Agenda Item 9
October 6, 2015
Public Hearing
MEMORANDUM
October 2,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
r,1tYi~
Amanda Mihill, Legislative AttorneY(J
I'c..t
v
rll
lv
Public Hearing:
Bill 35-15, Environmental Sustainability - Benchmarking ­
Amendments
Bill 35-15, Environmental Sustainability Benchmarking - Amendments, sponsored by Lead
Sponsor Council President at the request of the County Executive, was introduced on September
15. A Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee worksession is
tentatively scheduled for November 2 at 9:30 a.m.
Bill 35-15 would add an intent section to the Building Energy Use Benchmarking law, amend
certain definitions, provide for alternative paths to verification, and alter the private sector building
group deadlines. Bill 35-15 is the result of a report issued by the Benchmarking Work Group - a
group make of a broad set of stakeholders charged with reviewing the Building Energy Use
Benchmarking law and make recommendations regarding the law's implementation.
This packet contains:
Bill 35-15
Legislative Request Report
Executive memorandum
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements
Benchmarking Work Group report
Circle #
1
6
7
8
12
F:\LAw\BILLS\1535 Environmental Sustainability-Benchmarking-Amendments\PH Memo.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
35-15
Concerning: Environmental Sustainabilitv
- Benchmarking - Amendments
Revised:
8/3/2015
Draft No._1_
Introduced:
September 15, 2015
Enacted:
March 15,2017
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective:
_~-:--
_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
--!..:!N~on~e::.-
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request ofthe County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
add an intent section ofthe law;
amend certain definitions;
provide'for certain alternative paths to verification;
alter the private sector building group deadlines; and
generally amend County law regarding energy efficiency and environmental
sustainability.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Sections 18A-38, 18A-39, 18A-40, and 18A-42
By adding
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Section 18A-38A
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface bracketsD
* * *
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. 35-15
1
2
Sec.
1.
Chapter 18A is amended
by
amending Sections 18A-38, 18A-39,
18A-40, and 18A-42 and adding Section 18A-38A as follows:
18A-38A.
Intent.
3
4
5
The intent ofthis Article is to:
ill
implement recommendations of the 2009 Climate Protection Plan
(EEC-2), 2013 Commercial Building Energy Efficiency study (Chapter
3.2), and support efforts of the Office of Sustainability to increase
energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the private
sector and County buildings;
6
7
8
9
10
(Ji}
engage the commercial building sector with building energy
information crucial to adopting energy conservation and efficiency
opportunities;
11
12
13
14
15
16
{£}
spur market transformation
by
making building performance
transparent for the building and tenant market, allowing more accurate
evaluation ofenergy costs and creating
£!
competitive market for energy
efficient bUildings;
17
@
strengthen the local economy
by
encouraging more efficient business
operations and providing new opportunities for local businesses that
provide energy conservation and efficiency services; and
18
19
20
21
22
ill
recognize building owners that have made investments to improve their
building energy performance and expand in-house capacity for energy
management.
23
24
18A-38B.
Definitions.
*
*
*
25
26
County building
means any building owned by the County, or any group of
buildings owned by the County that have the same property identification
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 35-15
27
number, that equals or exceeds 50,000 in total building square footage [square
feet gross floor area, as identified by the Director].
28
29
30
*
*
*
Group
1
covered building
means any nonresidential building, or any group of
nonresidential buildings that have the same property identification number,
not owned by the County that equals or exceeds 250,000 in total building
square footage [square feet gross floor area, as identified by the Director].
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Group
2
covered building
means any nonresidential building, or any group of
nonresidential buildings that have the same property identification number,
not owned by the County that equals or exceeds 50,000 square feet gross floor
area but is less than 250,000 in total building square footage [square feet gross
floor area, as identified by the Director].
39
*
*
*
40
41
42
[Licensed professional] Recognized data verifier
means a [professional
engineer] Professional Engineer or a [registered architect] Registered
Architect [licensed in the State], or another trained individual whose
professional license or building energy training program credential
recognized
Qy
the Director [as defined in applicable County regulations].
IS
43
44
45
*
*
*
46
[Grossfloor area] Total buildingsquarefootage
means the sum of the gross
horizontal area of the several floors of a building or structure measured from
the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
In a covered but unenclosed area, such as a set of gasoline pumps or a drive­
through area, gross floor area means the covered area.
[Gross floor area]
47
48
49
50
51
Total building squarefootage
does not include any:
(1)
basement or attic area with a headroom less than 7 feet 6 inches;
52
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-15
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
(2)
area devoted to unenclosed mechanical, heating, air conditioning, or
ventilating equipment;
(3)
(4)
parking structure; or
accessory structure to a residential building.
Energy use benchmarking.
County buildings.
18A-39.
(a)
No later than June 1, 2015, and every June 1
thereafter, the County must benchmark [all buildings owned by the]
County buildings for the previous calendar year and report the
benchmarking information to the Department.
(b)
Group
1
covered buildings.
No later than [December] June 1, 2016,
60
61
62
63
and every [December] June 1 thereafter, the owner of any Group 1
covered building must benchmark the building for the previous
calendar year[.
The owner must] and report the benchmarking
64
65
66
67
information to the Department [no later than January 1 each year].
(c)
Group
2
covered buildings.
No later than [December] June 1, 2017,
68
and every [December] June 1 thereafter, the owner of any Group 1
covered building must benchmark the building for the previous
calendar year[.
The owner must] and report the benchmarking
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
information to the Department [no later than January 1 each year].
*
18A-40.
(a)
*
*
Data Verification.
Verification required.
Before the first benchmarking deadline required
by Section 18A-39, and before each third benchmarking deadline
thereafter, the owner ofeach covered building must assure that reported
benchmarking information for that year is verified bya [licensed
professional] recognized data verifier.
The verification must be a
78
79
[stamped and] signed statement by a [licensed professional] recognized
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-15
80
81
82
data verifier attesting to the accuracy ofthe information. Ifthe Director
requests, the owner of a covered building must produce the statement
available for the most recent year
in
which verification was required.
(b)
[Waiver] Alternative Verification Path.
The Director may waive the
83
84
verification requirement [of] under this Section ifthe owner [shows that
compliance with this Section will cause undue financial hardship.
If
a
no-cost or low-cost verification option is available, the Director may
require the owner to use the alternative option] can demonstrate that the
building has achieved ENERGY STAR Certification for at least
Q
months of the year being benchmarked.
18A-42.
Annual report; disclosure of benchmarking information.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
*
(c)
*
*
Exceptions to disclosure.
To the extent allowable under state law, the
Director must not make the following readily available to the pUblic:
(l)
any individually-attributable reported benchmarking information
from the first calendar year that a covered building is required to
benchmark; and
(2)
any individually-attributable reported benchmarking information
relating to a covered building that contains a data center, or
television studio [, or trading floor] that together exceeds 10% of
the [gross square footage] total building square footage of the
individual
building
until
the
Director
finds
that
the
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
benchmarking tool can make adequate adjustments for these
facilities. When the Director finds that the benchmarking tool
can make adequate adjustments, the Director must report this
data in the annual 'report.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
'".
-"
"~.
"
.
.1
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill xx-15
Energy Benchmarking Amendments
DESCRIPTION:
The Commercial Energy Benchmarking Law, adopted May 2014, required
the County Executive
to
convene a Benchmarking Work Group to provide
recommendations regarding tlie implementation ofthe bill
within
the
private sector, including any recommended legislative amendments. The
Benchmarking Work Group is required
to
submit a report
to
the County
Executive and
County
Council by September 2015.
This
bill would
amend the adopted Commercial Energy Benchmarking Law, which
requires certain building owners to benchmark their energy use and
report
It
to the County for public disclosure. These amendments are
proposed by the Benchmarking Work Group with the intent to
improve implementation ofthe law and its purpose.
The Benchmarking Work Group's examination of the law and its
implementation with County facilities and within other jurisdictions
raised concerns around specific issues, from"the deadlines
to
verification requirements, inconsistent application between public
and private facilities,
and
unclear definitions. These issues would
directly impact implementation ofthe law, and the recommendations
provided seek to mitigate these issues. "
This bill is designed
to
address a variety ofissues identified by the
Benchmarking Work Group by adding an intent section ofthe law;
amending certain definitions; providing for certain alternative paths
to verification; altering the private sector building group deadlines;
and generally amending County law regarding energy efficiency and
environmental sustainability.
Department ofEnvironmental Protection
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Michelle Vigen, Senior Energy Planner, Division ofEnvironmental
Policy and Compliance, Department ofEnvironmental Protection (7­
7749)
This bill applies to all municipalities that accept or adopt the County
Environmental Sustainability Law, Chapter 18A.
APPLICATION
WITmN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20SS(l
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
August 3, 2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
George Leventhal, President, Montgomery
co~
Isiah
Leggett,
CounlyExecutive
c:R
~..a._---
Introduction of
XX-IS
Benchmarking Amendments
It is my pleasure to transmit the attached Benchmarking Amendments Bill and accompanying
Benchmarking Work Group Report.
The Commercial Energy Benchmarking Law, adopted May 2014, required the County
Executive
to
convene a Benchmarking Work Group, made up of a broad set of stakeholders,
to
(1)
review the
County's benchmarking process leading up
to
their June 1,2015 deadline, and (2) provide recommendations
regarding
the
implementation of the bill withintbe private sector, including any recommended legislative
amendments. The Benchmarking Work Group is required to submit a report
to
the County Executive and
County Council by September
20 IS.
.
The Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) convened a Work Group from a broad
set of stakeholders, including an initial list
of
over 70 stakeholders representing utilities, building owners,
nonprofits and associations, and energy service companies. The Work Group met as a whole and in
committees approximately twenty times between September 2014
and
June 2015. This transmittal includes
both their Report and a new bill reflecting their recommendations:
• A final Report outlines the work ofthe Benchmarking Work Group and proposes several
recommended legislative amendments
to
improve the implementation of the Law. Each set of
amendments is introduced with a summary, justification, and textual annotations.
• Based on this Report, DEP
has
drafted a new bill
(XX-I
5 Benchmarking Amendments) to '
reflect the amendments proposed within this report. This bill would amend the adopted
Commercial Energy Benchmarking Law, which requires certain building owners to
benchmark their energy use and report it
to
the County for public disclosure. Specifically, this
bill would add an intent section of the law; amend certain definitions; provide for certain
alternative paths to verification; and alter the private sector building group deadlines.
If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Feldt in the Department ofEnvironmental
Protection
at
240-777-7730 or lisa.feldt@montgomeQlcountymd.gov.
IL:kdm
Attachment (s)
montgomerycountymcl.gov/311
~;a..
~
240-773-3556 TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I: :
. i
Fiscal Impact Statement
County Executive Bill XX-IS - Environmental Sustainabillty - Benchmarking ­
Amendments
1. Legislative Summary.
This bill would amend Bill
2-14 -
Environmental Sustainability - Buildings­
Benchmarking to:
I) add an intent section
to
the law;
2) amend certain definitions; •
3) provide for certain alternative paths to verification;
4) alter the private sector buiiding group deadlines; and
S) generally amend County law regarding energy efficiency
and
environmental
sustainability.
2. An estimate of changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless ofwhether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The amendments proposed
in
Bill
XX-IS
would have no impact on County revenues and
expenditures.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Bill
XX-IS
would create no revenue or expenditures over the next 6 fiscal years.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill thatwould
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not Applicable.
5. An estimate of expenditures related to County's information technology
(IT)
systems, including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Bill
XX-IS
would have no impact on the County's IT systems ..
6. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if'the bill authorizes
future spending.
.
Bill
XX-IS
does not authorize
future
spending and will have no impact on
fu~
revenues or expenditures.
7.
An
estimate of the staff time needed to implement the biD.
Staff time
will
not
be
needed to implement
the
changes in Bill
XX-IS.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
· 1
.1
8. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affeet other
duties.
There are no new staff responsibilities as a result of Bill XX-15 and the bill would not
affect other duties
in
the Department of Environmental Protection.
9. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation
is
needed.
No additional appropriation is needed as a result ofBill XX-15.
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not Applicable.
11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not Applicable.
12.
If
a bill
is likely
to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Bill XX-15 amends definitions and administrative procedures related to the previously
adopted Bil12-14. These amendments to Bill 2-14 do not have a budgetary impact on
county operations.
.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not Applicable.
14. The foUowing contributed to and concurred with
this
analysis:
Matt Schaeffer,- Office ofManagement and Budget
Michelle
Vige~
Department ofEnvironmental Protection
Date
ce ofManagement and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
. I
. !
Economic
Impact
Statement
Bill ##-15, Environmental Sustainability - Benchmarking - Amendments
Background:
This legislation would amend sections ofCbapter 18A ofthe County Code
as
follows:
• Add an intent section of the law,
• Amend
certain
definitions,
• Provide for certain alternative paths
to
verification, and
• Alter the private-sector building group deadlines.
Bill ##-15 essentially provides technical amendments
to
Chapter 18A. The.amendments
change the terminology of"gross floor area"
to
"total building
square
footage"
and
expand eligibility
to
complete the verification requirements
to
a group of "recognized
data verifiers." The terminology change from "gross floor
area"
to
"total building square
footage" is to differentiate it from
the
term used in the software used by building owners
to comply with the law and does not affect the defmition or scope of the law.
The change
to
the current law pertaining to certain alternative
paths
to verification is
to
permit those building owners with buildings that have voluntarily achieved ENERGY
STARcertification for at least six months ofthe year being benchmarked to not have to
undertake a separate and redundant verification. This change will enable certain building
owners who have achieved ENERGY STAR certification on any buildings
to
avoid
additional costs for verification ofthose buildings.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Sources of information include the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The economic impact statement is based on information provided by DEP, and .
Finance
has
not made any assumptions or provided methodologies in preparing the
economic impact statement.
2. A description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
There are no variables that could affect the economic impact estimates. The change
in
the verification procedure would result
in
cost savings
to
any building owners who
have achieved ENERGY STAR verification on any buildings.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and property values
in
the County.
Bill ##-15 provides an alternative path
to
verification and, as such, would provide a
cost savings to any building owners who have achieved ENERGY STAR certification
on any buildings. Without specific company data, it is uncertain
as
to the specific
amount of cost savings attributed
to
the proposed change
in
certain alternative paths
to verification.
(1;::),'0.
Page
1
of2
C:~i
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.1
Economic Impact Statement
Bill ##-15, Environmental Sustainability - Benchmarking - Amendments
4.
If
a Bill is likely to have no economic impact, why is that the case?
Please see paragraph
#3.
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis:
David
Platt,
Mary
Casciotti, and Rob Hagedoom, Finance; Michel1e Vigen, Department of
Environmental Protection.
IJ~r
bs
Date
r
I
Department
ofFinance
Page2of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
... 1
.1
i.
;
,
Report
by
the Benchmarking Work Group·
Providing Recommendations for Legislative Amendments to
Adopted Bill 2-14 (Energy Benchmarking)
June 10,2015
Table of Contents
EXEC'UTIV'E SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 2
BACKGR.OUND ...
iII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE .A:ME.NDMENTS .................................................... 5
RECOMMENDATION 1:
ADD
INTENT
OF
THE LAw...............................................................5
RECOMMENDATION 2:
RENAME
TE~
"GROSS FLOOR
AREA"
WITHm THE LAW •................
7
RECOMMENDATION 3:
REMOVE "AS DETERMINED BY
TIffi
DIRECI'OR"
LANGUAGE.............
9
RECOMMENDATION 4:
REVISE
AND CLARIFY
VERIFICATION ............................................
10
RECOMMENDATION 5: CoUNTY
COVERED BUILDINGS AND
DEADLINES........................... 13
RECOMMENDATION 6:
MOVE PRIvATE
BUILDING DEADLINES
TO
JUNE 1 ......................... 14
.APPENDIX:.
k
RECOGNIZED CREDEN'TIAI..S ..................................................................................................15
1
~
;:-~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
... 1
. i
.
.
,
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2014, Montgomery County became the first county in the nation to adopt a
benchmarking and transparency law. Section 2 of the adopted bill provided for the convening of
a Benchmarking Work Group, made up of a broad set of stakeholders, to review the County's
benchmarking process leading up to their June 1,2015 deadline, and provide recommendations
regarding the implementation of the bill within the private sector, including any recommended
legislative amendments.
Starting in the fall of 2014, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) solicited
participation from a broad swath of stakeholders, including an Initial list of over 70 stakeholders
representing, utility, building owners, nonprofrts and associations, and energy service
companies.
This report outlines the work of the Legislative Committee of the Benchmarking Work Group,
specifically several recommended legislative amendments to improve the implementation of the
Law.
Recommended Legislative Amendments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Add Intent of the Law
Rename "Gross square footage- within the law
Remove "As identified
by
the Director" language
Verification: Expand credentials, revise exemption, and other guidance
a. Expanding the iicensed professional- to a -Recognized data verifier" including
criteria for accepting credentials
b. Modification of Verification Hardship
.
5. Making requirements of County Buildings consistent with private Covered Buildings
6. Moving private Covered Buildings deadlines to align with reporting requirements
Each set of amendments provided
with
a summary, justification, and textual annotations. A
version of the legislation, with all· the amendments marked, is included
at
the end of this
document.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
:
..
"
.
BACKGROUND
In May 2014, Montgomery County became the first county in the nation to adopt a
benchmarking and transparency law. This law requires certain building owners to report their
building energy use to the County for disclosure on an annual basis.
Section 2 of the adopted bill provided for the convening of a Benchmarking Work Group, made
up of a broad set of stakeholders, to review the County's benchmarking process leading up to
their June 1, 2015 deadline, and provide recommendations regarding the implementation
of
the
bill within the private sector, including any recommended legislative amendments.
Worlc Group Convening
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) solicited participation from a broad swath of
stakeholders, including an initial list
of
over 70 stakeholders representing, utility, building
owners, nonprofrts and associations, and energy service companies.
This initial group was invited to an introductory meeting September 2014, where several
speakers provided context for the law, including DEP, DGS, JBG Companies, AOBA, and
Pepco. The Work Group opted to break into three committees to address three distinct areas of
the law's implementation:
1. Outreach
2. Technical Assistance
3. Legislative
The Outreach and Technical Assistance committees have provided valuable guidance and
advice on DEP's benchmarking programming thus far, including:
• Connections and contact information for important outreach partners, such as industry
organizations, media groups, and nonprofits
• Earfy Bird program design, goals, and recognition
• Benchmarking Ambassadors programming
• Communication strategies for complex aspects
of
the law
• Review of the Benchmarking Website layout, organization, and content
• Outreach and Technical Assistance objectives, in general
These two groups have since combined into a Single group that continues to provide guidance
on Benchamarking programming.
The Legislative committee took a deep dive into the legislation, starting with an initial review
by DEP of areas in the County's law that, compared to other jurisdictions' legislation, might
benefit from discussion or clarification by the Legislative committee.
The committee worked through a list of these areas, and through discussion, solicitation of
ideas from building owners aided via AOBA, and research via DEP, provided guidance to DEP
to clarify points of the legislation in guidance (on the Benchmarking Website).
The committee's work also resulted in several recommended legislative amendments, which
this report outlines and details.
Recommended Legislative Amendments
1. Addition of Intent
2. Renaming "Gross square footage" to "Total square footage"
3. Removing "As identified by the Director" in identifying covered b/Jildings
4. Verification Amendments
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
· I
,,'
a. Expanding the Nlicensed professional" to a -Recognized data verifier" including
criteria for accepting credentials
b. Modification of Verification Hardship
5. Making requirements of County Buildings consistent with private Covered Buildings
6. Moving private Covered Buildings deadlines to align with reporting requirements
Review Process
The Legislative Committee developed these recommendations through a series of eight
meetings over the course of six months. Meeting times and information, agendas. and notes
were distributed through the Benchmarking Working Group email list, which
is
administered by
DEP.
This spring, the Legislative Committee solicited comments from the Work Group as a whole,
leading up to and
at
a Full Work Group meeting on June 10, 2015. Comments from this
process have been incorporated into this final draft
4
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
, I
,I
I
,
,
.
,
RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Each set of amendments is detailed below, with a summary, justification, and textual
annotations. A version of the legislation, with all the amendments marked, is included at the
end of this document.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Add Intent of
the
Law
Overview
Conversations within the Benchmarking Work Group Legislative Committee have often revolved
around the Importance of building owners acting on the information provided through the
benchmarking process and reaping the multiple benefits of energy conservation and energy
efficiency. The Working Group has noted that this intent is presented in the Law, and that it is
important to clarify the purpose and value of the legislation ,for those that must comply with it.
Justification
• Recognize the foundational actions that led to this law - The 2009 Climate Action
Protection Plan and 2013 Commercial Building Energy Efficiency study both pointed to
working with the commercial sector to reduce energy use and emissions. The latter
study specifically identified benchmarking legislation as a sound strategy to help the
County meet its emission reduction goals.
• Educate stakeholders and the broader community about the impact that building
energy use has on the County's greenhouse gas emissions
(1/3
commercial buildings,
113
residential) and reduction goal of 80% by 2050.
• State clearly the energy conservation goals - These goals were inherent in the initial
drafts of the legislation within the energy audit and retrocommissioning requirements.
Since those were removed, the energy-saving intent of the law is no longer clear.
• Identify benefits beyond energy consumption and cost savings - The law can and
will provide benefits beyond the energy savings results seen from other jurisdictions with
benchmarking laws.
Issue
Intent ofthe'aw
Recommended Amendment
Add to the following langllagein the appropriate secflonor In an
additional section: '
"
"
"
The intent of thiS legislation is to:
• Implement recommendation,S of the 2009 Climate
Protection Plan (EEC-2) { 2013 Commercial,'
Bui!dingEnergyEfficiency study (Chapter
3.2),
support efforts of the Office of Sustainability
(Bill6-H) to increase energl effic.l.emcyand
,reduce, greenhouse g-as emissions in ,the private
sector and .County buildings.
' '
• Eng-age
the
commercial building sector with
, ' : building energy informationcruc;lalto a-dopting
, ,energy conservatibnand efficiency,
~
, opportunities.'
, '
• spur market transformation
by
making puHding
, performance transparent fo,r the bUilding a'nd
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
· .: i
RECOMMENDATION 2: Rename tenn, "gross floor area" within
the
law
Overview
The legislation determines applicability to buildings based on gross floor area. The law covers
buildings that have a gross floor area of 50,000 square feet or greater. The tool to complete the
benchmarking, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, also uses this term, but differently. A
summary ofdifferences is in the GUIDANCE: Gross FloorArea Definitions.
Justification
• This recommendation is to remove any confusion that may
be
caused by having the
same term used in the Law and in Portfolio Manager, but with different definitions.
• The group has reviewed that the definitions for their respective purposes are
appropriate, and a re-naming
of
the term within the Law may be beneficial.
Issue
Recommended Amendment
"Gross
sqlJareReilCi~e·gross
square footage-
to
"total' building square footage"
footage"
".
..
. ."
. ''
.
terminology .' . •. Remove'
·trad~
floors: from the IIst.of exempted buildings, .... there,are no trade
floo'rs in the County
, .
"
Sea. l8A-S8.
Definition.~·
county building
means ariy building owned bY',the County,
,':'.
or any group of builciirig(3 owned by the Coun.ty . that have
the same property identi'fication number, th?'t equals or
exceeds
50,000
square feet gress flea!:' area.in total
building square
footag:~'
I
as identifiedsythe DiL.weter.
Group 1 covered b!lildingmeans
any nonresidential
building, or any group,.of nonresidential. buildings that
have the
sameproperty~dentification
number; n9t owned
by the County thate'qilals or exceeds
250
~
ODD,
square feet
grass floor
are~
in total building square
footage.~
identified
by
tho Direetor.
..
Group
2 cove.red
b!lilding
means
anynonre,~idential
building, or any group of nonresid.ential buildings that
have the same'property identification humber, not owned
by
the CoUnty.that equals or' exceeds
50,'000
s~uaFe
feet:·
q~ees
fleo'E'al!'ca in total'buildingsquare footage but is.
l,esg than
:250;'ODO
square feet ql!'i!iIe'sHeer area in total
btiildinQ square footage.,
as
idrl:fttifiea
by
tho
Di:Feetor,~
GEoss fleer
area
Total. buJldingsquare footage
means the
sum of the grQsshorizontal area of the sev.eral floors of
a building or
structuremeasur~dfrom
the exterior faces
of the' exterior walls or from. the center line of. p'arty
walls.
In
a
cov.ered but. unep.closed area, suchasa set
of. gasoline pumps or adrive,:,:,through area, gross floor
area means t;he covered area'; "
GEoss floer
ali'ea Total'
building squ<#re footage
does
not inc1 udo' any:'--"-­
(1)
basement ,or 'attic area with a headroom less
than
'7
feet 6
i
nqhes
r:
(2):
area devoted to unenclosed
mecl1~mical,
heat!ng,a!r 'GoPditioIl!ng, or vent!1atingequipment;
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.1.
.• 1
8
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I
:.
.1
RECOMMENDATION 3: Remove "as determined
by
the Director" language
Overview
In the definition of Group 1 and 2 and County Covered Buildings, the definition lays out which
buildings are covered and ends with
.~."as
identified by the Director." This language places the
onus upon DEP staff to identify each individual building that needs to be benchmarked, versus
the law applying evenly to all buildings that meet the definition.
Justification
• Regulation standard practice places the onus on the resident/business owner to
comply If applicable, versus the local government identifying those Individually
responsible. This language and resulting responsibility placed upon staff is not
standard practice for regulation in general, and especially amongst other benchmarking
jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions make an effort to identify and notify buildings that are
covered by the law, but buildings owners that know their buildings qualify are still
required to benchmark, even if not identified. Such an approach matches other
regulations which apply to businesses whether or not they are identified by the
administering agency.
• Imperfect data will result in an unreliable list
of
covered buildings and responsible
building owners· The proposed approach is particularly important in the current
situatio n where there is not good data available to county staff to identify covered
buildings. Staff has parcel-based data and rentable square footage per building data,
but not building square footage. Staff is not able to confidently identify all the buildings
that will need to comply.
.
• DEP will still attempt to Identify and notify covered buildings - This change would
simply mean that a building owner with a building covered by the law must benchmark.
even if DEP is not able to identify from their data sources. that they are covered.
Issue
Removing "As
identifie(j
tl1e
Director" in
detiumining .••
Recommended Amendments
bv
.Covered..
Co4rity,
or any group;Qf
b:uiidingspwn~d,
l>ythe County
that
haVe
the same
prope~ty
identffiCi;d:).qn number,
• . thate.quals Qr' exceeds'
50,000
sqUare'
f~et
.
gross' floor
area#aa idefi.Hfiod
,..
,.,'.
"-
Definitions.·'
• County' building
m~ans.·
artYbuilding.owneci by the
S.o,~
18A~38.
f
aUi.ld!n~s
..
:b.y
-",
th'Q
.,
Qircoto}i.: . . . .
,
.
.'
Group
1,
covered' Qliilding means an; nonresidential.
buil<;iihS
f.
.
or . any grop-pof"
D:(:n1res;iq~~tia.l bui:~(fin~~
th8thav~
tf,lo 'same propertY1C;lentific,atlon nj.riUi;>er
1
nQt
OWncdbytheCounty that
equals dt;-'eiceeds
~5ti~~OO
.squarE{
feet
gross
fl.obr
a.rea,
ao'
iaefitlficEf
by the
ri,ireot~E.
.
.. " .
' .
H< . '.'
'.. roup.
Z"covered
bulldiilgIn~aris'~n:y 'n6:iir~~ii1e'tit;ai
G
building,.
groupOfnoriresldential:btilidings
.
that>h;iv,e
the saine
propertylderi1:iflcaHdn..nuritber, hot
Owned by
the
county
t.hat
equa).,s:6r
exceed'S;50,~bb'
. '
sqcicire
:tee1:gto5s .
floor a·rea
.bu'€
'is
less
th~n
.250,0.00' .
. 5qlJ.ate'feet
gross
floor
'.area,
.aq
identifi~!~P
by
tae
D1~oeteF
..
. :'
..
or
any
..
::
.....
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
. ,I
RECOMMENDATION 4: Revise and Clarify Verification
Overview
Benchmarking provides valuable data on building energy use, and collecting the data and
benchmarking requires time and effort on the part of
building
owners and managers; some may
even opt to contract this work out to an energy service provider. Verification is increasingly
becoming part of benchmarking and disclosure laws for many reasons. There can be a cost to
verification, which the Work Group sought to address. The group discussed Chicago's
approach (the only other jurisdiction currently implementing with a verification requirement).
consulted the Institute for Market Tr,ansformation, and EPA ENERGY STAR in their work.
The Work Group has provided several different recommendations below
to
be
considered in-whole together
to improve the value of benchmarking and lower the
potential cost of verification.
Justification
• Data Quality - Due to the data quality issueS being reported from other jurisdictions with
benchmarking laws, a verification process is considered a best practice and an important
component of the benchmarking process, both for the public institutions administering
the programs. but also for the building owners and industry as a whole.
• Reliability and Value of Data Transparency - A verification process contributes to an,
even playing field in which businesses can feel confident in the data set as a whole, and
that their competitors are held to a similar standard for accuracy.
• Policy Decision-making - In order for the County to consider benefits or incentives to
aid building improvements, an accurate representation of the building stock and
performance levels are necessary to identify cost-effective use of resources and target
,support
• Knowledge and capacity building - The discussion that wil.llikely occur in the process
of verification between a knowledgeable verifier and the building owner or manager
could provide valuable information towards taking actions to reduce energy use within
the building.
• Promote wQrkforce development
~md
local jobs - The verification piece was also
defended as a workforce development and local job opportunity. In-house verification is
allowed and would encourage building owners to have their existing staff trained in
energy management and Portfolio Manager. Verification will also drive local training
programs and new leads for energy conservation projects.
Key Changes
• Expanded the legislated definition of Licensed Professlonal- The cost associated
with
this part of the law
Is
tied to the requirement of a "licensed professional- which often
means Professional Engineer or Registered Architect The group looked at the intent of
verification and Chicago's model, and expanded the scope to include less costly
credentials, redefining the "licensed professiona'- term to
be
"recognized data verifier".
• Provided guidance on type of credential accepted to do verification - Criteria were
also established (within their Guidance) on how DEP would evaluate addffio'nal
credentials that want to qualify.
• Provided guidance on the scope of verification - Based on conversations with
EP~
ENERGY STAR and Chicago, the group decided that verification should follow the
applicable sections of the Portfolio Manager Verification Checklist. Guidance documents
should further inform that verification can
be
done without an on-site visit.
• Provided guidance on how verification should be documented - Again, the group
followed EPA ENERGY STAR and Chicago's best practices to determine how
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,
,
,
, i
. .
~.
verification should be documented and reported; this will be clarified in Guidance
documents.
.
• Removed hardship exemption for this section of the legislation
-
The group
determined that the hardship exemption for the law as a whole was sufficient, and that
the lower cost of verification proposed should not warrant a second level of exemption
from this part of the law.
Issue
Recommended Amendments and Guidance
"
.
'
'Scope'
of
who
can
StrI.ke
"licenSed professional" and replace: With "Recognized data verifier"
..
.
.
complete the
'
D~fin:1
tiona
"
required:
i,j:eeaeeEi J'peft;lsiJisnal Recognized d..a ta veri;Eier ri!earis a
verrflcatioh
·.ProfessionaT Engineer or.aRegistered Architect or
a
trained individual whose Eroiessional license or
building
~fiergy
training
p~9gram
credential
i s '
recognized ,by the Director" ' PFofessioaal Heem,se.
r~~e£B
to
'il
profeesional e.ngineer el: a ref;Jistip:\'!ed
areh!teQt licenseclin, the ,S.tab;:
~
or another 1iIiCl;ined:
iHelh~ieuala:s
.
EiefineEl
ift
ap~lieaele
County
Feguldt.i:OflO. . ' ,
'
Data
Ve~ifioat:ion
Vez,;ifip~t;.ioll
cI.eadl~n4·
reqtiiredbY'· Section
:1'91\-39,
and before'
e~ch'
requi];od.
B~fore.
"th,e
first benchmiil,l?king , '
,
benchma~king
information ,for'that
yea~.is
'lreti.f;,ied'by
:<it
~:i:EiQ;ri;SeclfJ:fi.-$£eeS1't1ilad::recogrti:ted
:data
verifi~r.:
The
verif;i;~tiionm1ist
bea's5'aBpea'iiAEi
s:i,gned
st~tement
by
a'
li.E;!~gea. ~~:fies/llh~~lrecognized
datav.erffiei:.
'atlest:irig to' theadcu'ra:Cy of the' information,. .•
Guidance on
Recognized data
verifier
In Guidance, DEP should Include the following information:
third,·
Qenc;hmarking deadline
t.heieafter>thebViiJ,er
each·':
e:ei7'ered
buiiding.muat 'assure
that;
repoJi.ted
of
In-house or Third-party Verification
Recognized Data Verifiers may include in-house individuals or third-party
providers.
Criteria to Detennine Recognized Data Verifier Credential
The Director will evaluate professional licenses and building energy
training program credentials to be accepted as a Recognized Data Verifier
based on the following criteria:
• Demonstrates trained individuals' proficiency in building energy
benchmarking and familiarity with ENERGY STAR Portfolio
Manager;
• Demonstrates trained individuals' working knowledge of energy­
efficient operations, measures, and technology;
• 'Provides opportunities for ongoing skill maintenance and/or re­
training as technologies, tools, and practices evolve;
• Provides means of tracking graduates or credentialed individuals
by name and with a unique identifier (such as a license,
identification, or other number); and
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
'. i
• Makes training materials and records available for review by the
Director and is found to be in compliance with preceding criteria.
Recommended Credentials for the Director to Accept
The Legislative Work Group has helped develop an initial roster of
credentials they recommend the Director recognize. A full list is under
Appendix
A.
DEP staff
will
also explore ways to recognize individuals qualified but
without an accepted credential.
Verification
Documentation
Require the use of the free Portfolio Manager Verification Checklist, and
include the full name, credentials, and contact information (email or
phone) of verifier in Portfolio Manager notes (w!1ich are submitted to the
County). Verification documentation, signed not necessarily stamped
should be kept as a hard copy, to be made available upon request by the
Dfrector, per legislation.'
.
..,:.
~.;,.<::.:
program
Like Chicago's pro bono verification program, DEP Is encouraged.
particularly for the compliance period of Group
2
buildings in
2017,
to
develop and implement a pro bono verification program. Such a program
would solicit energy service providers willing to volunteer time to complete
verification for building owners who cannot afford verification (e.g.
nonproflts, churches, other buildings with particular hardships). Buildings
that request pro bono verification would be published on a list (as a small
deterrence to avoid abuse
of
the program).
':g!i;'i@:~l,t~~
12
ffj
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.. " ... : . . .l
. i
RECO:MMENDATION 5: County Covered Buildings
and
Deadlines
Overview
Under the benchmarking legislation section for County buildings, the language does not use the
defined term "County Buildings· but instead refers to "all buildings owned by the County" and
does not provide a date for them to report to DEP, only to benchmark. This change would make
the law consistently applied across County buildings and private sector buildings.
Justification
• Eliminate confusion about which buildings are to be benchmarked In the County
under the law - Using the defined term, "County buildings· will clarify and make
consistent the intent that is within the definition to benchmark County buildings 50,000
square feet. and greater.
• Provide
for
reporting
of
data to DEP to be included in their reporting and database
- The currently language only requires benchmarking, but not reporting. To remain
within the spirit of leading by example, County buildings should also report their data by
their June 1 deadline each year.
Note: These changes will not take effect unless adopted through legislative amendment. For
the County's first benchmarking year (June 1, 2015), DGS and DEP are working together to
make sure DEP can meet their own reporting deadlines, and that DGS is meeting its obligations
as best understood under the law.
Issue
Recommended Amendment
Amend. the CountY bulldi'ngs benchmarking
langiJageto
referto
.the
defined:t~m,
"Gountybuildmgs·, and.
to
add·reporting obligation
consistent
With
private
btlllding8coverad undsrthe:IaW.. ..'
_
.
Amendtt)e'
001iH'JtY:: ;:
building....
benchmarking' .
language.
..
18A-39' Energy use benal'irliarki.nq.
.'
(a) ..
COulltYbuildillgS •
.
No
later t.hanJune .
l; 2015,
and
ev~ryJ~n~
ithereafter.. the
county'
must.'
. benchmark
a4!d.
~uj,l;ea.~!fe
EMlaeEl
By
tbe
County ..
build.in~s;
f·er
t:h~
··p'te-<tio).lsealendar¥earand'
.
tep6~'
'the'benchmarkinsf information'.
to
.toe···
Deea~tment..;.
.' .... '..' '. ....:..... '.
13
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
RECOMMENDATION 6: Move Private Building Deadlines to June 1
Overview
The current set of deadlines in the legislation are not clear, do not align
with
reporting deadlines
within the same legislation, and may cause inconvenience to major stakeholders due to the
proximity to holidays. The Work Group recommends mOving the deadline up to June 1.
Justification
• TWo deadlines are unnecessary and confusing - The legislation provides a separate
deadline for benchmarking and for reporting. The two deadlines are unnecessary, as
the former
is
unenforceable and
when
one benchmarks is irrelevant so long as
it
has
happened before they report to the County. No other jurisdiction has two deadlines for a
pure bill such as was adopted.
• The December 1 deadline does not align with DEP reporting requirements and
may render data disclosure Irrelevant- DEP is required to report
to
Council on the
benchmarking law each October. CUrrent deadlines mean that DEP would be reporting
data that is nearly two years old. (e.g. DEP would report on and disclose CY 2015 data,
reported December 20 1S/January 2017 in October 2017) Such a timeline would reduce
the value and impact of the data disclosure.
• Benchmarking will nottake 11 months to complete - Jurisdictions with benchmarking
laws have deadlines ranging from April 1 (DC) to typically June 1. Bills through the end
of the previous calendar year are usually available by March.
• The current deadlines falls during major holidays - The December 1 holiday falls
right between Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, which can pose difficulties in terms
of staff availability, time out of the office, travel, and
end-of~the-year
reporting (for
building owners, utility dqta access providers, and local government).
• The proposed deadline aligns but does not overlap with DC's deadline, which is
amenable to building owners with portfolios in both Jurisdictions and utility
staffing availability. DC's benchmarking deadline is April 1. Utilities have requested
we stagger our deadlines.
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
. I
APPENDIX A: Recommended Verification Credentials
These credentials are not part of a legislative amendment, but per legislative amendment,
credentials must be recognized by the Director in order to qualify an individual to perform
verification under the law. The following credentials are recommended by the Legislative
Committee
be
recognized by the DEP Director as qualifying credentials.
Credential
Professional Engineer (PE)
Registered Architect (RA)
Certified Energy Manager (CEM)
Building Energy Assessment Professional (BEAP)
Certified Energy Auditor (CEA.l
LEED ­ Professional with specialty· in Operations
+
Maintenance (LEED­
AP O+M)
LEED-Fellow - For outstanding APs
Building Energy Modeling Professional (BEMP)
Commissioning Process Management Professional Certification (CPMP)
Operations and Performance Management Professional (oPMP)
Certified Commissioning Professional (CCP)
Associate Commissioning Professional (ACPJ.
Sustainability Facility Professional (SFP)
Certified Building Commissioning Professional (CBCP)
Existing Building Commissioning Professional (EBCP)
RPA/FMA High Performance Designation (RPAlFMA-HP)
Systems Maintenance Technician ($MTI
Systems Maintenance Administrator (SMAJ.
Real Property Administrator (RPA) with caveat requirements
Certified Property Manager (CPM) with caveat requirements
Institution/Assoc.
National Society of
Professional Engineers
American Institute of
Architects
Association of Energy
Engineers (AEE)
ASHRAE
AEE
US Green Building Council
(USGBC)
USGBC
ASHRAE
ASHRAE
ASHRAE
Building Commissioning
Association (BCA)
BCA
International Facilities
Management Association
AEE
AEE
BOMI International
BOMI International
BOMllntemational
BOMI International
Institute of Real Estate
Management
RPA· and CPM are acceptable verification credentials wah the following caveats noted below.
Documentation must be submitted to enemY@montgomeryoountmd.gov by the verifier each
year they complete verification under the benchmalking law.
• RPA caveat: RPA must have been achieved with the elective course, Asset Management
OR achieved with completion of at least 3 of the 5 Sustainability/High Performance
Experience Criteria (http://www.bomi.org/uploadedFilesl201 0 New Site/Site­
wide Images/RPA%20Experience%20Requirement-2015.pdf).
• CPM caveat: CPM must have been achieved with the following three functions selected and
illustrated in the Experience Form
(https:/Iwww.irem.org/File%20Library/Membership/CPMExperienceForms.pdf): #3, #30, and
#33.
15