Saltzman Announces New City Green Building Standard

Tonight at PDX Lounge, the Portland showcase at the USGBC's Greenbuild Conference, Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced a new incentive and fee program for all new buildings based on their carbon footprint and energy usage profile.

The standard is still just in the talking stage - it hasn't been approved. But it seems very likely to pass in this city council.

As I understand it, the standard would break down like this: If your building is 45% more efficient than energy code stipulations, you'll actually get a rebate check from the city. If your project is 30% better, there'll be no rebate, but also no fee. If your building is less than 30% more efficient than code, you'll be charged what's called a "carbon fee".

As a point of reference, the OHSU Center for Health & Healing by GBD Architects is about 50% more efficient than code, and it attained a 'Platinum' LEED rating from the US Green Building Council. So even if they wouldn't have to attain high LEED ratings, the City is more or less saying that every building built in Portland will need to either meet that range of greenness (the only way to get those kind of efficiencies) or pay the cost in a very literal sense.

This would be the first carbon fee issued by an American city for new buildings.

I'm sure architects and green building enthusiasts would be quite jazzed about this plan. But there also is probably going to be some fear and trepidation. What do the rest of you think?

Comments

[aa]

Are the energy savings based on real life or on computer energy models? I think these incentives/penalties should be issued yearly based on actual energy usage in stead of being issued upfront at the permit counter based on unproven computer generated data.

[Bridger]

A fee structure based on energy consumption is definitely the right idea. Energy savings in a few, or even a few hundred, individual buildings don't account for much of our aggregate energy usage (though they should save thier owners some money in the long run).

The only way to make green building technologies relevant from a sustainability perspective is to make them widespread. Otherwise innovations are only curiosities.

[Jim Heuer]

The proposed incentives for improved energy efficiency in new construction is laudable (assuming that the evaluation process can be made transparent and does, in fact, contribute to lower carbon consumption). However I do worry about the city's existing buildings, many of which are "historic" by some measure. A focus on new construction will have long term effects, but attaining lowered greenhouse gas emissions within the needed time frame will require a much broader set of improvements.

Much of the character of this city is derived from its well-designed and well-built historic structures. Saving one of them by intelligent retrofitting for reduced energy consumption saves the environment twice: once in immediately lowered energy consumption and secondly in avoidance of new construction and all the energy consumption from the production of the required new materials.

Generally speaking, historic preservation of our built environment is inherently "green", and I'd love to see more recognition of that from our city's leaders.

[how do you spell relief: 4-9]

carrots work better than sticks

[td]

Let's just not pretend this won't increase costs of development, and raise rents and increase housing costs in Portland. It will. How much depends on what this 'penalty fee' is. Maybe not a big deal for high-rise projects, but definately a big deal for mid and low rise development. Are we going to waive it for affordable housing, as if they are not contributing to global warning?

Much better would be an incentive system rather than penalty system. That would be a much more effective approach. This sounds great, but let's have an HONEST debate about the costs and who really ends up paying! The devil is in the details.