Some drama and a little bit of theatre of the absurd during the lenghty House floor debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ("ACES"), all of which C-SPAN helpfully streamed on-line. The Twitterverse also proved to be a good tool for staying on top of the minute-by-minute proceedings. When it was over the bill passed by a narrow margin of 219-212. http://bit.ly/1ajUjX. Eight Republicans, including my own Congressman, Dave Reichert, voted in favor; while 42 Democrats voted against.
At 1500-pages the extremely complex ACES will make for good bedtime reading for anyone with insomnia. A short summary is here: http://bit.ly/2O9py. ACES now goes to the Senate where it will take 60 votes to pass. Given the narrowness of the vote in the House there's no guarantee the measure will make it to President Obama's desk.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Waxman-Markley Bill Vote Coming Up
Word that the Waxman-Markley climate change bill, also known as American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), will come up for a vote on the House floor this Friday certainly has made my Tweetdeck and e-mail a lot more full as the cyberspace lobbying effort heats up, so to speak. I won't even attempt to go into all the Tweets about the subject, although a quick search on #ACES should give you an idea of the volume of traffic there. And in the e-mail arena, so far just in the space of an hour this afternoon I've gotten a message from the Pew Center for Climate Change advocating for ACES and one from the Associated General Contractors opposing the bill.
AGC sent out an Issue Alert saying the bill will increase the cost of construction and make U.S. investments in manufacturing and industrial facilities less economically attractive and, by regulating smaller emitters the market for commercial construction could be adversely impacted by these regulatory regimes. AGC cites the American Petroleum Institute critique that the bill would increase the cost of a gallon of gas by an estimated 77 cents over the next ten years through additional refinery costs and that those increased costs would likely crowd out efforts to raise the motor fuels tax to fund infrastructure that could reduce congestion and save fuel. AGC also says the bill adds new and onerous "planning" requirements for states and metropolitan regions that will further slow an already comprehensive and arduous federally-mandated transportation planning process. Finally, AGC says the new requirements would create disincentives to state and local planners to include new highway and bridge capacity in their transportation plans.
Meanwhile, Pew's e-mail contains a letter from its president to members of Congress urging passage, and a link to a webpage that lists and refutes eight myths about ACES, http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009. I won't go into all of them here, but among the issues that Pew addresses is the claim about the projected per gallon increase in gas, citing an EPA study that ACES would result in only 25 cents per gallon over the next 20 years.
So my e-mail box probably is a micro-microcosm of what must be a fairly intense back-and-forth on ACES that members of Congress are encountering. We'll see what happens on Friday.
AGC sent out an Issue Alert saying the bill will increase the cost of construction and make U.S. investments in manufacturing and industrial facilities less economically attractive and, by regulating smaller emitters the market for commercial construction could be adversely impacted by these regulatory regimes. AGC cites the American Petroleum Institute critique that the bill would increase the cost of a gallon of gas by an estimated 77 cents over the next ten years through additional refinery costs and that those increased costs would likely crowd out efforts to raise the motor fuels tax to fund infrastructure that could reduce congestion and save fuel. AGC also says the bill adds new and onerous "planning" requirements for states and metropolitan regions that will further slow an already comprehensive and arduous federally-mandated transportation planning process. Finally, AGC says the new requirements would create disincentives to state and local planners to include new highway and bridge capacity in their transportation plans.
Meanwhile, Pew's e-mail contains a letter from its president to members of Congress urging passage, and a link to a webpage that lists and refutes eight myths about ACES, http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009. I won't go into all of them here, but among the issues that Pew addresses is the claim about the projected per gallon increase in gas, citing an EPA study that ACES would result in only 25 cents per gallon over the next 20 years.
So my e-mail box probably is a micro-microcosm of what must be a fairly intense back-and-forth on ACES that members of Congress are encountering. We'll see what happens on Friday.
Monday, June 8, 2009
LEED for Existing Buildings -- A Whole New Ballgame
A requirement of the U.S. Government for renewing its lease of the EPA's Region 10 office in downtown Seattle is that the building obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Environment and Energy Design (LEED) Silver* certification for existing buildings (LEED-EB). According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, http://bit.ly/QItPb, the owners of 1200 Sixth Avenue in Seattle are planning to go two better and seek LEED-EB Platinum, which would make it the first such LEED-EB in Seattle with that designation and only the 14th in the world.
This is an important step since buildings account for nearly 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. While most of the attention on the LEED rating system has focused on new construction, bringing LEED concepts to the five million existing commercial buildings in the U.S. represents a much bigger carbon footprint reduction bang for the buck, although one that comes with its own challenges. Some of those issues were addressed by last year's revisions to the LEED-EB criteria to make them fit better with existing buildings. This article from an issue of "Greener Buildings" provides a good summary of the changes. http://bit.ly/ujGqv.
Other issues remain, not the least of which are the frozen credit markets and stalled commercial leasing that make it difficult for building owners to consider the expense of upgrading to LEED-EB when their bigger problem right now is hanging on to tenants who can pay the current rent. When the economy improves, however, the LEED-EB path could prove to be a whole new opportunity for both commercial real estate and the environment.
*[6/9 update -- Correcting the lease requirement for LEED Silver, not Gold]
This is an important step since buildings account for nearly 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. While most of the attention on the LEED rating system has focused on new construction, bringing LEED concepts to the five million existing commercial buildings in the U.S. represents a much bigger carbon footprint reduction bang for the buck, although one that comes with its own challenges. Some of those issues were addressed by last year's revisions to the LEED-EB criteria to make them fit better with existing buildings. This article from an issue of "Greener Buildings" provides a good summary of the changes. http://bit.ly/ujGqv.
Other issues remain, not the least of which are the frozen credit markets and stalled commercial leasing that make it difficult for building owners to consider the expense of upgrading to LEED-EB when their bigger problem right now is hanging on to tenants who can pay the current rent. When the economy improves, however, the LEED-EB path could prove to be a whole new opportunity for both commercial real estate and the environment.
*[6/9 update -- Correcting the lease requirement for LEED Silver, not Gold]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
