Image via Wikipedia

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5019 : Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 – or “Cash for Caulkers” as it has become known – last month, it’s aim was to kick start construction and create jobs.

However, Cash for Caulkers also provides a great opportunity for homeowners to invest in energy saving technologies to make their houses more energy efficient. From simple things like air sealing your home to new attic insulation to more involved upgrades like the addition of a geothermal heat pump, this bill, should it pass in the Senate this summer, would enable you to get back thousands on the improvements you’ve made.

Our friends over at The Construction Blog at Software Advice have penned a nice piece that better details what Cash for Caulkers really means for consumers. As they said:

“This is great news for homeowners and contractors alike. The bill provisions $6 billion for energy-efficient or “green” retrofits. It is expected to fund renovations for 3 million families, create 168,000 new jobs and save consumers $9.2 billion on energy bills over the next 10 years.

But in order to cash in on upcoming rebates, homeowners and contractors will need to do their homework. There are 13 types of retrofits eligible for funding. Each retrofit has unique eligibility requirements and set rebate amounts. You can read the full text here.

We made it really easy to wade through the legalese. Below is a table that breaks down the 13 retrofits of the bill, along with the requirements and rebate amount for each. In addition to the requirements we listed, each retrofit must comply with Building Performance Institute (BPI) standards or other procedures to be approved by the Secretary of Energy.”

Click here to read the full article for some great tips.

The Green Queen is making inroads into Tudor City. With her listing at 25 Tudor City Place, she’s eager to help some lucky buyer put down roots in this gardened corner of Manhattan. This development contains two gardens, which were planned in the 1920s by the forward-thinking developer Fred F. French, who conceived a plan for a high-rise, residential development nestled around a centrally placed, tranquil park, replete with amenities and services, and tailored to the needs of the middle class men and women flocking into the city each day.

The parks were central to French’s vision for Tudor City. While many grand residential buildings of the time were built around garden courtyards, French turned the convention inside out in Tudor City by placing the green spaces on the outside and orienting the buildings toward them. Tudor City, as is famously quoted, turned its back on the East River, which was at the time an industrial area of slaughterhouses and barge landings, all dominated by the coal-burning Con Edison plant. The pastoral tranquility of the parks were a welcomed relief from the noise and pollution along the river. They contained arbors and gazebos, fountains and tree-shaded walks, and an 18 hole miniature golf course with lighting for evening play. Tudor City was a success, and it’s buildings were renting out faster than they could be completed.

French died in 1936 but the firm he founded continued to own and manage the properties until 1972, when the Helmsley-Spear company bought Tudor City. A relentless battle by residents ensued against Helmsley’s plans to build giant skyscrapers on the open spaces. It all came to a head when a bulldozer rumbled down Tudor City Place at 6 AM on the Sunday morning of Memorial Day weekend in 1986. An alert resident saw it coming and sounded the alarm. People poured into the street and under the leadership of community leader John McKean, blocked the bulldozer from entering the parks and then managed to secure an injunction against the planned destruction. Helmsley finally accepted defeat.

In 1987 Tudor City was sold to Time Equities, which undertook the conversion of its Tudor City buildings to cooperative ownership. Time Equities demonstrated its understanding of the importance of the parks to the community by donating them to The Trust for Public Land, a national conservancy organization dedicated to the preservation of such open spaces. The development rights of the parks were extinguished, which effectively eliminated any possibility of future development.

Tudor City Greens, Inc. was formed in January 1987 for the purpose of assuming ownership of the parks from The Trust for Public Land. In exchange for this transfer of ownership, The Greens granted an easement to The Trust that prohibits construction and bans unacceptable behavior in the parks.

The parks had suffered long years of neglect when Tudor City Greens took on the task of bringing them back to life. A Master Plan was developed in 1988 to guide the work. Improvements have included: adding new electricity and an irrigation system; repairing existing lighting and installing new lampposts; repairing sidewalks and upgrading and reconfiguring pathways to create new gathering areas; restoring the original wrought iron fencing and manufacturing new fencing where needed to replicate the original, and providing new Bistro chairs and benches and posting new park signage. Unhealthy trees and shrubs have been culled, soil quality restored with the yearly addition of fertilizer and mulch, and new plantings have been undertaken. All has been done with great care to preserve the urban nature of the parks and keep them in harmony with Tudor City architecture.

Looking toward the future, in 2001 Tudor City Greens commissioned a team of professional garden designers to create a new Master Plan. This provides an overall blueprint for new and replacement garden structures and amenities, plantings and any other needed improvements.Tudor City Greens sponsors a Spring planting day every year to add colorful annuals including Impatiens, Cuphea, Elephant Ears, Pansies, Lantana, Coleus and more.

Each Fall the Parks are planted with over 2,000 Tulips to join the naturalized Daffodils which welcome in the Spring.

Twice each year, in the spring and in the fall, neighborhood volunteers gather in the Greens to plant and help the Greens’ part-time gardener prepare the parks for a new season. Volunteer efforts and financial contributions are absolutely essential to keeping the Greens beautiful and publicly accessible.

As an EcoBroker, Susan Singer always looks for greener pastures when buying or selling real estate for her clients. So when she first listed the property at 4 Lexington Ave she turned to her friends at Solar One since their offices are nearby.

Max Joel at Solar One was one of the speakers at the Earth Day event she co-sponsored with Baruch College whose campus is also in the Grammercy neighborhood.

Solar One is a green energy, arts, and education center whose mission is to inspire people of all ages with the vision, knowledge and resources to attain a more environmentally sound and sustainable future. They pursue this mission through unique initiatives in environmental education, sustainable arts performances and solar advocacy using their own solar-powered building as a prototype. Since they function as an arm of NYSERDA all of the program information for Energy savings and state subsidies is available right there.

Solar One hosts a variety of environmental programs, including:

• The Green Renter lecture series, which occurs evenings from October to May. This lecture series brings in experts to present and discuss topics related to the NYC urban environment and other relevant subjects. Past topics have included “Water Under Attack: Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas and the Future of New York Citys Drinking Water” and “On the Horizon: Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Potential in New York City.”
• Green from the Ground Up is a lecture series for building owners and managers explaining the available options for increasing the energy efficiency and sustainability of buildings. The series of three lectures focuses on different aspects of greening your building: Recycling & Waste, Sustainable Roof Options and Energy Efficiency.
• I Heart PV is a student- and volunteer-led advocacy campaign to increase awareness of NYCs solar potential and to express public support of strong solar policies for NYC. I Heart PV is part of ESSI, the Empire State Solar Initiative, which seeks to create tangible statewide policies and goals for solar capacity.

So if you’re in Gramercy, head over to Solar One and see what they’re up to. They’re located at the north end of Stuyvesant Cove Park, which is located along the East River between 18th and 23rd Streets.

You may have already seen this, but we just couldn’t resist…

Image via Wikipedia

As part of a new series of papers regarding federal, state and local decisions to expand energy efficiency choices for consumers, Distributed Energy Financial Group (DEFG) has published a free report on New York City’s “Greener Greater Buildings Plan.”

The Greener Greater Buildings Plan is a key component of an effort to reduce pollution and energy costs in the city by 30 percent by 2030 and was initially touted as “first of its kind.”  This benchmarking initiative began in 2007 with Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC which addresses aspects of the city’s aging infrastructure.

Under NYC’s benchmarking law, Benchmarking Energy and Water Use, facilities have to disclose their energy utilization index, water use per gross square foot, the Energy Star rating, and a year-to-year comparison of this data. Annual benchmarking for city-owned buildings larger than 10,000 square began May 1, 2010 and commercial facilities over 50,000 square feet must begin benchmarking May 1, 2011.

Not surprisingly, it was scaled back after pressure from local building owners. The author, Cynthia Boland, Esq., has provided a discussion of the opposition to the law, potential business and legal challenges, and comments on the future of green building legislation.

Why is the GGBP a harbinger of things to come? It is a landmark legislation that mandates compliance with four laws:

• a  municipal  energy  code  setting standards and  energy  use in  large  buildings
• a  sub‐metering  requirement
• requirements  for  energy  audits
• requirements for retro‐commissioning

Yet, the process and the politics can shed light on the complexities of getting this kind of legislation enacted in the future.  The story of GGBP can serve as a “earning experience for other  major  cities considering  legislation  to  improve  energy  efficiency in existing  buildings.

NYC isn’t the first jurisdiction to require buildings to benchmark energy use. In California the legislation began in 2007, requiring benchmarking and limited disclosure for the parties involved in a sale or lease of a facility starting on Jan. 1, 2010. But Washington, D.C. went further in 2008 by requiring phased-in public disclosure of energy use beginning this year. NYC’s 2009 legislation took it further by mandating full compliance years ahead of the D.C. legislation for a far greater swath of building types.

As the trend gains momentum other cities are considering doing the same. Seattle passed its own energy-use benchmarking and disclosure law in January. Jayson Antonoff, a sustainable infrastructure and green building policy advisor for the City of Seattle department of planning and development commented, “Everyone should have it on their radar,” Antonoff says. “I definitely see it becoming a national trend.”

The NYC law could lay the groundwork for the growth of this trend. Encompassing the highest concentration of commercial hi-rises in the US…more than a million buildings spread across five boroughs…the city’s action catalyzes energy benchmarking in the nation’s largest real-estate market. Benchmarked data will be submitted to the city via the U.S. EPA‘s Star Portfolio Manager tool, a free online benchmarking program. Fines will be imposed for those that fail to upload benchmarked data into Portfolio Manager.

Finally, the story of Greener Greater Buildings Plan highlights the fact that despite all the commotion about federal climate change legislation, most of the action with respect to energy efficiency and renewable energy is occurring at the state and local level. This means that we can all have a big impact on promoting change-not just within your our own businesses, but by working together to change attitudes, influence policymakers, and promote innovation.

When you begin to think about getting involved, think nationally, think statewide-and think locally. Many issues related to sustainability and your business-from energy policy to recycling services-are addressed at a local or state level.

Related articles by Zemanta

• EPA Launches Energy Star Building Competition (cleantechies.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Ever wonder which costs more to operate, a microwave or an oven? How about what product uses more energy, a computer or a laptop? A new website created by GE answers your questions about 53 electrical products in your home.

The premise of the website is pretty simple. You select which appliances and electronics you have and then choose what information you want. Available statistics include how many watts of energy it takes to power them, the daily/monthly/yearly cost to operate them in all 50 states and how long you could operate them on 1 kWh.

The website shows that most energy-draining appliances are not always the most expensive to operate. For instance, the aquarium ranks No. 42 in energy use, with 30 watts, but it jumps to No. 13 when it comes to energy costs, at $3.07 per month in California. That same aquarium can
go 33 hours on just 1 kWh of energy, which ranks No. 12.

Of the top 20 highest energy using products, only seven are listed as having Energy Star-certified alternatives. Energy Star products can use up to 50 percent less energy than their counterparts, depending on the product. But according to GE you can only take advantage of these
savings on 24 of the 53 products listed.

One aspect of energy use not addressed on GE’s site is the effect of vampire power, or the amount of energy used while a device is plugged in but not in use. According to the Department of Energy, this amounts to 40 percent of residential energy consumption, but there are ways to slay those vampires (without a wooden stake).

Plugging electronics into a power strip and turning it off when you’re not using it is a widely prescribed solution for curbing vampire power. Power strips draw energy when they are turned on, but not when they are switched off. Many power strips have surge protection, so flicking your power strip on and off will not create a power surge capable of damaging electronic devices. In fact, it will protect devices from other surges. And if you’re worried about the possibility of fires caused by plugging too many things in at once, just make sure you only plug in the allowed number of devices. Just don’t plug your power strip into another power strip, or you run the risk of creating
an overload.

Image via Wikipedia

$19 billion each year is no small change, even for New York City. Residents of the city (there are 8.3 million in the city itself, and about 19 million in the metropolitan area) save at least this much each year due to the fact that they drive less than Americans living in other cities. The Metropolitan Transit Authority’s daily ridership is around 7 million, which adds up to over 2 billion riders on NYC’s subways and buses annually! On top of that, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) serves about 300,000 riders daily. All of these people benefit from the fact that, in addition to being good for the environment and people’s health, bicycling, riding transit and walking are good for people’s finances.

The non-profit organization CEOs for Cities recently reported that New Yorkers save $19 billion a year. After creating reports on the financial benefits of sustainable transportation for Chicago and Portland, officials in NYC asked the organization to do one for New York.

Although New York is a pretty good city for sustainable transportation, some powerful economic and development players have been big supporters of car-oriented development lately. With a better
understanding of the financial benefits of sustainable transportation, however, the hope is that things will change.

$19 billion is a lot. However, the CEOs for Cities report, “New York City’s Green Dividend,” actually gives a very conservative estimate of how much New Yorkers save by using green transportation, Noah Kazis over at StreetsBlog shows:

“The $19 billion number is a quick, conservative estimate that almost surely understates the savings New Yorkers reap by not driving. The study estimates that, per capita, New Yorkers drive nine miles per day. It then multiplies that figure by the national average cost of operating a vehicle, 40 cents per mile. Compare that total — how much New Yorkers spend on driving, per capita — to the national average, and you get $19 billion in savings.

Here’s why that’s a conservative estimate. The study calculated average VMT (vehicle miles traveled) rates in New York City by distributing the average daily distance driven in the entire metropolitan region according to the city’s vehicle ownership rates. If New York City car owners drive less often than their Suffolk County counterparts, or drive shorter distances when they do — both reasonable assumptions — then nine miles per day overshoots the mark.

Moreover, the cost of driving is almost certainly higher in New York than it is nationally, due to elevated costs for parking, insurance, and gasoline. In other words, it’s likely that New Yorkers save much more than $19 billion.”

Additionally, there are tremendous health benefits to using sustainable human-powered transportation. Being healthier, one saves a lot of money on healthcare as well, which is not calculated in here. And New Yorkers aren’t the only ones saving money using sustainable
transport. Across the country, people who ride transit save an average of $9,215 a year.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Five Months On, Bike Access to Buildings Law Showing Results (streetsblog.org)
• Transit Check: Most New Yorkers Take Green Modes to Work (streetsblog.org)

Image via Wikipedia

IBM recently released a Smarter Buildings Survey that surveyed 6,486 office workers in 16 American cities about how green and environmentally friendly workers believe their offices are. The survey questions covered building automation, security, elevator reliability and conservation practices.

The majority of those who took part in the online survey are full-time employees that work in downtown buildings more than nine years old. While Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Atlanta all rated high in environmental responsibility, the other 12 cities ranked at either average or below average.

According to IBM, 70 percent of the electricity in the U.S. is consumed by buildings. Disturbingly, they also report that up to half of that electricity is lost or wasted. The results highlight that the gap between how buildings are managed and the kind of smart,
environmentally efficient technologies their occupants expect is widening. The first key factor in making progress is awareness of current conditions and making that information available. The survey aims to push buildings beyond isolated efficiency strategies toward shared information and centralized management.

Here are some key results:

• 27% said their buildings automatically adjust lighting and temperature based on occupancy.
• 33% said their buildings are environmentally responsible.
• 14% said their buildings use renewable energy sources.

In a response that is becoming increasingly common, office workers said that they are happy to help make their workplaces better, with a few conditions. 80% are willing to share resources with other buildings as long as it does not affect their personal comfort level and 75% said they are more likely to conserve if they are rewarded.

• 65% are willing to help redesign their workplace to make it more environmentally responsible.
• 79% said they conserve resources such as water or electricity as part of their regular routine at work

By 2025, buildings will be the largest energy consumers and greenhouse gas emitters on the planet. According to IBM, the four major areas of focus for U.S. buildings are operational costs, corporate reputation, empowered tenants and regulatory compliance. While there is no magic bullet, the overall strategy will need to be one that empowers building residents to cut operational costs while increasing regulatory compliance with associated acknowledgment that boosts their reputation in the green and customer relation spheres.

Image via Wikipedia

It’s no secret that the Information Technology (IT) industry uses a massive amount of energy, manufacturing, transporting and just running.

That’s where Greenpeace‘s “Cool IT Leaderboard” comes in. For the the third time, Greenpeace has measured the environmental efforts of the world’s 15 leading IT companies using three primary metrics: solutions, footprint, and advocacy. As Greenpeace notes, as much as the IT sector contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, it is also positioned to be a leader in the charge against it because of its global influence and technical know-how. It is particularly important now that these companies work to curb their footprint, since they are increasingly relying on “cloud-based” computing—data centers with a troubling environmental impact.

Greenpeace gives companies points in three categories: Climate Solutions, Company Footprint, and Political Advocacy. The scoring criteria are as follows:

Climate Solutions criteria represent 50 out of 100 points, divided as follows:
• 25 points: Company makes public the calculations of current net GHG emissions savings provided by IT solution(s) to other parts of the economy via case study data.
• 15 points: Company makes public the explanation of metrics and assumptions used to calculate the net GHG emissions savings of their solutions.
• 10 points: Company sets ambitious short-term targets for growth of their net GHG emissions savings from IT solutions.

Company Footprint represent 15 out of 100 points, divided as follows:
• 10 points: Company makes commitment to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions of its own operations on a defined timeline. Maximum points awarded to companies with absolute reduction goals of at least 20 percent by 2012 using a 2008 or earlier baseline.
• 5 points: Amount of renewable energy used as proportion of total electricity use in own operation. Maximum awarded to renewable use greater than 25 percent of total, or has a target in excess of 25 percent by 2012.

Political Advocacy represents 35 out of 100 points, divided as follows:
• 10 points: Political Position: Public speech, preferably by the CEO, that references the need for science-based, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction cuts made to a relevant national or international audience.
• 15 points: Political Advocacy: Demonstrated lobby for science-based, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction cuts at the national or international level.
• 10 points: Repetition Bonus: Measures the the repetition of positive speech and advocacy.

So how do the companies measure up?

The best:
Cisco was the leader of the pack, scoring 62 out of 100 thanks largely to its aggressive emissions reduction targets and smart grid use. Interestingly, Cisco has not been as vocal about its eco-efforts as its lower-scoring competitors—proving there’s a big difference between going green and greenwashing. Ericsson, too, scored unexpectedly high, earning a 53 for its thorough emissions assessments and leadership at
Copenhagen.

The controversial:
Long regarded as a green leader in the IT industry, Google sunk to sixth in this year’s report, a shift that is generating lots of buzz. The company’s fall from grace isn’t quite as dramatic as it seems, though. Though it was knocked for its lack of transparency and
reduction targets, it still got top marks for its advocacy work.

The worst:
Panasonic and Sony have a lot of work to do—they scored 14 and 16 out of 100, respectively. While both companies have some green efforts in place, they were knocked for not providing clear solutions or living up to proposed efficiency changes.

It’s interesting that in the study, even the highest-scoring company received what would ordinarily be considered a failing grade. The overall low scores prove that while the IT industry is making important strides in the green fight, it still has a long way to go.