liaisons, additional coordination at the
County Executive level, or specific reporting requirements, such a mechanism must be
considered to assure compliance across all departments.
Recommendation #3: We recommend that the bill (6-14) specify a mechanism for ensuring
implementation of its requirements across departments.
Bill 6-14 for would also encourage residential home-owners to reduce energy use. The bill
would require home sellers to provide buyers with information on possible generic home
energy efficiency improvements and copies of utility
bi"s~
This information could encourage
sellers to improve their energy cOnsumption profiles or even increase the number of buyers
making future energy remediations. By taking these steps, home owners will experience
reduced energy and maintenance costs, as well as an improved indoor environment. Again, we
must think about what type of information will most influence the market in energy efficiency.
We support requiring the Office of Sustainability to evaluate whether the home seller should
provide the buyer with a Home Energy Score, a quantifiable metric that was developed by the
U.S. Department of Energy and would allow the buyer to compare homes along a uniform scale.
Just as benchmarking facilitates comparisons between buildings to encourage energy efficiency,
so too a Home Energy Score could create a market for residential energy efficiency.
Recommendation #4: In Bill 6-14, we recommend requiring the Office of Sustainability to
evaluate whether the home seller should provide the buyer with a Home Energy Score for the
home being marketed.
As Councilmember Berliner wrote, the Office of Sustainability created by this bill is in aid of
holding ourselves accountable for climate mitigation. Conferring with members of the public
who are committed to climate mitigation would aid the Office in carrying out its duties.
Recommendation #5: In order to ensure that there is regular public input, support, and
accountability for the Office of Sustainability's actions and goals, we recommend that Bill 6-14
establish a public committee or advisory group. Such a group should include County residents
from a variety of sectors such as civic organizations, business, labor, nonprofit organizations,
health care, education and faith based organizations, to help shape carbon reduction programs
that are tailored to our County.
The Montgomery County Sierra Club supports these bills. They demonstrate a recognition that
Montgomery County must do its part to mitigate climate change. We urge the Council to
incorporate our recommendations and enact these bills.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Submission of Executive Committee of the Montgomery County Sierra Club Regarding the 13
Energy/Environmental Initiatives
The Executive Committee of the Montgomery County Sierra Club provided written testimony to
the Montgomery County Council on February 11, 2014, on 13 energy/environmental legislative
initiatives. As we stated in oral testimony, we support these measures. We also maintain that there are
ways in which these initiatives could be strengthened to more effectively fulfill their objectives. Our
testimony of February 11, 2014, explains the bases for our recommendations.
Below we provide the five specific recommendations made in our testimony, and an additional
sixth recommendation. In the attachment, we provide suggested legislative language for
recommendations
4,5,
and
6 .
.
Recommendations:
1.
We recommend that Bill
6-14
set a quantifiable goal for greenhouse gas reduction in
Montgomery County Government operations.
2.
We recommend dedicated funding to support the extra DEP positions required to undertake
the Office's new duties and for any additional technical assistance that may be needed, such as
consultants. A dedicated fund (comparable to that for water quality and waste disposal) for
sustainability and carbon reduction work could be obtained from sources such as the energy
tax.
3. We recommend that Bill
6-14
specify a mechanism for ensuring implementation of its
requirements across departments.
4.
We recommend that Bill
6-14
require the Office of Sustainability evaluate whether the home
seller should provide the buyer with a Home Energy Score for the home being marketed.
5. We recommend that Bill
6-14
establish a public committee or advisory group to ensure that
there is regular public input, support, and accountability for the Office of Sustainability's actions
and goals. Such a group should include County residents from a variety of sectors such as civic
organizations, business, labor, nonprofit organizations, health care, education and faith based
organizations, to help shape carbon reduction programs that are tailored to our County.
6.
We recommend that Bill
6-14
require that the Office of Sustainability apply a scoring system
designed to compare local jurisdictions on energy efficiency policies and programs, such as the
one developed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This sixth recommendation is made because, in the words of ACEEE, the Scorecard "offers the
beginning of a roadmap for any local government aiming to improve its ...energy efficiency
through the most effective means possible; learning from other [local jurisdictions'] successes
and customizing best practice strategies to suit the local context and their community's
priorities."
Proposed legislative language is incorporated in the attachment for recommendations 4,5, and
6.
2
®
 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.
2 of4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
'.'\
b. Commercial Construction is dead - inside beltway development activity is
11-1 residential! 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 Sustainability
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! 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. Basica"y 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
41
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
\
I(
f_._
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
GEOSOlARENERGY
Box 2171
Gaithersburg, Md. 20886
301 926-1891
xl
GeoSolarEnergy@Verizon.Net
February 9,2014
Mr. Roger Berliner
Mr. George Leventhal
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Subject: Support oflegislation for Bills 3-14, 8-14 and proposed legislation to
increase renewable energy usage via Energy Guide
This letter contains background on how our company has standing to support
energy legislation and it contains a proposal for legislation that we talked over
with you in the past regarding how to stimulate the County's Renewable Energy
industry.
1.
We are the oldest Renewable Energy Company in Montgomery County
Company background:
In 1976
I
installed Maryland's first Ground Water Heat
Pump (GWHP)/GeoThermal system (Geo) in my own home. Because of the Oil
Embargo of 1973, America was intensely interested in energy conservation
leading to publicity in the local press. This resulted in many requests from
homeowners for systems in their homes, thus, GeoSolar Energy was born. Once I
became the leading supplier in the three state area in the 1980's, I was appointed
to the Governor's commission to study and promote GWHP during 1980
&
1981.
We had numerous meetings and the overall result was to enact rules which
encouraged the installation ofGWHP's. I applied and received a patent for the
technology and trained many installers and drillers in the area on how to install
the technology.
We are the area's Bosch GeoThermal Distributor and have sold/installed over a
1,000 Geo systems and have learned a lot about the technology and the marketing
of it. DOE/EPA has given Bosch an award as the most energy efficient heat
pump manufacturer. Last spring, I exhibited a working system at the home show
in Germantown and met George Leventhal at our booth. We continue to conduct
research development and have produced some of the most advanced technology
in the industry in both the commercial and residential sectors. To that end, we
support bills 3-14, 8-14.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Here are our ideas for advancing the number of renewable installations and for
improving energy efficiency in Maryland:
2. Geo installs seem to have leveled out - We estimate that the number ofGeo
Units installed in Maryland is probably less than 10,000 which is an insignificant
number compared to the millions of total housing units. This dynamic is not
likely to change without continuing legislative support.
3. The public still does not know about Geo - We have been promoting the
technology at various shows and fairs for years but the public is still not familiar
with the technology. As you know, the property tax credits in Montgomery and
Howard Counties are gone and we believe that this has resulted in declining sales.
4. Geo is easier to install in new buildings - It is far easier to install Geo in new
structures than existing buildings but the builders are not interested in promoting
it since it adds complexity and they are trying to keep their own costs down ­
even if this approach increases operating costs to their customers.
5. We believe builders should provide energy usage data for new single family
houses and new commercial buildings - Builders who are constructing new
structures should disclose single year and 20 year estimated operating costs for
renewable energy as well as other sources of energy such as air source heat
pumps, gas, propane, Geo and solar if possible.
6. Close the Loop Hole in Single Family Homes - Homeowners spend 65% of
their energy consumption on space heating, air conditioning
&
water heating. In
2008, the Montgomery County Council passed legislation (County Council Bill
31-07) that ensures transparency to home buyers by requiring that sellers provide
an energy cost history. However, a significant gap exists: new home sales.
Builders are not required to disclose what operating costs will be to homeowners
even if the home is marketed as an Energy Star home. Thus, new homeowners
may-be shocked to move into their new Energy Star rated and advertised home
only to discover that it can actually cost over $6,000 per year to heat, cool and
produce hot water for a 4,000 square foot home.
7. Commercial Buildings and Kentlands Community Center - The State of
Maryland awarded a competitive Game Changer Grant to our firm and the
Kentlands Community to install Geo at their office building this past summer.
Thus far there has been a 40% reduction in energy usage. All Montgomery
County Schools that have been built or remodeled in the last 5 years have had
Geo installed. The Schools expects that their payback will be 7 years. Though
our focus has been on residential, we believe the County will benefit from an
energy guide that shows energy usage per square foot of commercial building.
For the rest ofthis letter we are going to focus on residential since we are more
familiar with these constructions.
8. We don't think the builders should be forced to offer Renewable Svstems­
We would not force the builder to offer these technologies but have prospective
buyers sign a form showing that the builder has disclosed their projected energy
cost. We think that this awareness will lead home-buyers to consider energy costs
and gravitate to houses with renewable energy. Over time, this will create
demand for renewable systems which builders will want to offer.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9. Many builders are installing propane - Propane is the most expensive fuel (4
times that of Geo) in homes throughout the area. I have tried to convince builders
to offer Geo to their customers but they refuse. Not only is propane an expensive
hidden cost to prospective homeowners, but propane delivery trucks polluting the
air. In addition, because propane is not a regulated industry, this past January
saw shortages and the price doubled in some parts of the country.
10. Every energy consuming device requires labels disclosing operating costs:
except homes - Virtually every appliance or device sold has an energy guide
attached. This includes TVs, dishwashers, refrigerators, air conditioners,
automobiles, etc. but not homes. Homes consume more energy than any other
single consumer purchase yet there is no standardized home rating system. Home
owners might think an Energy Star rating ensures clean, low-cost homes.
However, this is not the case. Figure 1 contains an example of a standard Energy
Guide for appliances. We recommend using this as the model for a home Energy
Guide.
11. Estimating energy cost data for a new home is easy - I am a graduate engineer,
have an MBA and know how to estimate the cost ofthe various fuels for any
house. We have developed these tools and offer estimates to our customers.
National manuals such as ACCA and ASRAE show how to calculate operating
costs. AHRI rates the efficiency of all equipment including heat pumps, furnaces,
air conditioners and Geo. There are several firms that could independently create
an energy guide for each house for sale. Figure 2 shows a sample guide that we
have prepared.
12. Montgomery County Residents are the most educated population in the
County and we think that they would positively respond to the proposed
Energy Guide - With this legislation, we believe that prospective home buyers
will make the intelligent tradeoff of energy cost vs other features of prospective
new homes.
13. Cost to the County would be minimal - The only cost to the County would be
set this program up by hiring an independent consultant to develop this program
and educate builders.
14. We need your help to sponsor legislation to set this program
up
-
Figure 3
contains proposed legislation.
We think that this would do more to stimulate the sales of Geo systems when
consumers see that Geo is the least expensive operating cost at a fraction ofthe
cost offuels such as propane. We would be glad to work with you to develop
legislation and the framework to implement such a program.
Michael Heavener
President
Attachments
Cc: Other Montgomery County Council Members
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
U.S. Government
Federal law
prohibits
removal of tl'lis
before consumer
PIJ'~ase,
aSH
Home Appliances CorponJlion
Mode!(s)
BOSCH SHE3AR,SHX3AR,
SHX2AR, SHE2AR
"Estimated Yearly Operating Cost
(when used with ail electric water heater)
$30
$20
Cost Range of Similar Models
I
T
$50
279
kWh
Estimated Yearly Electricity Use
$23
Estimated Yearly Operating Cost
(when used with anatural gas
water
heater)
Your cost
will
depend on your utility rates and use.
• Cost range based only on standard capacity models.
• Estimated operating cost based on four wash loads a week. and a 2007
national average electricity cost of 10.65 cents per kWh and natural gas
cost of
$1.218
per thermo
• For more information, visit wwwJtc.gov/appliances,
ENERGY STAR
9000754412 Rev, A 02i12
Figure I Appliance Energy Guide
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Energy
Com pa rison
BuiMer. Energy Star certified fJuiJder
HC!J$.r!
Size:
4000
sq
It
Lorotion: Montgomery County, MD
One Year Energy Cost
'One Ve.ar
Total Energy Cost
[20
ye/m
of
bom_rsmp)
$400,000
$300,000
fA
$250,000
o
V
\oJ
I
$150,000
i!ii
$200,000
Figure 2 - Proposed Home Energy Guide
'17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Amendment to 31-07
This amendment is to expand bill 31-07 to require home builders to
include an Energy Guide in marketing and sales material for new home
sales. Data on the total cost of ownership for energy consumption will be
included. The annual costs will be provided along with what the same
house would cost with alternate energy options. The Energy Guide will
include:
• Annual cost to heat and cool home with oil, propane, air source
heat pumps, geothermal heat purnps
• A graphical representation and comparison of this data
• The Energy Guide will be prominently displayed in model homes
and all marketing materials
Figure 3
Proposed Legislation
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
u.s·NoeI>EAAD~GT
Renewable
Energy
E
ft
0yF
I
Energy
Efficiency
&
""
~
~~
~,,*
HOME ENERGY SCORE
~
'It
.
~
~
" { "'"
~'"
@
~.m
Frequently Asked Questions for Homeowners
What tvpcs of hom.::s can get a
Horne
Energv
Scon::~'?
What docs the Qualified Assessor look for during a Ih)111e Energv S...:orc walk-through?
Does a horne with a poor (lower)Seore always use
mOf(.'
energy than a home with a better
(h;ght'r)
Score?
\Vould my Score be the sarne in different parts of the coun!!)'?
If
a home
scores
a 10 does this mean the home has zero
energy
consumption and zero
enenrv
costs?
J.:hs;_HmJ,lC E..ncrgy..
S.;;;Q.ri.!lKIQQL~ al.£uJ.fl.1g.~
__
\;11Q!:gy
sa
vinz~
.
J?.i!~.~.gj211
the
pghI1yjQ.L.91)LC!:pi
ca
llt..
QnKQ:rm~J.,J.;LiL
H.Q:'i;iibJt;;
to
.f'!J..~J.Q.mi:!:.~J:.b
.
~
. .
!;?JJergY ..
~.f1.y.ing;i_bas~.q.5.Hl
(lL'
tlla/Ji:lJ.:!1
i
luL{;g~n4
.
fl..S.:ni.aL?nergv
cQ!l~ll..illPJi.Q.!ll
How rrmch does
anasscssment
cost
homeowners?
How .long docs it take to realize savings from
the
Score's recommendations?
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
HOME ENERGY SCORE
What is a Home Energy Score?
The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Home Energy Score provides information that helps you understand
your home
'5
energy efliciency and how to improve it. The Home Energy Score is comprised of three parts includ­
ing:
1)
the Score itself: 2) facts about your home, and 3) recommended improvements to increase your Score.
After a 1
~hour
energy assessment by a qualified home energy assessor ("Qualified Assessor"), you will receive a
Score that rates your home on a simple I to 10 scale. A Score of a" I" represents the least energy efficient home
and a" I0" represents the most energy efficient home. The Score also shows you where your home would rank if
you made the
energy~saving
improvements identified during your home walk-through. The Home Energy Score
and associated report is generated through DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory software called the
Home Energy Scoring Tool.
Why should I get a Home Energy Score?
Your Home Energy Score \-vin show you how your home's efficiency compares to other homes, and will identify
energy improvements that will save
YOll
money and raise your Score. As an added bonus, these improvements will
likely enhance how comfbrtable you feel in your home and may improve the air quality in your home. If you've
already made home energy improvements, your Score can officially recognize your home's higher perf()rmance
level-a useful indicator if you're planning on selling your home soon.
What types of homes can get a Home Energy Score?
At this time, only single family homes and townhomes can be scored. Multifamily and mobile homes cannot be
scored.
How do I get a Home Energy Score?
In 2012, the Home Energy Score is only available in areas served by DOE's official Home Energy Score Partners.
A list of current Partners can be found at
Uyou live in one of these areas, contact
the Partner organization to schedule a Home Energy Score. DOE plans to continue to expand the program as new
Partners come on board. If there is no Partner in your area, ask your local utility or state energy office when the
Home Energy Score will be available in your area. You may also be able to tind a qualifying home inspector in
your area who is working und;;r one of DOE
'8
national Partners.
What does the Qualified Assessor look for during a Home Energy Score
walk~through?
When yom Qualified Assessor does the walk-through of your home, she or he will collect about 40 pieces of
infonnation. Information about your our home's "envelope" (insulation, windows, etc.) as well as its heating,
cooling and hot water systems will be entered into the Home Energy Scoring Tool software. Information about
how residents operate the hOllse and non·permanent hOllse features like lighting, home electronics and appliances
are not included in the Score calculation since these are not considered to be fixed assets.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
HOME ENERGY SCORE
How is the Home Energy Score calculated?
To calculate a home 'sScore, a qualified home energy assessor inputs information about a home's characteristics
into an energy modeling software developed by DOE and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Based on
these home characterist.ics, the software estimates the home's annual energy use, assuming typical homeowner
behavior. The software then converts the estimated energy use into a Score, based on a IO-point scale. This scale
accounts fbI' differences in weather conditions by using the zip code to assign the house to one of more than
1,000 weather stations. The Home Energy Scoring Tool software was designed so that Scores for different homes
can be compared to one another regardless of where the homes are located or the number of people currently
living in those homes.
Does a home with a poor (lower) Score always use more energy than a home with a better
(higher) Score?
A home with a lower Score does not necessarily use more energy than a home with a higher Score. The Home
Energy Score is designed as an "asset rating" meaning that the Score reflects a home's structure and mechanical
systems-for instance its insulation, air leakiness and heating and cooling equipment-not how the occupants use
the home. For example, a family that Sets their thermostat very low in the summer to keep cool, and never turns
off lights and electronics, may still have very high energy bills even in a high-scoring, efficient home.
Homes in different parts of the country use different amounts of energy because of climatic differences.
A
high­
scoring home in New England may still use more energy than a drafty home in Southern California just because
of the difference in climate.
Does the size of my home matter?
Ycs, the size of your horne matters becausc larger homes tend to use more energy.
If
two houses have the same
structure and equipment, but one is bigger, the smaller
hOllse
will generally receive a higher (better) Score.
Would my Score be the same in different parts of the country?
Yes. You can use the Home Energy Score (in general) to compare one home to another in a different part of the
country. However, you cannot use the Home Energy Score to compare your
energy bill
to another home across the
country. The Home Energy Scoring Tool software takes into account the typical range of energy consumption in
the region where you live and scores your home against that range. (See question "How is the Home Energy Score
calculated?" answered above).
What's the average Score?
Just like there is no average home, there is no average Score. More important than knowing how a home com­
pares to the average is seeing how it compares to other homes that you might be looking at, and most importantly
how well it could score with cost-effective improvements. The Score tells you what your improved Score would
be
if
you made the recommended energy upgrades.
If a home scores a 10 does this mean the home has zero energy consumption and zero
energy costs?
No.
It
means that the home uses very little energy given where it is located in the country.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
HOME ENERGY SCORE
The Home Energy Scoring Tool calculates energy savings based on the behavior of a typi­
cal homeowner. Is it possible to customize the energy savings based on actual family size
and actual energy consumption?
Not with the Home Energy Scoring Tool itself. However, additional information about the home and the home­
owner's behavior can be added in through a consumer tool called "Ilome Energy Saver." The information that the
Qualified Assessor enters into the Home Energy Scoring Tool will be available to the homeowner through Home
Energy Saver.
A
homeowner can access that information and add fields to customize the infomlation about how
they use the home as well as data about non-fixed assets such as lighting and electronics. The Homc Energy Saver
lets you compare different combinations of home energy improvements and gives you the opportunity to enter in
the estimated cost of improvements if you have received
estimatt~s.
How much does an assessment cost homeowners?
The cost of the Score will depend on what the market allows in that area. DOE does not control the fees charged
by Qualified Assessors. The Home
Score will often be offered as part of other audit or inspection services,
so the cost may be built into the tee for another service.
How can a homeowner finance the recommended energy improvements suggested in the
Home Energy Score?
Homeowners should work with their energy improvement contractor or utility and visit www,dsircusa,org to find
out about local. state, and federal incentive programs.
How long does it take to realize savings from the Score's recommendations?
The total savings estimate shown with the home's Score reflects the gross energy cost savings that would result
over 10 years from completing all the recommended improvements. The recommendations page lists annual dollar
savings per improvement. Homeowners should expect to realize some savings as soon as they make improve­
ments-ho'r'lcver, the time required to recover the cost of making the improvements will vary depending upon the
individual case. Some improvements can pay off within a couple of years; others take longer. Energy improve­
ments recommended by the Home Energy Scoring Tool will generally pay back in 10 years or less.
Visit homeenergyscore.gov for more information.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
~CEEE::
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2013
STATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCORECARD
November 2013
Conversations about energy use in the United States often revolve around the need to support the
growth of our national economy through expanding the energy supply. There is, however, a resource
that is cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to deploy than building new supply-energy efficiency. Energy
efficiency improvements help businesses, governments, and consumers meet their needs by using
less
energy, saving them money, driving investment across all sectors of the economy, creating much
needed jobs, and reducing the myriad of environmental impacts of the energy production system.
Governors, legislators, regulators, and citizens are increasingly recognizing that energy efficiency is a
crucially important state resource. In fact, a great deal of the innovation in policies and programs that
promote energy efficiency originates in states. The
2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
captures
this activity through a comprehensive analysis of state efforts to support energy efficiency.
In this seventh edition of ACEEE's
State Energy Efficiency Scorecard,
we rank states on their policy
and program efforts, and provide recommendations for ways that states can improve their energy
efficiency performance in a variety of policy areas. The
State Scorecard
serves as a benchmark for
state efforts on energy efficiency policies and programs each year, encouraging states to continue
strengthening their efficiency commitments as a pragmatic and effective strategy for promoting
economic growth, securing environmental benefits, and increasing their communities' resilience in the
face of the uncertain costs and supplies of the energy resources on which they depend.
Key Findings
• Massachusetts
retained the top spot in the
State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
rankings for
the third year in a row, having overtaken California in 2011, based on its continued
commitment to energy efficiency under its Green Communities Act of 2008. Among other
things, the legislation spurred greater investments in energy efficiency programs by requiring
utilities to save a large and growing percentage of energy every year through efficiency
measures.
• Joining Massachusetts in the top five are
California, New York, Oregon,
and
Connecticut.
These states continue to comprise the group of truly leading states that have made broad,
long-term commitments to developing energy efficiency as a state resource. This is the first
year that Connecticut has placed in the top five since 2009.
• Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Maryland, and Illinois
rounded out the top tier. This
is the first year that Illinois has broken into the top ten.
• This year's most improved states were
Mississippi, Maine, Kansas, Ohio,
and
West
Virginia.
Most-improved states made large strides in both pOints gained and overall ranking.
These five states have made strides in a variety of areas. In 2013, the Mississippi legislature
passed laws setting a mandatory energy code for commercial and state-owned buildings, and
began implementing enhanced lead by example programs. Efforts to ramp up utility programs
to meet energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) targets resulted in dramatically
increased electriCity savings in Ohio (even despite significant push back efforts). Both Kansas
and West Virginia committed to improving building codes, significantly increasing their scores
in that policy area. Maine's rise in the ranks is due to legislation passed in June 2013 that
returned full funding to Efficiency Maine for implementation of energy efficiency programs
after several years in which programs had been under-funded.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive Summary of the
2013
State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
©
ACEEE
• Other states have also made recent concentrated efforts related to energy efficiency.
Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania continued to reap the benefits of their EERS policies,
which led to substantially higher electricity efficiency program spending and savings
compared to what we reported in the
2012 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard.
Connecticut
also passed a major energy bill in June 2013, calling for the benchmarking of state buildings,
expanding combined heat and power (CHP) programs, and doubling funding for energy
efficiency programs.
• The leading states in utility-sector energy efficiency programs and policies, which are covered
in Chapter 2, were Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island. All three of these states
have long records of success and continued to raise the bar on the delivery of cost-effective
energy efficiency programs and policies.
• Annual budgets for utility-sector natural gas efficiency programs totaled $1.3 billion nationally
in 2012, an 18% increase over the previous year. Electric program budgets rose slightly to
$5.98 billion in 2012.
• Savings from electric efficiency programs in 2011 totaled approximately 22.9 million MWh, a
20% increase over the previous year. Gas savings are reported for the first time at 232.3
million therms (MMTherms).
• Twenty-six states have adopted and adequately funded an EERS, which sets long-term
energy savings targets and drives investments in utility-sector energy efficiency programs.
The states with the most aggressive savings targets included Arizona, Massachusetts, New
York, and Rhode Island.
• The leading states in building energy codes and compliance-covered in Chapter 4-were
California, Washington, and Rhode Island. During the past year, seven states adopted the
latest iteration of building energy codes.
• California and New York led the way in energy-efficient transportation policies. California's
requirements for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have led it to identify
several strategies for smart growth, while New York is one of the few states in the nation to
have a concrete vehicle miles traveled reduction target.
• Twenty states fell in the ran kings this year, due to both changes in our methodology and
substantive changes in their performance. Idaho fell the furthest, by nine spots, largely
because it did not keep up with peer states in utility efficiency spending and savings.
Wisconsin dropped six spots due to a significant drop in energy savings realized by the
state's efficiency program.
Methodology
The
2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
provides a broad assessment of policies and programs
that improve energy efficiency in our homes, businesses, industries, and transportation systems. The
State Scorecard
examines the six policy areas in which states typically pursue energy efficiency:
utility and "public benefits· programs and policies; transportation polices; building energy codes and
compliance; CHP policies; appliance and equipment standards; and state government-led initiatives
around energy efficiency. Figure ES-1 provides a percentage breakdown of the points assigned to
each policy area.
The baseline year against which we assessed policy and program varies by policy area. Most scores
were based on policies in place as of August 2013. In Chapter 2, Utility and Public Benefits Programs
©
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
529 14th
Street, Suite
600,
Washington, DC
20045
Phone:
202-507-4000.
Fax:
202-429-2248.
aceee.org. For additional information, email aceeeinfo@aceee.org.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive Summary of the
2013
State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
~
______E=-,E=-,E=--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
AC
and Policies, however, we scored states based on data from 2012 and 2011, the latest years in which
data were available for our metrics.
Figure ES-1. Percentage ofTotal Points by Policy Area
Appliance and
Equipmflnl
Efficiency Stilndords
4'~~
We reached out to each state utility commission to review spending and savings data for the
customer-funded energy efficiency programs presented in Chapter 2. In addition, state energy
officials were given the opportunity to review the material in ACEEE's State Energy Efficiency Policy
Database (ACEEE 2013) and to provide updates to the information scored in Chapters 3
(Transportation), 4 (Building Codes), and 6 (State Government-Led Initiatives).
This year we updated the scoring methodology in three policy areas to better reflect potential energy
savings, economic realities, and changing policy landscapes. In Chapter 2, Utility and Public Benefits
Programs and Policies, we found that the median budget for both electricity and natural gas efficiency
programs had risen significantly this year, and we updated our allocation of points to reflect this
increase in spending. We similarly increased the stringency of our scoring for electricity savings,
reflecting the rising savings targets of many states as they ramp up their efficiency programs.
Notably, we also scored states on their natural gas savings this year as these programs continue to
make up a larger portion of efficiency portfOlios.
We have adjusted our scoring criteria for building energy codes in Chapter 4 to reflect ACEEE's
increased effort to collect data on compliance activities. As in the past, five (5) points were awarded
for code stringency. This year, the remaining two (2) points were awarded for specific compliance
activities, including policy drivers for compliance such as a strategic compliance plan, and
performance metrics such as completion of a baseline study, presence of an active stakeholder
advisory group, and utility involvement in compliance.
In Chapter 6, State Government-Led Initiatives, we included an additional category for laws requiring
disclosure of buildings' energy use. In the past, we scored disclosure laws in combination with
©
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
529 14th
Street, Suite
600,
Washington, DC
20045
Phone:
202-507-4000.
Fax:
202-429-2248.
aceee.org. For additional information, email aceeeinfo@aceee.org.
iii
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
of the
2013
State
Scorecard © ACEEE
financial incentives for energy efficiency. To account for an increased emphasis on building energy
disclosure by policymakers, we chose to score disclosure laws independently from other
state~offered
incentives, and reallocated points accordingly. This year, one (1) point was awarded to states with
commercial and residential disclosure rules. States could receive up to two and one-half (2.5) pOints
for customer financial incentive programs. Data on research and development at the state level are
inconsistent, so we removed one-half (0.5) point from this category, awarding states with at least
three research and development programs one and one-half (1.S) points.
Results
Figure ES-2 shows states' rankings in the
2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard,
dividing them into
five tiers for ease of comparison. Table ES-1 provides details of the scores for each state. States
could score a maximum of SO points, allocated across six policy areas. An identical ranking for two or
more states indicates a tie (e.g., New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan, and Iowa all rank 12
th ).
Although we
provide individual state scores and rankings, the difference between states is both easiest to
understand and most instructive in tiers of roughly ten states, as the point differential between groups
of states is generally much larger than between individual states.
Figure
ES-2.
2013 State ScorecatdRankings
Map
-:
Moltlmp~~l
_
Aanks1"IO
Rank., 11- 20
Rilnk,21·30
47
l\.Ihksll-4Il
1\.10..,41 -51
I
1
Energy~Efficient
Economy, 529 14th Street, Suite
600,
Washington, DC
20045
Phone: 202-507-4000. Fax:
202-429~2248.
aceee.org. For additional information, email aceeeinfo@aceee.org.
©
American Council for an
iv
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
of the
2013
State
Fffir.iAnr.v
Scorecard
©
ACEEE
©
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
529 14th
Street, Suite
600,
Washington, DC
20045
Phone:
202-507-4000.
Fax:
202-429-2248.
aceee.org. For additional information, email aceeeinfo@aceee.org.
v
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive Summary of the
2013
State Energy Efficiency Scorecard © ACEEE
Strategies for Improving Energy Efficiency
Put in place, and adequately fund, an energy efficiency resource standard or similar energy
savings target. These policies establish specific energy savings targets that utilities or independent
statewide program administrators must meet through customer energy efficiency programs. They
serve as an enabling framework for cost-effective investment, savings, and program activity. EERS
policies can have a catalytic effect on increasing energy efficiency and its associated economic and
environmental benefits.
Examples:
Massachusetts, Arizona, Hawaii, Vermont
Adopt updated, more stringent building energy codes, improve code compliance, and enable
the involvement of efficiency program administrators in code support. Buildings consume more
than 40% of total energy in the United States, making them an essential target for energy savings.
Mandatory building energy codes are one way to ensure a minimum level of energy efficiency for new
residential and commercial buildings.
Examples:
California, Rhode Island, Illinois, Mississippi
Adopt stringent tailpipe emissions standards for cars and trucks, and set quantitative targets
for reducing vehicle miles traveled. Like buildings, transportation consumes a substantial portion of
total energy in the United States. Although new federal fuel economy standards have been put in
place, states will realize greater energy savings and pollution reduction if they adopt California's more
stringent tailpipe emissions standards (a proxy for reducing energy use).
Examples:
California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon
Treat CHP as an energy efficiency resource equivalent to other forms of energy efficiency.
Many states list CHP as an eligible technology within their EERSs or renewable portfolio (RPS)
standards, but they relegate it to a bottom tier. ACEEE recommends that CHP be given equal footing,
which requires the state to develop a specific methodology for counting energy savings attributed to
the utilization of CHP. If CHP is allowed as an eligible resource, EERS target levels should be
increased to take into account the CHP potential.
Example:
Massachusetts
Expand state-led efforts and make them visible. Efforts may include putting in place sustainable
funding sources for energy efficiency incentive programs; leading by example by incorporating energy
efficiency into government operations; and investing in energy efficiency-related research,
development, and demonstration centers. States have many opportunities to lead by example.
including reducing energy use in public buildings and fleets, demonstrating the market for energy
service companies that finance and deliver energy-saving projects, and funding research centers that
focus on breakthroughs in energy-efficient technologies.
Examples:
New York, Maryland, Alaska
©
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
529 14th
Street, Suite
600,
Washington, DC
20045
Phone:
202-5074000.
Fax:
202429-2248.
aceee.org. For additional information, email aceeeinfo@aceee.org.
vi