Pathways To Green Building - Policy Primer 081112

Pathways to Green Building and
Sustainable Design:
A Policy Primer for Funders
By Noreen Beatley
Commissioned by the
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
and Livable Communities
November 2008
Commissioned and Distributed by:
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
1500 San Remo Avenue, Suite 249
Coral Gables, FL 33146
(305) 667-6350 phone
(305) 667-6355 fax
info@fundersnetwork.org
www.fundersnetwork.org
Researched and Written by:

Noreen Beatley
Edited by:
Kathy Doran, Editorial Consultant
Andrew Grigsby, Principal, Commonwealth Sustainability Works
Maureen Lawless, Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
Ali Peet, Community Planning Consultant
Ann Wallace, Consultant, Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
Acknowledgments:
This policy primer was commissioned by the Green Building and Green Neighborhoods Working
Group of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities in order to examine
promising strategies for advancing green building and green neighborhoods outcomes at the local,
state, and national level. The Network thanks Noreen Beatley, who conducted the research and
wrote the report, and Kathy Doran, Andrew Grigsby, Ali Peet, and Ann Wallace for editing it.
The Network is also grateful to the members of the Green Building and Green Neighborhoods
Working Group Steering Committee—chaired by Sandy Ambrozy from The Kresge
Foundation—who provided feedback and guidance to shape the final product.
Green Building/Green Neighborhoods Working Group

The Green Building and Green Neighborhoods Working Group focuses on two primary areas of
activity: 1) fostering funder education, information-sharing, and networking; and 2) facilitating
strategic collaborations to advance the field. At its annual meeting in November 2007, it became
clear that, although participants came to green building work from many different focus areas and
perspectives, every funder was interested in determining how their work could impact long-term
change through policy and practice. The idea to commission this primer—first suggested by Jon
Jensen from the Park Foundation—emerged from that meeting, with a request for the Funders’
Network to conduct research to examine promising green building and green neighborhood policies
enacted at the local, state, and national levels. This primer summarizes the results of that study.
— TABLE OF CONTENTS —
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ i

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... iv
Advancing Green Building Policy ................................................................................................................... 1
Green Building Policies in Action ................................................................................................................... 4
Mandatory Green Building Policies ........................................................................................................... 4
Voluntary Green Building Policies ..........................................................................................................14
Green Building / Energy-Efficiency Funds ...........................................................................................15
Green Neighborhoods, Green Communities: A Holistic Approach .................................................16
Incentives ....................................................................................................................................................18
Incentive Caution! ......................................................................................................................................25
Energy Policies and the Built Environment ................................................................................................26
Opportunities for Funders .............................................................................................................................35
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................44
Appendix ...........................................................................................................................................................46
Green Building and Community Planning ..............................................................................................47
Green Building Definitions and Standards ..............................................................................................50
Green Building: The Early Years ..............................................................................................................52
Green Building Policy Approaches: Carrots and Sticks ........................................................................52
Policy Enactment and Code Adoption Resources .................................................................................54
Beyond the Usual Suspects: Who’s Helping Drive State and Local Policies......................................55
Additional Resources and Policy Tools ...................................................................................................64
Interviews .....................................................................................................................................................67
Pathways to Green Building and Sustainable Design
Executive Summary
This primer was commissioned by the Green Building and Green Neighborhoods Working Group
of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities in order to examine policies
for advancing green building and green neighborhoods outcomes at the local, state, and national
level. It identifies and describes promising green building and energy policies enacted over the past
five years and outlines opportunities for funders.
The primer attempts to convey why enactment of green building and energy policies now is essential
to community sustainability. It describes a series of green building policies currently employed across
the country, providing an overview of where some green policies have been enacted and the steps
jurisdictions have taken to enact them. Because many green building policies have their roots in
energy conservation and efficiency, the primer also outlines a range of energy policies and their
connection to the built environment. Using information garnered from an array of studies and scans
conducted by field experts and interviews with advocates, funders, and practitioners, the primer
provides information about policies with the greatest potential to advance green design. It concludes
with a series of opportunities for funders interested in advancing green building and energy policies.
Context
• Energy costs and water shortages are two of the biggest drivers of green building and energy
policies. Many projected growth states are already facing these challenges.
• Projected population growth in the United States will shift political power from the Northeast
and Midwest to the South and West.
• Western states have been the most prolific in enacting green building and energy policies.
• While less numerous than the West, Central states have some of the most well-established and
innovative green design policies.
• Political culture, environmental awareness, and population growth all play an important role in
facilitating green building and energy policies.
• Neither red nor blue political affiliation determines where green design policies will be
enacted.
• Most green building practices evolved from energy legislation.
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) continues to be the most generally
accepted green building standard; however, several jurisdictions have designed their own
standards and EarthCraft continues prominence in the Southeast.
• Adoption doesn’t always equal compliance and implementation.
• Local, regional, and national initiatives such as the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
have catalyzed green building policy action in many communities.
• Jurisdictions and communities must still overcome a number of barriers to enact successful
green design policies. The most prominent barrier continues to be cost misperceptions.
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities i

Promising Policies
• Jurisdictions use a range—and sometimes a combination—of mandatory and voluntary
policies to advance green building and energy-efficiency practices in their communities.
• Few cities have enacted mandatory green building and energy policies for all development.
Yet the recent induction of larger cities to the mandatory circle is promising. Successful (or
failed) implementation may be the catalyst for action by other cities.
• Lead by Example, whereby government incorporates green design into its own construction
and purchasing practices, outnumbers every other policy. It is used as both a mandate as well
as a voluntary policy.
• Green strings policies that mandate green building standards for projects receiving public
subsidies are gaining prominence as elected officials execute financial stewardship over limited
resources.
• Many jurisdictions have adopted updated building codes, including the ICC Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Code. Unfortunately, not all adopted ordinances automatically
update their codes in concert with ICC updates.
• Voluntary policies continue to be the most prevalent green building and energy policies
enacted. Incentives range from technical assistance to grants to tax credits. Incentives with
little or no financial outlay, such as density bonuses and expedited permitting, tend to
dominate the pool of policies, while those such as tax credits and abatements return a higher
number of green projects.
• Many jurisdictions add a stick to incentive carrots by requiring fees if projects do not meet
targeted green standards. As green standards become more accepted and market driven,
jurisdictions will be able to reduce or eliminate added development incentives.
• Land redevelopment of large tracks that utilize comprehensive green design practices (such
as in Denver and Austin) provide a model for military base redevelopment and other
jurisdictions.
• Many states have enacted energy policies that go hand-in-hand or complement green
building policies, in many cases adding an extra incentive for consumers to invest in green
products.
• The Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, one of the most comprehensive
energy bills ever passed by Congress, includes a substantial number of green building
provisions from a Zero-Net-Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative to funding promotion of
renewable energy sources.
Opportunities for Funders

1. Fund Policy Initiatives with Long-Term, Multi-Year Commitments. Projected growth
states offer a great opportunity for long-term funder commitment. Not only will these states
need green design to meet the increased strain on resources, but growth states will command
a substantial amount of political power in the future.
2. Go Beyond the Choir: Create Networks and Alliances with and between non-traditional
partners and stakeholders to advance green design policies. Successful policy actions require
broad political influence and elimination of silos.
3. Develop Strategic Collaborations, such as funding pools and objectives portfolios, where
members divvy-up the workload according to their core competencies. Green building
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities ii

economic development potential also suggests funder collaborations with corporations to

leverage their combined capabilities and resources.
4. Think Globally, Act Locally by supporting the technical assistance available from local
organizations with intimate knowledge of the community. Recognize the incubator potential
that state and local policies have for federal action and support local policy initiatives. Since
state and local legislators tend to be the “farm team” for Congress, help ensure that they have
a comprehensive understanding of green building practices.
5. Lead the Convening: Encourage and Support Broad Stakeholder Involvement in
unbiased discussions to ensure policies are best tailored to the community, especially prior to
enacting incentive policies.
6. Collaborate with Organizations that Elected Officials Rely on and Trust including
membership organizations such as the National Governors Association (NGA), U.S.
Conference of Mayors (USCM), and Western Governors’ Association (WGA).
7. Adoption is Easy, Compliance is Tough: Support Training and Implementation. After
a policy is adopted, foundations have many opportunities to inform implementation.
8. Support Policy Evaluation and Next Generation Policies to accurately determine how
well a policy is working and: 1) whether it merits duplication in other jurisdictions; or 2) is
ready to advance to the next level.
9. Advance Policies without Taking the Legislative Route. Options include informing and
encouraging Executive Orders; ensuring that regulations governing government subsidies
include green strings; promoting adoption of green building standards for all redevelopment
of government owned or leased land; and/or encouraging green retrofits or development of
renewal portfolio standards.
10. Educate the Next Generation of Elected Officials. While it is hard to imagine
“forgetting” the opportunity to be involved during a presidential election year, every change in
administration at every level of government offers an opportunity to educate elected officials
about green design and promote green building standards. Also, every natural disaster that
destroys buildings and community infrastructure offers the opportunity to rebuild green.
Conclusion
Foundations may wonder: What does a policy “win” look like? While there may be many answers to
that question, the bottom-line is whether the policy created a widespread change in how people
think and act and conduct their daily lives.
Many opportunities exist to advance green design policies, particularly due to increased focus on
energy issues (as seen in the 2008 presidential campaign). The energy-efficiency, renewable energy,
and green building sectors offer huge economic development potential in coming years. By most
accounts, they will be the major economic drivers of the 21st Century. While these sectors are already
large, immeasurable economic benefits could accrue from policies supporting their increased
growth. The annual market for green building products and services is currently $12 billion and is
expecting to grow to $20 billion by 2010. In 2006, the energy-efficiency and renewable energy
industries generated more than $933 billion in revenue and employed more than 8 million
Americans. By 2030, there could be more than 40 million people working in these industries and
they could be generating approximately $4.3 trillion in annual revenue.
It seems that, in the future, green design policies may not only determine how we live, work, and
study, but also where we work as well.
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities iii

Introduction
This primer was commissioned by the Green Building and Green Neighborhoods Working Group
of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities in order to examine policies
for advancing green building and green neighborhoods outcomes at the local, state, and national
level. It focuses on green building initiatives and energy-usage policies that advance a commitment
to community sustainability. The primer identifies and describes promising green building and
energy policies enacted over the past five years and outlines opportunities for funders.
Intended Audience
The primer was created for funders interested in learning more about promising policy
opportunities, strategies, and tools for advancing green building and energy-efficiency practices at
the local, state, and federal level. It assumes an initial familiarity with green building and energy-
efficiency policy and practice—including the land use and population trends that motivate their use
and connect these strategies to positive growth and development outcomes. For funders new to this
subject, a substantial Appendix provides background information regarding the case for green
building and energy-efficiency policies and practices (including definitions and standards, a brief
history of the field, and descriptions of available resources).
How to Use the Primer

The primer attempts to convey why enactment of green building and energy policies now is essential
to community sustainability. It describes a series of green building policies currently employed across
the country, providing an overview of where some green policies have been enacted and the steps
jurisdictions have taken to enact the policies. Because many green building policies have their roots
in energy conservation and efficiency, the primer also outlines a range of energy policies and their
connection to the built environment. Using information garnered from an array of studies and scans
conducted by field experts and interviews with advocates, funders, and practitioners, the primer
provides information about policies with the greatest potential to advance green design. It concludes
with a series of opportunities for funders interested in advancing green building and energy policies.
Report Goals
This primer provides a broad look at some of the most promising green building and green
neighborhood policies enacted over the past five years as well as some currently under
consideration. It also attempts to examine the impact that population changes, demand on natural
resources, and political environment may have on the potential for policy action (see the Appendix).
It further identifies opportunities where active engagement by funders could help drive positive
policy outcomes and provides a few talking points to assist funders as they support policy action.
While the primer features a range of policies, its intention is not to provide an exhaustive listing of
every policy related to green building, green neighborhoods, or energy efficiency enacted across the
country. Instead, it focuses on policies that appear to be working in many jurisdictions or are
indicative of the next generation of policy action. Further, the primer does not attempt to identify
every jurisdiction that has enacted green building policies, but provides a sampling of where policies
are being implemented.
Funders interested in determining if a specific policy has been enacted in their jurisdiction or
whether a particular code has been adopted can access several important resources for more
information, including: the U.S. Green Building Council’s Government Resources link; the
Government Green Building Programs Inventory; the International Code Council; and the Database
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities iv

for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. Information on these resources can be found in
the Appendix under “Policy Enactment and Code Adoption Resources” (see page 54).
Finally, while some evaluative issues are addressed, many green building and green neighborhood
policies are relatively young and, as such, are still in the trial stage. This makes a true policy
evaluation somewhat difficult at this time. Yet as policies are enacted, implemented, and evolve, a
clearer assessment of their impact will become possible.
Report Methodology
Rather than reinvent the wheel, much of the information contained in this report has been drawn
from an array of studies done by organizations in the green building and energy-efficiency fields.
Organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), American Institute of Architects
(AIA), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACE3), and Alliance to Save Energy
(ASE), as well as federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Energy (DOE), have conducted numerous scans and studies that track legislation
and evaluate green building and energy practices and policies.1 Material from these studies and scans
form the basis for a majority of this report. Sidebar case studies—of both funder action and policy
options—are included and serve to illustrate the data. Additionally, to identify policies with the
potential to achieve the greatest positive impact, numerous interviews were conducted with green
building and energy experts, advocates and practitioners, foundations, and organizations at the local,
state, and regional level. The author thanks all those interviewed for their time and their insight in
helping develop this report.2
1 A complete list of all publications used to complete this scan can be found in the Appendix (see page 64).
2 A complete list of all individuals interviewed can be found in the Appendix (see page 67).
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities v

Advancing Green Building Policy
As many people recognize the reality of global warming and climate change, they are beginning to
understand that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Green talk is everywhere: drive less, walk
more; switch-out incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescent; replace high-flow faucet and shower
heads for low-flow fixtures, etc. Ads spout the “greenness” of a company to attract potential
customers; employers to attract employees. But how many people really understand what “green”
means? Or how or who measures it? Or if it is even measurable? With all the talk, it is important to
understand what green is—and isn’t—and that green building is not merely seen as the latest fad.
While the buzz is great, it is important that clear guidelines and standards are established and green
design practices are embedded in policies to become the new building standard. If designed well,
green building policies can achieve quantifiable results needed to help provide long-term global
warming solutions.
Environmental protection policies are not new to most jurisdictions. Many cities and states already
have policies and promote practices that encourage some level of energy efficiency, water
conservation, or recycling. Nor are cities strangers to policies geared toward public health issues—
lead paint is banned, smoking is restricted in public areas, and various safety codes and standards are
required for buildings.
Institutionalizing green practices through policies that regulate the design of buildings and
communities creates a new paradigm of holistic community development. Green building and
neighborhood policies consider the overall impact the built environment has on the community:
from building design that provides healthy and energy-efficient places to live, work, and study to
walkable neighborhoods that promote exercise and social interaction.
A View of the Field: Regional Green Building Policy Trends

The AIA conducted a study of cities with populations of 50,000 or more, which indicated that at
least 14 percent have enacted green building ordinances of some sort.3 On a regional basis, the
largest number and some of the oldest green building policies can be found in the West. While the
Central region has fewer policies, it has some of the most well-established and innovative green
policies due to cities such as Austin, Texas, Madison, Wis., and Chicago. The East Coast is rapidly
catching-up to the West in green programs and policy development. Two major cities on the East
Coast, Boston and Washington, D.C., have enacted policies that go beyond public buildings to
include mandatory green building requirements for private development. While Southern states
seem to have had a slow start, cities such as Atlanta stand out not only for their green building and
energy innovators, but also for the way they are taking a comprehensive approach to green building
practices and policies.
Two principle reasons why green building policy initiatives are growing faster in the West than in
any other region are ever-increasing energy costs and severe water shortages. Public awareness and
support for climate protection initiatives and conservation are also key motivators. More than one-
third of the green building programs in the United States are in California, which underscores the
importance that strong political leadership can play in policy development. This Western trend also
highlights that green building and energy policies are not blue or red issues; it’s about money. As
nearly every jurisdiction in the country struggles to determine how to reduce skyrocketing energy
3 Brooks Rainwater, Local Leaders in Sustainability, American Institute of Architects, www.aia.org/adv_localleaders. The
study was conducted in the summer of 2007 and included a survey of 606 cities with a 92 percent response rate.
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 1

and healthcare costs, they are finding that health and energy benefits derived by building green may
provide a long-term economic solution.
Knowing where green building and energy policies are being enacted provides a sense of which
regions are actively moving forward and opportunities that may exist on the horizon. Political
culture, environmental issues and awareness, and population growth all have important roles in
facilitating green building and energy policies. It also helps to understand how green policies evolve
and who has the greatest impact on their evolution. As jurisdictions address growth issues, many will
be looking for the solutions that green building can offer.
The Path to Policy

While the federal government has an important role in shaping sustainable development policies, an
overwhelming majority of the best policies enacted during the past five years have come from cities
and states. Because local and state policies address local concerns and meet local needs, policies can
be adjusted and adapted as necessary. Policy decisions also occur at a much more rapid pace than
those made at the federal level. To help foundations determine their best point of entry into policy
development, it is helpful to understand how policies evolve in this type of atmosphere.
The AIA’s recent study on leadership in sustainability shows that communities develop green
building policies along a few similar paths.4 Often, a jurisdiction’s planning department prompts the
initial foray into green building by including sustainability language in the comprehensive plan. Since
the plan determines how and where the jurisdiction will grow, the language serves as the
development principles.
Once sustainable development language is introduced, it is often necessary to align the jurisdiction’s
building codes with green building practices. Unfortunately most jurisdictions rarely update their
codes and when they do, building standards and codes are generally not overhauled in one fell
swoop. Updates rarely result in a comprehensive green building policy. Commonly, distinct codes
for energy efficiency, insulation, stormwater management, etc., are created over a period of time.
The overall quality of the building may be improved, but the advantages of a cohesive green building
policy are not realized. Even when codes are updated, officials may not receive adequate training to
understand and enforce the codes.
A second, more optimal direction for creating green building policies is through political leadership.
This occurs when an elected official creates a task force to review the jurisdiction’s sustainability
policies and provide recommendations on how to improve them. Most task forces recommend Lead
by Example policies calling for public buildings to be built or renovated to a green or sustainable
standard. To encourage green building in the private sector, a task force also may recommend that
the jurisdiction offer developer incentives or technical assistance. Communities with adequate
financial resources may create a staff position that coordinates and manages green building initiatives
and policies across departments, or even a new department or division to oversee green policies and
programs.
4 Ibid (www.aia.org/adv_localleaders).

Political leadership can result in a green building “movement” within a jurisdiction. When
Boston’s Mayor Menino took the lead for green building in Boston, he engaged in a series of
orchestrated events: ground breaking ceremonies, press conferences addressing the benefits
of green building, creating a Green Building Task Force, and periodic progress updates. He
also made public commitments to the Task Force’s recommendations and set a timeline for
implementation. With each event, he educated and informed Boston residents, getting them
more engaged and invested in the final outcome.5 Denver’s Mayor Hickenlooper launched
the Greenprint Denver Initiative to integrate environmental impact analysis into the city's
programs and policies.6 He also is working with Colorado Governor Ritter on a statewide
energy-efficiency campaign that provides residents easy ways to save energy and money.
Across the country, mayors and governors are recognizing that green building policies and
practices have the potential to drive economic development.7
Foundations can play a role in any of these scenarios, from supporting and encouraging key
policymakers to take the first green step to funding green building demonstrations. Foundations also
can support research and development of new codes and provide necessary training to bring officials
up to speed on the latest codes. They can help jurisdictions promote green building within the
community to build grassroots support and a green market. The first best step is to understand the
technology of green building and the characteristics of related policies.
5 Bradford Swing, Boston’s Director of Energy Policy, wrote Project-Based Policy Development: Building the Case for Boston’s
Green Building Policy, which outlines how the policy and events surrounding Boston’s Green Building work evolved. His
article provides more detailed information about Boston’s Green Building and related policy efforts and is available in
the Winter 2008, Vol 11., Number 1 issue of the NYU Law Journal of Legislation and Public Policy,
http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/issues/volume11number1/index.htm.
6 More information about Denver and Mayor Hickenlooper’s efforts may be found on the Greenprint Denver website at
www.greenprintdenver.org/.
7 Haya El Nasser, Mayors Unite on the 'Green' Front, USA TODAY, February 1, 2007. Available online at
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-31-greencities_x.htm.

Green Building Policies in Action
A comprehensive listing of every jurisdiction that has enacted green building and energy policies is
beyond the scope of this report. Instead, a typology of policies—from mandatory to voluntary to
incentives—is provided along with a sampling of where these policies have been enacted. Every
jurisdiction needs to examine its own objectives to implement the policies best suited to achieve its
current goals. As awareness grows and practices become standard, jurisdictions must be proactive,
set new goals, and develop next generation policies to meet them. Additionally, as funders review
policies, it is important to remember that although green design policies have bigger impacts in
larger, faster-growing jurisdictions, smaller jurisdictions with a vision also can provide significant
groundswells.
Mandatory Green Building Policies
Table I: Mandatory Policies

Enacting Examples of
Policy Jurisdiction Description Where the Policy Exists
Lead by Federal / State / Requires government/public State: CA, NY, RI, WA
Example Local buildings to be built to green AZ: Scottsdale, Tucson
standards, often a level of LEED; CA: Los Angeles, Alameda
may have parameters for County
compliance based on building size CO: Denver, Ft. Collins
and dollar investment.
Green Strings Federal / State / Requires private development LIHTC: AK, CT, GA, ME
Local using government funding or Washington State Housing
resources (e.g., land) meet green Trust Fund;
building standards. Chicago; Bellingham, Wash.
Codes State / Local Building code requires green Statewide: CA, NY, UT
and/or energy efficiency standards. City: Boulder, Colo.;
Washington, D.C.; Boston; San
Francisco; Dallas; Frisco, Texas
Only a handful of jurisdictions have taken the leap to mandatory green building and energy policies,
but it is likely that trend will increase in the near future. And while some people may consider
mandatory policies draconian, many others feel that the only way to address escalating climate issues
is by putting strong controls in place now. Cities in the forefront of the green building movement—
such as Portland, Ore., and Austin, Texas—took time to build support and structure for their green
markets and have achieved great success using voluntary programs and incentives. Cities that have
come to green building somewhat recently, such as San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C.,
recognize that they are a little late to the game and must take strong steps now. Examples from
some of these cities are included here, followed by descriptions of types of mandatory green
building policies.

Boulder
In 1996, Boulder, Colo., was the first municipality to mandate a residential green code. The
Green Points residential green building program was revised in 2001 and again in 2007. Its
most recent revision was adopted by ordinance in February 2008. Like Austin’s Green Builder
Program, Green Points evolved out of efforts to conserve and reduce energy consumption
through the city’s Energy Option Point program.
To ensure successful implementation and compliance with the ordinance, Boulder developed
education and training presentations. The city offered free trainings to building professionals
and presentations were made to the public to make them aware of the changes. The city also
developed a guidebook that outlines and explains green features and their benefits to the
homeowner. To help find green building materials, the city identified suppliers that carried
products listed in the Green Points checklist. Boulder even provided training to supplier sales
staff, both to help them understand and explain how products fit into the Green Points
program, as well as market green products instead of conventional building products.
Initially, Boulder’s green building code only applied to new construction, but since 75 percent
of the permits went for remodeling projects, a voluntary remodeling program was later
established. When Boulder updated its building code in 2001, it was revised to include all
remodeling projects larger than 500 square feet. Revisions to the code also increased the
number of required points from 25 to 65. Additionally, as the size of homes began to
increase, the city added a new requirement that homes larger than 2,500 square feet had to
earn an additional green point for each additional 50 square feet.
Because of its code-based green building program, Boulder gets 100 percent market
penetration for green building. Moreover, since the public is educated about green building
benefits, the program creates demand for green building products and services. Builders are
taking advantage of the increased awareness of the benefits of green building and using their
green points number as a marketing feature.8
While other, small jurisdictions have gone the mandatory green building route, large cities
have been reluctant until recently. Two major cities, Boston and Washington, D.C., enacted
mandatory green building policies for private development within weeks of each other in
2006 and 2007. San Francisco and Dallas followed suit in April 2008.
Washington, D.C.
In December 2006, the District of Columbia adopted the DC Green Building Act. The Act
mandates green building standards for both public and private projects and requires that the
city’s construction code be updated to include green building practices by 2009. The
program also sets forth energy targets and requires that projects be monitored annually with
the EnergyStar Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool.9 To support the mandate, the Act
establishes a Green Building Incentive Program, a Green Building Fund to support education
and marketing of green building, and a Green Building Advisory Council to ensure community
input.
Green building requirements will be phased-in over the next few years according to the type of
development. After October 2008, all new or substantially renovated city-owned and funded
projects greater than 10,000 square feet must achieve LEED Silver certification as well as
meet certain energy efficiency targets;10 residential projects must meet or exceed the Green
8 City of Boulder. Green Points Program History,

www.ci.boulder.co.us/files/City%20Council/Study%20Sessions/2007/08-14-07/EA%20ATTACHMENT%20A.pdf.
9 The EnergyStar Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool assesses a building’s energy and water data, tracking
consumption, performance and cost.

10 Projects must achieve 75 points on the EnergyStar Target Finder Tool, which helps set energy use goals at the project
planning and design phase.

Communities standard;11 and tenants of commercial space with at least 30,000 square feet
undergoing major renovations must achieve LEED-CI (LEED for commercial interiors)
certification.
Beginning in 2009, all private commercial projects 50,000 square feet or greater involving
new construction or substantial renovation must submit a checklist that documents the
project’s green building elements as part of the building permit application. Completed
projects must be verified by an approved third party certifier or the city within two years of
completion. After 2012, all new construction and renovation of private buildings of 50,000
square feet or more must be LEED-certified and educational facilities (excluding post-
secondary educational buildings) will be required to meet LEED for Schools or equivalent
standards.12,13 The Act also provides incentives for early compliance, such as an expedited
review process and grants according to a timeline of compliance before 2012 and the level of
green certification achieved.
Boston
In January 2007, the city of Boston’s Zoning Commission adopted new green building articles
into the city’s Zoning Code, making Boston the first major U.S. city to implement a green
building zoning code. Adopting Article 37 into the Zoning Code meant that Boston’s green
building requirements, unlike D.C.’s phased-in process, went into effect immediately.14 While
projects must be LEED “certifiable,” they are not required to receive “certification.” Certifiable
means that the developer must submit a LEED score card that indicates the project, as
designed, would earn the minimum number of LEED credits were it submitted to USGBC.
However, developers are not subject to what some believe is a very expensive certification
process.
San Francisco
San Francisco’s new green building requirements are a bit more stringent than D.C. or
Boston’s but, like Washington, D.C., they use a tiered system for implementation. Green
building policy will be implemented over the next four years, with full implementation
requirements in place by 2012. The new building code requires that all new high-rise
residential buildings achieve LEED-Silver; commercial building and major renovations greater
than 25,000 square feet must achieve LEED-Gold; and all new small- and mid-sized
residential buildings must meet the city’s GreenPoint Rating system.15
11 The Green Communities (GC) standard is the national green building program designed by Enterprise Community
Partners and the Natural Resources Defense Council that provides criteria for the design, development, and operation of
affordable housing. A self-certification checklist to verify standards were met must be submitted as part of the
application for a certificate of occupancy. For more information about the GC criteria, please go to
www.greencommunitiesonline.org.
12 Amy Jones, Washington, D.C. Enacts Green Building Requirements for Private Projects, Construction Weblinks, April 16, 2007,
www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/Apr_16_2007/wash.html.
13 Brooks Rainwater, Boston, D.C., Adopt Green Building Rules for Private Development, AIArchitect Online Magazine,
February 2, 2007, www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0202/0202p_bostondc.cfm.

14 Boston Green Building Task Force, www.bostongreenbuilding.org/. Accessed May 2008.
15 Brooks Rainwater, SF Moves toward Far-Reaching Green Building Code, AIA Online Magazine, April 18, 2008,
www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek08/0418/0418n_sfcoderev.cfm.

Lead by Example
While some cities may take the bold step of leaping to mandatory green building for all
development, the first step most jurisdictions take is to adopt a Lead by Example policy that requires
or encourages new or renovated publicly owned buildings to incorporate green building and energy-
efficiency standards.16 While some jurisdictions set a minimum building size or project cost as a
threshold to invoke green building and energy-efficiency standards, many take the broader approach
of including every government-owned building constructed or renovated. Most require that
standards meet a third-party certification test or at least meet the criteria to be “certifiable.”
By far the most common third-party certification is the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. Due to the prevalence of
LEED standards, some pundits have even dubbed this policy “LEED” by Example.
Although there is some criticism of LEED, a majority of those engaged in green building seem to
feel that it provides important national standards that can guide a jurisdiction and help ensure that
field-tested green building criteria are utilized. Moreover, many of the concerns that have been raised
about LEED can be addressed by how the jurisdiction involves the community and adapts LEED
standards to local conditions. Where energy or water consumption is high, a jurisdiction can require a
higher level of LEED energy and water efficiency points as threshold. If a jurisdiction uses LEED
standards as a starting point, rather than an ending point, it can achieve goals specific to its climate,
economic, and growth needs. For example, when Boston decided to require LEED certifiable
standards the point system was customized to allow credit for attributes, such as historic
preservation, distributed generation, groundwater recharge and mobility, considered important to
Boston’s sustainability.17
Numerous jurisdictions have enacted energy-efficiency policies, such as energy-efficiency

purchasing, for government buildings and agencies. An energy-efficiency purchasing policy specifies
minimum energy-efficient standards for a range of products, including appliances, office equipment,
vehicle fleets, etc. In some instances, jurisdictions establish procurement policies that mandate the
ENERGY STAR label. Where mandatory low-bid requirements provide a barrier to the purchase of
more efficient products, procurement regulations may need to be modified via legislative authority.
A few states, such as Arizona, New Hampshire, New York, and California, have issued executive
orders and/or passed legislation requiring state procurement of energy-efficient products.
In 2004, California required all state agencies and departments reduce their energy consumption by
20 percent from 2003 levels by 2015. To meet this goal, Executive Order S-20-04 mandates that all
new and renovated facilities meet LEED silver standards. It also requires state agencies leasing 5,000
square feet or more to seek office space in buildings with an ENERGY STAR rating and to develop
purchasing policies that specify ENERGY STAR electrical equipment. The Order further directed
the Division of State Architect to develop new green design guidelines for public schools. Finally,
the Executive Order instructs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to ensure that its
utility sector efficiency program encourages owners of private building to pursue similar energy-
efficiency and green building standards.18
16 While most jurisdictions enact mandatory Lead by Example Policies, some—especially cash-strapped areas—take a
more cautionary approach and only “encourage” agencies to adopt green building practices whenever possible.
17 David Hancock, Boston’s Green Building Requirements, CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares, Inc.,
www.naiopma.org/DV/Pages/images/Permitting/HANCOCK_GREEN_BUILDING.pdf.
18 State of California, Green Action Plan,
www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/documents/background/02_GREEN_BUILDING_ACTION_PLAN.pdf.

Executive Order 111, issued by New York’s governor in 2001, established a comprehensive energy-
efficiency and renewable energy program for state government procurement standards and building
design. The order established energy performance criteria and guidelines for new and existing
buildings, set targets for reducing energy consumption, purchasing renewable energy and clean fuel
vehicles, and required that ENERGY STAR products be purchased. All state agencies and
departments must comply with the order.19
By using government-owned, public buildings as the launching point for green building and energy
policies, jurisdictions not only set an example, but also help build the local green market. One of the
largest barriers to green building is the initial learning curve: understanding what “green building” is,
forming a development team that includes architects, builders, and engineers knowledgeable about
green building techniques, determining and locating appropriate building materials, and recycling
demolition and construction debris, etc. Jurisdictions can help reduce the learning curve by creating
and growing the green building market through their own development practices.
LEED Adoption Green Building Lead by Example policies are

In February 2008, the USGBC released a policy effective leadership models because they tend
update that found LEED standards had been adopted to represent project-based policy. Project-
by 14 federal agencies, 27 states, 23 counties, 75 based policies are created around specific
cities and 17 towns. While many of the enacted “projects” or events—in this case the
policies called for LEED certification, many accepted development of green buildings—that help
other third-party certifiers or only required the project
be “certifiable” (i.e., not officially complete the foster an environment in which consensus
certification process). grows as conflicts are resolved.20 Doubts
about the benefits of the policy are addressed
with each building phase—from construction to occupancy—and the public can see visible and
tangible results from the policy.
Another advantage of Lead by Example policy is the general publicity that often surrounds it. As
Jason Hartke from the USGBC pointed out, completed public sector projects receive significant
press attention and can help garner public support.21 When Boston Mayor Menino attended ground
breakings and openings of green buildings, such as the George Robert White Environmental
Conservation Center at the Boston Nature Center, he helped set the stage for subsequent policy
actions by building public awareness of the benefits of building green.22
19 Environmental Protection Agency, Developing a Clean Energy-Environment Action Plan, Guide to Action,
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap3_s1.pdf.
20 Bradford Smith, Project-Based Policy Development: Building the Case for Boston’s Green Building Policy, N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub.
Policy, March 2008, http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/issues/volume11number1/index.htm.

21 Interview, Jason Hartke, Director of Public Policy, USGBC.
22 The George Robert White Environmental Conservation Center is owned by the city of Boston’s
George Robert White Fund and leased to the Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Creating Champions
The Barr Foundation promotes smart, equitable, and In January 2007, the commission passed Article 37,
sustainable regional development in Boston. An making Boston the first major city in the nation to
essential part of this work involves supporting green adopt green building codes that mandate green
design and development. In 2002, the Foundation building standards for both public and private
conducted a scan of opportunities and leverage development.
points to determine where its support would provide
the maximum impact. Recognizing that city officials Under Article 37, any new (or major renovation of)
have the greatest influence over new development, public or commercial building greater than 50,000
the Foundation realized that change would have to square feet must meet Leadership in Energy and
be led from the city’s Executive Office. Environmental Design (LEED) standards. As
developers go through the permitting process, they
Working with the city’s key environmental and must show they are adhering to the LEED checklist as
planning staff, the Barr Foundation urged the Mayor well as meeting other criteria considered key to
to create a task force on green building. To support Boston’s character and sustainability, such as historic
the task force, the Foundation hired the Green preservation, distributed generation, groundwater
Roundtable, a local nonprofit consulting agency recharge and mobility.1 Because of the Mayor’s strong
focused on advancing green building in the region. leadership, there has been minimal resistance to the
The Foundation worked behind the scenes as an code changes. With numerous highly public events
anonymous donor. This allowed the Mayor to be the highlighting the Mayor’s interest in green building,
primary public face and champion of the green developers had seen the writing on the wall and knew
building drive, and take full credit for its success—a the changes were coming.
dynamic that helped move policy efforts forward
faster. To sustain this work, the city continues to prioritize
building community awareness about the benefits of
Boston’s Green Building Task Force included green building. Meanwhile, to ensure new green
academics, developers, designers, and other key building policies are effectively implemented, the
stakeholders appointed by the Mayor. Facilitated Foundation is helping city agencies with capacity
and supported by the Green Roundtable, it met for a building, closing knowledge and skill gaps, as well as
year. In addition to funding the day-to-day work of providing funding for city staff to receive training and
the Task Force, the Foundation also provided technical assistance.
funding for city staff and Task Force members to
visit other cities to learn about green building The Barr Foundation used its green building
programs first hand. knowledge to encourage the Mayor into a win-win
solution for the city. Close collaboration with city
The Task Force released its final report and staffers and Barr’s behind-the-scenes support enabled
recommendations in November 2004. The Mayor the Foundation to advance its goal of institutionalizing
committed to implementing the recommendations green building practices into the Boston landscape.
over a three-year period. A major recommendation
from the Task Force was to update the city’s building To learn more about the Boston Green Building Task
codes to include green building elements. True to Force Report and Article 37, Boston’s Green Building
his word, the Mayor pushed the Zoning Code Codes, please go to:
Commission to develop new green building and http://www.bostongreenbuilding.org/.
energy-efficiency codes.
1 Boston’s Green Building Requirements, David
Hancock, AIA, LEED, CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares,
http://www.naiopma.org/DV/Pages/images/Permittin
g/HANCOCK_GREEN_BUILDING.pdf. The city does not
require projects receive LEED certification, only that
they are certifiable.
The Barr Foundation is a private foundation working to enhance the quality of life for Boston residents. The Foundation’s three primary
focus areas are: education, especially within the Boston Public School system; Livable City initiatives that build just, environmental
stewardship; and cultural vitality that promote diversity and civic engagement while enhancing the Foundation’s environmental and
educational goals.

Attaching Green Strings

A not-so-new practice that is being applied to green building is a policy in which a jurisdiction
attaches strings or specific requirements in exchange for some sort of public subsidy, such as land or
funding. “Green string” policies ensure that buildings developed using public funding are built to a
green and energy-efficient standard. Green string policies show true stewardship of public financing
because they ensure that the development is built to high performance standards, saves money and
natural resources, and benefits overall community goals.
Green string policies are often used in affordable housing or community projects in which the city
or state is providing funding and/or some other type of subsidy. Many states tie green building
policies to Housing Trust Fund and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) awards. The
subsidies provided almost always offset any premium associated with building to a green or energy-
efficiency standard. Moreover, because green building practices reduce on-going operating costs and
provide healthier living environments, housing policies that incorporate green building ensure long-
term affordability.
In most states, the LIHTC program provides the greatest incentive (i.e., funding) for affordable
housing development, so it has become a prime green strings opportunity. Almost every state
promotes some level of sustainable development through its housing allocation plans. Forty-two
states use threshold criteria promoting sustainable development, including mandatory design,
construction, energy standards or other program requirements.23
In 2005, Washington State passed legislation requiring that affordable housing funded by the
State Housing Trust Fund meet green building standards. With stakeholder input,
Washington’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development created the
Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard (ESDS) to meet specific state energy and
environmental objectives. The ESDS is a 70 point criteria system; 33 points are mandatory,
37 are optional. Points are awarded for a variety of sustainable building practices including:
integrated design process; site, location, and neighborhood fabric; water conservation; energy
efficiency; environmentally-friendly building materials; and operations and management. As
of August 2008, to be eligible for funding from the State Housing Trust Fund, all projects must
meet the threshold 33 mandatory points; new construction projects must earn at least 50
points, while acquisition/rehab projects must earn at least 40 points.24,25,26 Starting in 2009,
the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which oversees the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, also will require that multi-family projects meet the Evergreen
Standards to be considered for tax credits.27
Codifying Green Building and Energy

Codes that establish minimum quality and performance criteria can be an essential tool in reducing
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions attributed to buildings. In the United States, codes are
adopted at the state and local level. While almost every jurisdiction across the country uses some
type of building codes to guide construction and development practices, there is no nationally
23 James Tassos, Green Policies, Smarter Plans: How States are Using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to Advance Healthy,
Efficient and Environmentally Sound Homes, October 2007, Enterprise Community Partners,
www.practitionerresources.org/cache/documents/654/65431.pdf.
24 State of Washington, Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard, www.cted.wa.gov/site/1027/default.aspx.
25 Washington State Housing Commission, www.wshfc.org/conf2007/presentations/S2GreenII.pdf.
26 For a full listing of the Evergreen Sustainable Development criteria, go to
www.cted.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTEDPublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemID=1545&MId
=841&wversion=Staging.
27 Interview, Gregory Black, Senior Asset Manager, Washington State Housing Trust Fund, May 5, 2008.

enforced code. The 1992 Energy Policy Act called for every jurisdiction to review and “consider”
adopting an energy code, but did not go so far as to mandate it.
Model codes developed by the International Code Council (ICC) are the predominant building
standard used by most states and municipalities and are the closest thing to a uniform building code
in the United States.28 The ICC has developed 13 comprehensive codes (i.e., each is capable of
standing alone). The ICC family of codes is updated on a regular basis. Code supplements are
published annually and consolidated into new codes every three years. All ICC codes are
coordinated and compatible with each other, and reference national standards.
Standards establish the Table II: International Code Council Family of Codes
conditions or Building Codes International Building Code (IBC)
requirements a material International Residential Code (IRC)
or method must meet. A Fire Codes International Fire Code (IFC)
standard is typically International Urban-Wildland Interface Code (IUWIC)
developed by industry Fuel Gas, Mechanical, International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
and professional Plumbing, Electrical International Mechanical Code (IMC)
associations using the International Plumbing Code (IPC)
groups’ combined International Private Sewage Disposal Code(IPSDC)
experience, knowledge, Existing Buildings International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
testing, analyses and International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)
research. While a code International Code Council Electrical Code
becomes law once it is Administrative Provisions (ICC Electrical)
adopted by a state or Specialty International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
ICC Performance Code (ICCPC)
locality; a standard is only
International Zoning Code(IZC)
legally enforceable to the NOTE: Each code is comprehensive (i.e., capable of standing alone). All codes are coordinated and
extent to which it is compatible with each other. All codes reference national standards.
referenced in an adopted
code.29
Although many jurisdictions employ codes from ICC’s Family of Codes, each determines which
codes and which version (i.e., year) of those codes to adopt. Several jurisdictions also amend ICC
codes to reflect local conditions. Consequently, codes may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Additionally, even though ICC regularly updates its family of codes to reflect technological and
material changes that can impact quality and performance, few jurisdictions follow suit. In many
instances, city officials may be unaware that unless the local ordinance or law adopting the code
provided for an automatic update, action is needed to adopt the next version of the code.
For example, a jurisdiction that adopted the 2003 International Energy and Conservation Code
(IECC) without an automatic update provision did not convert to the 2006 IECC. Even when
jurisdictions do update codes, many advocates have discovered updates may not be enforced, either
due to lack of training or insufficient prioritization. Fire and safety concerns tend to “trump” energy
issues, so code officials may focus on public safety codes and neglect the “lesser” energy codes.
For information about how ICC codes are developed, please go to www.iccsafe.com.
28
For more information about the difference between codes and standards, please go to
29
www.iccsafe.org/news/about/pdf/Ref_Standards_Guide_Feb_2006.pdf.

Codes that restrict green building practices—such as graywater reuse, waterless urinals, and green
roofs—represent another hurdle for sustainable design. When the EPA Region 8 headquarters was
being built in Denver, a city that has significantly embraced green building practices, EPA wanted to
install a graywater system in the building. Yet because Colorado codes do not allow the practice, the
idea had to be scrapped.30 There are reports that use of green roofs initially encountered similar
challenges in Chicago, which is now the nation’s leader in green roofs. One of the problems
jurisdictions face when incorporating green standards into building codes is that some green
practices have not been tested as extensively as industry and underwriters would like, thereby
causing code agencies to be hesitant to approve their use in standard codes.
Although ICC has developed a few “specialty” codes—such as the International Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Code (IECC)—that increase minimum standards in a particular area, it has not
developed a code specifically focused on green building. Fortunately, many building code officials
have the authority to approve alternative designs, materials, and construction methods as long as
they meet the intent of the building code. Until codes are developed to reflect more green building
technologies, this is one route many jurisdictions are taking to employ green building practices that
are not addressed in building code.
Some jurisdictions are making the move to adapt their building codes to reflect more sustainable
design practices when they enact green building policies, either by amending ICC codes or
developing their own building codes. For example, under its new green building ordinance,
Washington, D.C., is required to incorporate as many green building practices into its building code
as practical for the D.C. urban environment and to adopt the IECC 2006 code. The District’s new
code is scheduled to be introduced by 2009. Thereafter, the District is required to review and update
codes every two years to incorporate green building practices developed since the previous round of
code revisions.31
30 April 1, 2008: Comments made during tour of EPA Region 8 Headquarters, Funders’ Network 2008 Annual
Conference.
31 Emily Jones, Washington, D.C. Enacts Green Building Requirements for Private Projects, April 2007, Construction Weblinks,
www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/Apr_16_2007/wash.html.

Promoting Statewide Energy Action increased, municipal support for statewide

legislation that superseded their local authority
Illinois is a “home rule” state, which means would have been highly unlikely.
municipalities and countries have the authority to
control local issues without intervention from the The law requires all new commercial buildings as
state legislature. While this brings the rule of law well as all those undergoing renovations meet the
closer to the people, it often results in disparate IECC. The IECC sets minimum design and
policies between jurisdictions. Regardless of the installation standards for lighting, windows, walls,
inconsistencies, jurisdictions rarely relinquish roofs, insulation, heating/cooling/ventilation and
control to the state. In Illinois, this meant no other key building systems.2 An important allowance
statewide building code; each jurisdiction adopted within the law, which also probably contributed to its
its own codes to meet its own community needs. passing, is that local governments are free to adopt
stricter energy conservation codes.
The Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation
recognized that green building codes were an The law further requires the Department of
essential tool to advance energy efficiency and Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO)
better overall energy policies at both the municipal provide energy code education programs for code
and state levels. With Illinois’ home rule precedent, officials and for building designers, engineers, and
the Foundation realized that only change at the contractors. The Illinois Clean Energy Community
local level could leverage the groundswell support Foundation is offering training grants to help ensure
needed for state action. implementation.3 The Foundation also is continuing
its focus on green design grants for new and
The Foundation began working with municipalities rehabilitated projects to highlight the benefits of
to review local codes and determine how they might going green, especially for municipalities
be improved to support and capture energy “unconverted” to green building.4
efficiency. A statewide opinion poll conducted in
September 2001 indicated strong public support for Passage of the Bill helped move the state beyond
updated energy-efficiency codes even if the updates the lip-service it had been giving to green building
resulted in increased costs. Poll results helped ease and energy efficiency to enact Green Building
local officials’ apprehension over green codes and Guidelines for State Construction. This law
the Foundation discovered that many municipalities mandates that all new state-funded construction
aspired to be leaders in energy efficiency. and renovations of existing state-owned facilities
meet current Leadership in Energy and
To further alleviate code officials’ fears, the Environmental Design (LEED) standards practical for
Foundation provided funding to train local officials that particular project.
on innovative energy codes that drew from the best
national practices and were part of the traditional Although the Illinois Clean Energy Community
family of municipal building codes. It turns out the Foundation never directly funded work on the
latter action was the most strategic. Most Illinois statewide policy, its support and work with
municipalities adopt the International Code Council municipalities provided the platform for enactment
(ICC) codes; many had even inadvertently adopted of the statewide energy codes and the adoption of
the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), LEED mandate for state-owned buildings. The
ICC’s model energy code. Enforcement lagged Foundation stayed within the confines established
because code officials were simply not trained in or by its Board of Trustees and yet, was still able to
familiar with the code’s energy-efficiency provisions. promote significant policy changes.
The Foundation encouraged compliance with the
energy codes by providing grants to municipalities to For more information, please contact Jim Mann,
train code officials and the construction industry. Executive Director, Illinois Clean Energy Community
Foundation, jmann@illinoiscleanenergy.org.
One of the major outcomes of the Foundation’s
support was that municipalities recognized the 1 Illinois Energy Efficient Commercial Building Act, Chapter 20 of
value a statewide code might offer. The the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Act 3125.
2 www.il.gov/pressreleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?RecNum=
Foundation’s grants and trainings helped prime the 3286&SubjectID=17.
pump for legislative action that created the first 3 State Construction Green Guidelines can be found at:
statewide energy code: the Illinois Energy Efficient www.cdb.state.il.us/green_initiatives.shtml.

4 Comments from interview with Jim Mann, Illinois Clean Energy
Commercial Building Act.1 Had trainings not
Community Foundation, March 5, 2008.
occurred and awareness of code benefits not
Established with an endowment from Commonwealth Edison, the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation invests in clean energy
development and land preservation and works with communities to improve environmental quality throughout the state.

Voluntary Green Building Policies

Table III: Voluntary Policies and Incentives
Enacting Examples of Where
Policy Jurisdiction Description the Policy Exists
Lead by Example Federal / State / “Encourages” government/public San Jose, Calif.; Bowie,
Local buildings be built to green standards, Md.; Princeton, N.J.
sometimes sets a LEED level as
example.
Technical Federal / State / Provides design, planning expertise, EPA; Arlington Co., Va.;
Assistance Local trainings, material purchasing Chicago; Austin, Texas;
guidance, etc., to help project achieve Phoenix; Alameda Co.,
green standards. Calif.; Gainesville, Fla.
Density Bonus Local Allows developer additional height, Arlington Co., Va.; Seattle;
floor area, reduction in parking Cranford, N.J.; Acton,
spaces, etc., in exchange for green. Mass.
Level of bonus varies according to
jurisdiction. May be combined with
other incentives programs.
Expedited Local Expedites building review and permit Sarasota Co., Fla.; Chicago;
Permitting process in exchange for building to Santa Mateo, Calif.;
green standards; as level of green Arlington Co., Va.
increases, review and permitting time
may be further decreased.
Fee Reduction/ Local Reduces or waives permitting fees San Antonio, Texas;
Waiver according to level of green achieved. Chicago; San Diego
Grants Federal / State / Provides funding in exchange for Alameda Co., Calif.;
Local project built green; often covers Portland, Ore.; King Co.,
design and planning costs or costs Wash.; Santa Monica, Calif.
associated with third-party
certification.
Green Local Provides funding to neighborhoods Howard County, Md.;
Neighborhoods that incorporate green building Atlanta BeltLine; Stapleton-
priorities in community design and Denver; Mueller-Austin,
buildings. Texas
Loans Federal / State / Provides or supports financial Federal: Energy Efficient
Local institution loans, often at a reduced Mortgages-FHA, VA,
interest rate, which can be used for Commercial retrofit: SBA;
energy-efficiency improvements, NY Energy $mart; Alameda
installation of energy renewable Co., Calif.; MT Clean Energy
systems, purchase of new energy Fund; WI Energy Efficient
efficient home, or green building. Mortgages
Property Tax Local Abates taxes for improvements Cincinnati; Nevada;
Abatement related to green building; amount and Chatham Co., Ga.; Arizona
period of abatement depends on
jurisdiction
Rebates Federal / State / Utilities partner with municipalities to Phoenix; Austin, Texas;
Local offer rebates on certain energy Reading, Pa.; Los Angeles,
efficient and green building materials. Calif.
Sales Tax State / Local Abates sales tax for green materials Nevada, Georgia, Texas
Abatement and energy-efficient products.
Tax Credit State / Local Credit against property and/or income New York, Maryland,
tax in exchange for project built to Oregon; Baltimore Co., Md.
green standards; amount of credit
may be tied to level of green achieved.

While numerous jurisdictions have mandated green building and energy-efficiency policies for
government buildings, few have jumped to mandatory policies for private development. Most have
endorsed and supported the development of voluntary programs that include a fair amount of
public education and awareness and have incentives tied to them. Due to the perceived additional
costs and time delays assigned to green building by many private developers, numerous jurisdictions
are afraid that, if green building is mandated, development in the jurisdiction will dry up and without
the enticement of an incentive, developers will resist moving to green building practices. Meanwhile,
many advocates believe that incentives make policy adoption quicker and easier and help build the
green market faster.
One of the country’s oldest and most successful voluntary policies is the city of Austin’s Green
Building Program. The program evolved from the city’s Energy Star Rating Program, a home energy
rating system established in the mid-1980s. The Green Building Program was developed in the early
1990s to expand efficiency specifications from energy use to include water consumption, use of
building materials and solid waste production. It is managed by the city’s Environmental and
Conservation Services Department. In 2000, Austin passed a resolution requiring all municipal
buildings be built to LEED Silver standards or higher, but, to date, the city has resisted mandating
green building for private development. Even without a mandatory policy, the city boasts the highest
number of buildings built to green standards in the country. To be fair, Austin hasn’t achieved that
status simply by education and encouragement from the Green Building Program staff. It also offers
a significant amount of incentives in the form of rebates and loans as well as substantial technical
assistance.32
Green Building / Energy-Efficiency Funds

Several jurisdictions have initiated Green Building or Energy Efficiency Funds to develop
educational materials and provide technical assistance on green building, energy efficiency, and
conservation. Funding, via grants or loans, also may be available to help offset the upfront costs of
building to green standards, upgrade and retrofit existing buildings to be more energy efficient,
and/or help pay down the costs of LEED certification.
Portland’s Green Investment Fund (GIF) is a highly competitive grant program that supports
innovative industrial, multi-family residential, commercial, and mixed-use public and private green
building projects. The primary intent of GIF grants is to support early building and site-related
activities that examine what is needed to achieve an exemplary, comprehensive green building
project. These GIF grants may also offset the incremental hard costs of the green building measures
to meet green building goals and priorities.33
Many funds receive monetary support from developer fees (Arlington County, Va.), non-compliance
penalty fees (Seattle) or, more frequently, utility user fees (Connecticut’s Energy Efficiency Fund).34
For example, Arlington County, Va., instituted a developer fee (dubbed a “contribution”) of $0.03
per square foot to help cover the costs of its Green Choice programs. Developers whose projects
earn LEED certification (even just basic certification) are eligible to receive a refund of the
contribution.
32 Austin Energy, Austin Energy Green Building Program,
www.austinenergy.com/energy%20efficiency/programs/Green%20Building/index.htm.
33 Portland Green Investment Fund, www.portlandonline.com/OSD/index.cfm?c=42134.
34 Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund, www.ctsavesenergy.org/.

Seattle established a Green Building Fund to support market adoption of green building through
educational materials and technical assistance. Monetary support mostly comes from penalties
assessed on projects that were granted density bonuses in exchange for building to green standards,
but did not meet performance standards (i.e., a LEED Silver rating or higher) or failed to submit
timely reports verifying that certification was achieved. Seattle’s penalties are fairly hefty: for a
delayed report, developers are fined $500 per day from the due date (90 days after the final
Certificate of Occupancy is issued); performance penalties are calculated according to the project’s
construction value and the level of LEED applied for versus actually achieved.
Green Neighborhoods, Green Communities: A Holistic Approach

As more jurisdictions embrace and employ green building policies, a few are taking the idea to the
next level to realize the increased benefits of combining green building and smart growth principles.
The resulting “green neighborhood” is a much more holistic approach to neighborhood and
community development. Perhaps due to the complexity of taking a community-wide approach to
building green, only a handful of jurisdictions have developed green neighborhood policies at this
point. The LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) program is being developed to
encourage this broader community-scale approach and helping to define what it takes to create a
green neighborhood. Once jurisdictions get past the initial hurdle of understanding what it takes to
create a green neighborhood, expect many more jurisdictions to embrace the approach for
development of both new and existing communities.
Two fairly well-known green community efforts are the result of the redevelopment of municipal
airports in Denver (Stapleton) and Austin (Mueller). The decision to build these developments using
smart growth principles and green building standards was a policy decision reached by both cities
with enormous community input. While neither redevelopment has yet resulted in specific formal
policy to promote green communities, it is likely that the lessons learned in both will help inform
future community development and green redevelopment policy actions, especially in regard to
other large redevelopments, in cities nationwide.
At 4,700 acres, Stapleton’s conversion to a mixed-use urban infill community is the nation’s largest
redevelopment project. The community is designed as a series of distinct transit-oriented
neighborhoods with pedestrian-friendly, walkable streets and a mix of office, retail, and residential.
Each neighborhood boasts parks and greenspaces and building architectural styles reflect Denver’s
historical residential and commercial districts.35 The community, which is approximately seven miles
from downtown Denver, will link to downtown via a planned light rail system. The basic parameters
of the Stapleton redevelopment plan addressed economic opportunity, environmental responsibility,
and social equity.36 Adhering to the Built Green Colorado program was a requirement for all
homebuilders developing at Stapleton.37 When fully developed (build-out is projected over a 15 to 20
year timeline beginning in 2001), the development will boast 12,000 homes built to green building
standards.
The Mueller airport, at about 15 percent the size of the Stapleton redevelopment, is miniscule in
comparison. Yet it is a major undertaking for a city the size of Austin. Austin has long been known
for its green building practices and the redevelopment of the municipal airport site will showcase
35 Stapleton Redevelopment, www.calthorpe.com/Project%20Sheets/Stapleton.pdf.

36 Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, 2005 InterCity Visit, Denver,
www.austinchamber.com/TheChamber/AboutTheChamber/Denver05_Intercity/airports.pdf.
37 Forest City Announces Stapleton Homebuilders, August 30, 2001, Forest City Enterprises, Inc.,
www.stapleton.cciconstellation.net/More_News-Forest_City_Announces_Stapleton_Homebuilders.aspx.

those designs and practices. The entire redevelopment is being built to green standards, including
the 25 percent affordable homes required on the site.
Within three miles of downtown Austin, the Mueller redevelopment project is adjacent to 16
existing neighborhoods in East Austin. Like Stapleton, the project is designed for walkability and
transit access, with a proposed light rail system in the works. Mueller features healthcare facilities,
commercial retail and office space, and homes—all built to meet the green standards of the Austin
Green Building program. Similar to Stapleton, Mueller set forth specific goals it expects for the
development: 1) fiscal responsibility whereby the redevelopment creates a positive revenue stream
to fund on-site infrastructure and expand the city’s tax base; 2) economic development to reinforce
Austin’s position in the global marketplace and provide a wide range of employment opportunities
for community residents; 3) revitalization of East Austin, giving community residents a stake in the
redevelopment; 4) compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods; 5) diversity and choice that builds
and maintains an ethnically and economically diverse community; and 6) sustainability to promote
energy efficiency, reduce auto dependency, protect watersheds, and preserve green space.38
Jurisdictions that have enacted green neighborhood policies without the benefit of large
redevelopments include Howard County, Md., and Atlanta. Howard County passed legislation to
establish a Green Neighborhoods Program in 2007 that creates a Green Neighborhood Allocation, a
Housing Unit Allocation Chart, and a Green Neighborhood Checklist outlining a list of options that
can be used to create a Green Neighborhood site and home. Residential projects are eligible to
receive a Green Neighborhood Allocation from the county if the project achieves a minimum of 90
points out of a total of 167 possible points on the Green Neighborhood Site portion of the Green
Neighborhood Checklist. To be eligible for a Building Permit and subsequent Use and Occupancy
Permit, residential development projects receiving a Green Neighborhood Allocation must achieve a
minimum of 46 points out of a total of 84 possible points from the Green Neighborhood Home
portion of the Green Neighborhood Checklist.39
Atlanta, home of the creators of the EarthCraft House program, has done a good job making green
features widely accepted in the city’s development community.40 It is ranked one of the top green
cities for green buildings by SustainLane and boasts the highest number of LEED buildings in the
Southeast.41 Yet Atlanta also is known for its sprawling patterns of development and the city has
finally realized that building green alone will not fix decades of unsustainable planning decisions. In
2005, Atlanta launched the Beltline Project, a 25-year project designed to better manage the city’s
future growth. The project is designed to create sustainable communities in a belt line area one to
three miles from downtown Atlanta using underutilized residential, commercial and industrial land.
Planners will integrate transit and greenspace development and coordinate with the city’s Livable
Centers Initiative and its Brownfields program to create green, sustainable communities. The city has
budgeted $427 million for the first five years of the project and issued bonds for Beltline Tax
Allocation Districts to address issues such as affordable housing, economic development, land use,
parks and greenspace, planning, public art, sidewalks and streets, and trails and transit.42
38 Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, 2005 InterCity Visit, Denver,
www.austinchamber.com/TheChamber/AboutTheChamber/Denver05_Intercity/airports.pdf.
39 Department of Planning and Zoning, Howard County, Md., Green Neighborhoods Program,
www.co.ho.md.us/DPZ/Environment/green_building.htm.
40 The EarthCraft House was developed by Southface Energy and the Atlanta Home Builders Association. It is widely
built throughout the Southeast, www.earthcrafthouse.com.

41 The SustainLane 2008 U.S. City Rankings, http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/?cat=2, #19. For a listing of
all 50 states included in the SustainLane Report go to www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/.

42 BeltLine: Atlanta Connected website, www.beltline.org/.

Incentives
Because purely voluntary programs may be limited in accomplishing a jurisdiction’s green building
goals, many state and local governments enact incentive policies to promote construction aligned
with green building practices. These incentives range from expedited permitting to density bonuses,
which cost the jurisdiction little to no financial outlay, to tax abatement and tax credits. While green
building is still relatively new to the development world, incentives make particularly good sense
because they spur interest and help developers confront the learning curve associated with new
design technologies and materials. They also can accelerate the green building materials market as
developers seek out environmentally-friendly materials to comply with green building guidelines. To
really spur the market, incentives need to be well-publicized, easy to understand, and meet the needs
of local developers. Developers who can’t see the value in the incentives offered are unlikely to
access them.
Density Bonus
A Green Building Density Bonus allows a developer to build a project at a density higher than
existing code allows in exchange for building the project to specific green building standards. While
a majority of existing density bonus programs focus on commercial office space, several jurisdictions
include all types of development. Density allowances range from increasing a building’s height or
floor area or dwelling units to reducing the number of required parking spaces. In some instances,
such as Seattle, the density bonuses also may include a requirement that the project contribute to
affordable housing and other public amenities in addition to building green.
In 2000, Arlington County, Va., initiated a Green Building Density Bonus based on LEED
standards for commercial buildings. Although interest in the program appeared high in its first three
years, only one developer applied and received the bonus. Since 2003, when the program was
expanded to include all types of development, it has taken off.
To receive a density bonus, the site plan proposal must guarantee a LEED rating of certified or
above (Silver, Gold or Platinum); the level of the LEED also impacts the range of the bonus density.
However, simply building to LEED standards does not guarantee a density bonus; requests for
bonus density and/or height are analyzed on a case-by-case basis based on the characteristics of
individual sites.43
Some jurisdictions that allow density bonuses, such as Seattle, impose penalties on developers that
receive a density bonus, but are then unable to earn the specified LEED rating. In Seattle’s case, any
penalties collected are contributed to the city’s Green Building Fund which is dedicated to
supporting market adoption of green building.44
Expedited Permitting
Every developer knows that time is money. The permitting process in most jurisdictions is an
arduous, time consuming, and frustrating process. The longer it takes to receive building permits,
the more money it costs. To stimulate green building, several jurisdictions offer expedited permitting
that streamlines the approval timeline for projects built to green standards. In some cases, such as in
43 Arlington Co., Va., Environmental Services Website, Green Building Incentive Program,
www.co.arlington.va.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/epo/EnvironmentalServicesEpoIncentiveProgram.aspx.
44 City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, City Green Building, 2006 Density Bonus Incentive,
www.seattle.gov/DPD/stellent/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/documents/web_informational/dpdp_018423.
pdf.

Chicago, the permitting time decreases as the number of green building elements increases.
Applicants that demonstrate an “extraordinary level of green building strategies” may even have fees
waived.45
San Mateo, Calif., recently passed an ordinance that provides expedited building inspections (within
two days of an inspection request) for commercial and industrial buildings seeking LEED Silver
certification. Applicants for the expedited permit processing have to post a $10,000 bond. The bond
is released when certification is verified. If the project does not verify certification or bring the
project into compliance, the bond is forfeited.46
Chicago also offers expedited permitting for green building through its Green Permit Program.
Projects that meet the program’s green building criteria can receive permits in as little as 15 business
days. Commercial projects must meet LEED standards, while smaller residential projects must earn
a two or more star rating under the Chicago Green Homes program. Projects must include one to
three menu items to be eligible for expedited permitting. The project complexity as well as overall
number of green building elements incorporated in the plans determines the timeline of the permit
process. Projects that meet the most stringent sustainability guidelines also may qualify for a waiver
of their code review fees.47
Fee Reductions/Waivers
Just as Chicago offers fee waivers for some projects that meet very stringent green building
guidelines, other jurisdictions are beginning to offer development fee reductions or waivers to
developers willing to build to green standards. Fees imposed on new development can be substantial
depending on the size and type of structure. Waiving fees or providing a fee reduction helps reduce
initial upfront green building costs or cover the cost of third-party certification, which is a persuasive
incentive for developers who do not plan on reaping the operating cost benefits that result from
green design. In 2003, Gainesville, Fla., began offering a 50 percent fee reduction for developments
built to standards established by the Florida Green Building Coalition. In a short time period, the
city went from just a few buildings meeting green standards to entire subdivisions and large-scale
developments meeting the standards.48
Grants
A few jurisdictions offer grants to help spur green development. Grants support a range of services
needed to help get a project off the ground. In some cases the grants are used to offset costs
associated with third-party certification, in others they provide support in the design stages of the
project. In some instances, funds are used to provide incentives directly to consumers for energy
efficient or green building measures. Especially for developers new to green building or trying to
incorporate new energy efficient technologies, funding at the early stages of design is key to ensuring
that the project actually achieves its goals.
45 City of Chicago, Department of Buildings, Green Permit Program,
www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf.
46 San Mateo, Calif., Green Building Ordinance, www.recycleworks.org/pdf/Green_Building_Ordinance.pdf.
47 City of Chicago, Department of Buildings, Green Permit Program,
www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf.
48 Mark E. Hostetler and Marisa Romero, Policies that Address Sustainable Building Practices, University of Florida IFAS
Extension. Available online at edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW252. Accessed April 2008,

legistar.cityofgainesville.org/attachments/3714.pdf.

Under its Built GreenTM program, King County, Wash., provides funding up to $20,000 for single-
family, townhome, and multi-family residential and community development projects to help offset
the cost of certifying and designing innovative green projects throughout Seattle and King County.49
Santa Monica, Calif., awards two types of grants to promote green building: Renewable Energy and
Innovative Technology. Renewable Energy Grants range from $20,000 to $35,000 depending on the
level of LEED achieved. Eligible applicants include all new construction and major renovation in
commercial, affordable housing, mixed use and multi-family projects that register for LEED
certification. Innovative Technology (IT) grants are available for energy efficient systems and urban
runoff mitigation technologies. Commercial, affordable housing, mixed-use, and single- and multi-
family resident buildings, both new and retrofit, are eligible.50
In 2002, under the leadership of former Governor George Ryan and in conjunction with the EPA,
Illinois established the Green Illinois Communities Demonstration Program which provided grants,
technical assistance, and priority consideration for state funds to local governments interested in
developing a green community plan. Plans considered how to improve air quality and water
conservation methods, reduce waste, protect and restore natural areas and resources, maintain green
space, and promote renewable energy alternatives.51 More recently, Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich signed the “The Green Neighborhood Grant Act,” which incentivizes the use of
LEED-ND. The new law awards up to three grants annually for the reimbursement of up to 1.5
percent of total development costs of selected projects.52
Grant programs often require appropriations by the jurisdiction unless they are funded via some
type of dedicated funding source. As described earlier, several jurisdictions have established Green
Building, Energy Efficient or Sustainability Funds with dedicated or set-aside funding that offer
grants to support innovative green building and energy efficient projects (see “Green Building
Funds” beginning on page 15 for more information).
Loans
Several jurisdictions, at every level of government, offer or support loans for energy efficiency
upgrades; some also offer loans for green building measures or installation of renewable energy
sources such as solar panels or wind turbines. Support ranges from loan guarantees to simple
agreements between governments and lending institutions. Government support or backing of these
types of loans lowers financial institutions’ risk and encourages consumers to make upgrades
because they receive reduced interest rates. In most cases, savings from energy efficiency
improvements more than cover the cost of the loan, including interest.
One of the oldest loan programs along these lines is the Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM).
Because energy-efficiency upgrades significantly lower monthly utility bills, homeowners have more
buying power and can afford a higher mortgage. An EEM allows the homeowner to borrow an
amount more than which they would normally qualify or an amount higher than the existing
mortgage to cover energy-efficient improvements. While the federal government does not make the
49 King County, Wash., BuiltGreenTM Program, www.builtgreen.net/incentive.html.

50 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency,
www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentivesearch.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA47F&Search=Type&type=Grant&Current
PageID=2&EE=1&RE=1.
51 Green Communities Demonstration Program, www.epa.state.il.us/p2/green-communities/index.html.
52 Law of the Land: A blog on land use law and zoning. Maintained by Albany Law School Associate Dean and
Professor Patricia Salkin. lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/illinois-becomes-first-state-to-initiate-green-

neighborhood-development-program/.

loans directly to consumers, it insures lenders and allows them to provide risk-free EEMs through
the Federal Home Administration (FHA) and Veterans Administration (VA) programs. The FHA
and VA EEMs provide mortgage insurance for individuals to purchase or refinance their principal
residence and incorporate the costs associated with the energy-efficient improvements into their
mortgage. The borrower does not have to qualify for the additional amount or make a down
payment on it because the energy improvements support the increased amount.53
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-regulated lending entities, also provide EEMs.
Fannie Mae allows approved lenders to increase ratios on a buyer’s debt-to-income for an EEM,
while Freddie Mac allows a lender to use the projected utility savings as a “compensating factor” to
increase the loan amount.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) also offers several loan programs to help businesses
retrofit and purchase energy efficient equipment. The 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program provides loans
for construction, renovation, and improvements that can be used to purchase energy efficient
equipment or retrofit a facility to increase its energy efficiency. The SBA loans specifically targeted
to Energy Conservation and Pollution Control facilities are not for end users (i.e., consumers), but
are available to companies that build, install or service energy and pollution control, such as salvage
and recycling centers. Localities interested in pursuing green building policies can encourage and
promote green economic development by working with local entrepreneurs to secure federal loans.54
States such as New York work with financial institutions to provide reduced-interest loans for both
residential and commercial energy efficient and green building improvements. The New York
Energy $martSM program is funded by a Systems Benefits Charge (SBC) and administered by the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).55
Under the New York Energy $martSM program, residential borrowers (1—4 units) may be eligible
for reduced interest rates on loans up to $20,000 ($30,000 for Con Edison customers); existing
multi-family buildings (more than 5 units) may receive a maximum loan of $5,000 per unit for
retrofits; new construction multi-family buildings may qualify for loans up to $1,000,000 plus an
additional maximum of $500,000 for Green Building Improvements; and commercial buildings,
including industrial, institutional, government, and nonprofit, can qualify for reduced interest rates
on loans up to $1,000,000 with an additional maximum of $500,000 for Green Building
Improvements.56
Sales Tax Abatement

To spur the purchase of energy efficient products, numerous states employ sales tax “holidays” for a
variety of items. Many states offer sales tax “holidays” on school supplies at the end of summer
break. A few entrepreneurial states have applied the concept to green building to give shoppers a
break from state and local sales and use taxes on purchases of certain energy efficient /Energy Star
products. While some states set a time period for the sales tax abatement, others, such as Maryland
53 For general information on energy efficient mortgages available through federal government programs, please see
www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/housing/fin-energy-eff/eff.html.
54 For more information, please see www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=sb_state.sba_loans.
55 A system benefit charge is a fee utility companies charge consumers to cover costs associated with public benefit
programs such as low-income utility assistance and energy-efficiency programs.

56 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), NY Energy $martSM Loan Program:
www.nyserda.org/loanfund/.

and Minnesota, provide it year-round.57 Appliances most often eligible for the tax abatement include
high efficiency clothes washers and dryers, air conditioners, heat pumps, water heaters, and fuel
efficient vehicles.
Some states set eligibility value limits. For example, in Georgia, residential appliances under $1,500
are exempt from the state sales and use tax, but not local sales tax, and in Texas, the state puts a cap
on the cost of air conditioners eligible for the tax “holiday.”58, 59
Although sales tax holidays are a minor policy tool, they represent an easy best practice because they
help build support for energy efficiency and should be a relatively easy policy to institute in many
states. They are relatively low-cost, require little administration, and produce high consumer benefit.
While a sales tax abatement is generally not much of a financial burden on a jurisdiction, it can
greatly benefit mid- to low-income families and help build awareness around energy efficiency and
conservation issues.
Tax Credits
Tax credits are a significant financial incentive. Unlike a tax deduction, which lowers taxable income,
a tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the tax paid. For example, a tax deduction would
reduce the amount a corporation in the 9 percent tax bracket pays by 9 percent of the value of the
tax deduction. A tax credit, however, reduces the tax by 100 percent of the amount—dollar-for-
dollar—paid. While tax credits are a substantial benefit to those that receive them, jurisdictions must
be extremely circumspect when employing tax credits as an incentive because they can have a major
impact on revenue. With that in mind, tax credit programs are often set with caps or time
limitations.
For the past several years, states such as Maryland, New York, and Oregon have used state tax
credits to stimulate green building practices. Depending upon the jurisdiction, the credit is available
to offset personal and corporate income and/or property taxes. New York and Maryland enacted
Green Tax Credit Programs in 2000 and 2001, respectively, while Oregon initiated the Sustainable
Building Tax Credit in 2000. New Mexico enacted a Sustainable Building Tax Credit in 2007. A few
Maryland counties have recently enacted their own green building tax credit programs.60
New York created the first Green Building Tax Credit (GBTC) program in 2000 for business and
personal income taxpayers. The credit is available to offset corporate, personal income, and
insurance and banking corporation taxes. The incentive applies to owners and tenants of eligible
buildings and tenant spaces that meet “green” criteria established under the GBTC. The GBTC
criteria provide for on-going maintenance of green building performance and allow compliance to
be certified by licensed architects and engineers.
LEED standards are not used with the GBTC because New York State law prevents the adoption of
third party standards that may change with time. Yet much of the construction and interior criteria
under the GBTC are similar because legislation required it to be informed by LEED. However,
57 Opportunities for State Action: Sales Tax Waiver, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
www.aceee.org/energy/salesfs.pdf.
58Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE),
www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=GA05F&state=GA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&E
E=1.
59 Window on State Government, Energy Star Sales Tax Holiday, www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx98_836/.
60 In 2007, Green Building Tax Credit Programs were established in Baltimore and Howard Counties, Md. More
information about these county programs can be found on the DSIRE site, www.dsireusa.org.

unlike LEED, which allows applicants to meet threshold requirement and then choose from a menu
of options, GBTC criteria are prescriptive and detail exactly what the applicant must do to be
eligible for the credit.
In the initial phase of the program which ran from 2001 to 2004 (Period 1), applicants could apply
for a Credit Component Certificate and claim the credits over five years. In 2005, the program was
extended another five years (Period 2: 2005 to 2009). Taxpayers who are issued a Credit Component
Certificates in Period Two have nine taxable years (until 2014) to claim the credits. The 2000 law set
a cap of $25 million in credit certificates; another $25 million was added in the 2005 legislation.61, 62, 63
As of September 2007, the program had funded seven buildings (six of which were in NYC).
Unlike the New York Green Building Tax Credit, Maryland’s Green Building Tax Credit is only
available to offset corporate income taxes. It provides a credit of up to 8 percent of the cost for
buildings built to green standards with at least 20,000 square feet of interior space. To qualify for the
credit, buildings must be primarily non-residential or residential multi-family buildings with 12 or
more units (or a combination), and constructed or rehabilitated to meet a series of LEED
commercial standards. Newly constructed buildings must be located on a qualified brownfields site
or in a priority funding area (and not in wetlands). Rehabilitation projects are eligible if the building
size is not increased more than 25 percent or they are located in a priority funding area.
Maryland set a cap of $25 million on the Green Building Tax Credit. In 2006, attempts to lower the
threshold requirement of 20,000 square feet to make it more accessible for infill projects and
increase the cap to $50 million failed. Fourteen projects, on a first-come, first-served basis, were
funded by the tax credit before it reached its cap in August 2007.64 The program is currently on hold.
Although the present governor and a majority of the legislature are supportive of green building, the
current financial conditions of the state may make it difficult to allocate more funding in the
immediate future to the program. The credit is scheduled to expire in 2011.65
The Oregon Sustainable Building Tax Credit (SBTC) is a 35 percent credit available for buildings
that achieve LEED Silver certification or above, or a comparable rating standard approved by the
Oregon Department of Energy. To be eligible for the credit, the Oregon Department of Energy also
requires projects to earn at least two credits for energy efficiency, at least one credit for additional
commissioning beyond LEED prerequisite requirements, and prepare a report projecting the
amount of solar radiation the building will receive annually.
Unlike Maryland and New York, which base their tax credits on the cost of the project, the amount
of the SBTC is calculated according to the gross square footage of the building’s conditioned space.
The 35 percent tax credit is taken over five years: 10 percent of the eligible project costs in the first
and second years and 5 percent of the eligible project costs each year thereafter. For projects with
61 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency,

www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY05F&state=NY&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&E
E=1.
62 New York Department of Environmental Conservation, www.dec.ny.gov/energy/1540.html.
63 New York State’s Green Building Tax Credit, Craig Kneeland, Sr. Project Manager, NY State Energy Research and
Development Authority, www.epa.gov/solar/documents/4_20_06_Austin_GBTC_paper_Kneeland.pdf.

64 Maryland Green Building Task Force minutes, September 17, 2007,
www.dnr.state.md.us/ed/September17GBTFMeetin%20MinutesOc2007.doc.
65 Maryland Green Building Tax Credit,
www.energy.state.md.us/incentives/business/greenbuilding/greenbuilding_qualifications.pdf.

eligible project costs of $20,000 or less, the 35 percent tax credit may be taken in one year. Unused
credits can be carried forward up to eight years.
Oregon goes beyond New York and Maryland by allowing a pass-through option for non-profits,
schools and other public entities not subject to Oregon tax liability. These groups may participate in
the Business Energy Tax Credit Program which allows project owners to “pass-through” or transfer
their 35 percent tax credit project eligibility to a partner with an Oregon tax liability in exchange for
a lump-sum cash payment.66 The Oregon Department of Energy determines the rate used to
calculate the cash payment.67
Oregon also provides a tax credit to consumers who purchase energy-efficient appliances. Since the
state does not have a sales tax, it implemented the income tax credit program to encourage the use
of high-efficiency appliances and equipment to save energy. To reduce the administrative work
involved in the program, Oregon is attempting to make the credit available at time of purchase
(which is how a sales tax abatement generally works).68
In addition to green and sustainable building tax credits, the federal government, as well as several
states, counties and cities, offer energy tax credits for homes and commercial buildings that
incorporate significant energy efficient features or renewable energy sources. The federal Energy
Policy Act of 2005 provided tax credits through 2007 to home owners and builders for such things
as cool and green roofs, energy efficient windows, insulation and installation of solar panels. The
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 extended some of the tax credits for homeowners (solar
installation) as well as extended most of the builder and corporate tax credits until the end of 2008.69
Property Tax Reduction

Many jurisdictions offer a reduction on property taxes as an incentive for property owners to build
green. Reductions come in several different forms: abatements, exemptions, or rebates. Abatements
reduce the amount of property taxes owed by giving a dollar credit against the tax liability;
exemptions reduce a property’s taxable assessed value; and rebates provide a refund to offset a
portion of the tax that has already been paid. Although each of these methods is different,
jurisdictions employing them often use the terms interchangeably, even in the same ordinance.
Tax reduction policies have been used effectively in a multitude of communities to help jumpstart
community redevelopment activities; at least 24 jurisdictions have employed them successful to
spark green building developments.70 Yet it is sometimes difficult to judge the allowable level and
time period needed to ensure a tax reduction policy is effective without causing significant revenue
loss to the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions often spend a fair amount tweaking tax reduction policies to
ensure they work properly.
66 The Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit is a five-year, 35 percent tax credit for projects that fulfill certain energy
conservation, equipment efficiency, and renewable energy systems requirements. For more information go to
www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/BETC.shtml.
67 Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit, Application for Preliminary Certification Sustainable Buildings,
www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/docs/Sustain.pdf.
68 Opportunities for State Action: Sales Tax Waiver, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
www.aceee.org/energy/salesfs.pdf.
69 Library of Congress Bill, Resolution catalogue, Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, www.thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6111.ENR:.
70 GreenCityBlueLake discussion forum, Greening Tax Abatements, submitted by Marc Lefkowitz, May 16, 2007,
www.gcbl.org/building/housing/mend-not-end-tax-abatements/greening-tax-abatements-0.

Cincinnati passed a property tax abatement ordinance in 2006 for residential, commercial and
industrial buildings that meet LEED standards. Since the passage of the original ordinance, the city
has amended it three times, with the final rules passed most recently in December 2007. The
ordinance applies to residential structures up to three units, including condominiums, as well as
commercial and industrial properties (residential structures with four or more units are classified as
commercial). Newly constructed residential buildings that meet LEED standards may receive 100
percent tax abatement for 15 years (they must still pay property taxes on the land), while renovated
structures meeting the green guidelines are eligible to receive an abatement on the assessed value of
the improvements for 10 years. The maximum improved value is $500,000 unless the structure
achieves LEED platinum, in which case there is no value limit.71
While commercial and industrial structures follow a somewhat similar schedule—15 years abatement
for new construction, 12 years for retrofits—there is no cap set on the value of the improvements.
To offset some of the potential revenue loss from commercial and industrial building tax
abatements, projects must pay an application fee, receive city council approval, and agree to pay the
local board of education an amount equal to 25 percent of the avoided taxes.
Incentive Caution!
A cautionary note must also be expressed in relation to incentive policies. Incentives are most often
appropriate in the early stages of a new policy to incorporate innovative ideas and technologies into
the development paradigm. Yet as green building and energy-efficiency practices become more
standard and accepted, many incentive programs should either be phased-out or gradually have the
bar raised to receive them. Jurisdictions should fully examine the impact an incentive may have on
the community before endorsing it.
Good developers quickly understand the value building green offers, even without incentives. Even
if they will not own or manage the property after it is built, properties built to green standards garner
a higher premium in both sale and rental prices because of the long-term cost savings and health
tenants experience. In many markets, both commercial and residential, potential tenants are actively
seeking buildings built to green standards.72 As concern over climate change and energy costs
continue to rise, and awareness of the benefits of building according to energy efficiency and green
standards increase, this market will only expand.
Moreover, jurisdictions must also remember and fully understand the monetary impact incentives,
such as tax credits and abatements, may have on their revenue stream, especially during times of
financial hardship. Nevada is a perfect example of what can happen.
In 2004, to aggressively promote green building, Nevada introduced a ten year property tax
abatement of up to 50 percent for businesses that met specific green building standards (the actual
abatement percent depended upon the level of green), along with a short-term materials sales tax
rebate (the rebate had a sunset provision after three-months). The incentives were designed to help
spark interest in green building, but the truth was few people expected many businesses to take
advantage of them. While legislators debated what types of construction should be eligible
(residential or commercial), what green standards should apply, and the potential green building had
for economic development in the state, no analysis was ever conducted about how much the
program could potentially cost the cash-strapped state.
71 City of Cincinnati – LEED CRA Tax Exemption Program, www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-16936-/.

72 Interview with Jim Mann, Executive Director, Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, March 5, 2008.

When the bill was making its way through the legislature in 2005, only 14 projects in the state had
registered for LEED certification. Two years later, 85 had registered and 22 applied for the state tax
abatement. Moreover, while the tax breaks were intended to help offset additional costs associated
with building green, they were so generous that businesses that qualified and received the abatement
could actually make money.73 Overall estimates of the cost of the policy put it from $900 million to
$2 billion over 10 years. Given that the state was suffering a $110 million revenue shortfall through
FY2009, the Nevada legislature amended the law during the 2007 session to mitigate its costs. The
new legislation will cut the sales tax break on future qualifying projects as well as significantly reduce
the property tax break and allow for a graduated scale depending upon the level of LEED standard
achieved.74 One last note: the Patagonia distribution center in Reno, one of the four projects eligible
for tax abatement, acknowledged that it would have been built to green standards regardless of the
incentives.
Energy Policies and the Built Environment

A significant number of green building policies have their roots in energy conservation and
efficiency policies. Energy efficiency taps into technological advances to provide better, smarter
services while using less energy (think Toyota Prius). Energy conservation, on the other hand,
involves taking an alternative action to reduce energy consumption (think leaving the Prius parked
and walking instead).
During the energy crunch of the 1970s, President Carter promoted energy conservation with only a
limited amount of success. Today, while there are plenty of conservation measures that can be
employed to help stretch energy supplies, on the most part, energy policies are shifting away from
energy conservation toward energy efficiency. With the advent of numerous technological advances,
energy efficiency is one of the best ways to mitigate global warming and climate change. It also tends
to be a little more palatable with a majority of the public because, unlike conservation, it requires
little sacrifice on their part.
According to the National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO), estimates show
that since 1980, more than 50 percent of the increase in U.S. energy demand has been met by
improvements in energy efficiency. A majority of the improvements are due to legislative mandates
from Congress and the states, increased funding for technological innovation programs, and the
adoption of new rules that promote performance-based contracting, increased energy-efficiency
standards for appliances and equipment, and revised building codes.75
To date, the bulk of funding for state energy programs has come from the federal government via
two Department of Energy sources: the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the
State Energy Program (SEP). The WAP reduces energy costs for low-income households by
improving the energy efficiency of their homes and is administered on a day-to-day basis by the
states. The SEP provides federal grants to states to develop and implement their own renewable
energy and energy efficiency programs. The Department of Energy provides technical assistance to
support and help build the state programs, but states develop and adopt their own energy goals and
policies.
73 Tax Break Pulled ‘Out of the Air’ Could Cost State $900 million, Las Vegas Sun, May 20 2007,
www.lasvegassun.com/news/2007/may/20/tax-break-pulled-out-of-the-air-could-cost-state-9/.
74 The Angle, Vol 5, Issue 14, June 21, 2007, American Institute of Architects Online Magazine,
www.aia.org/nwsltr_angle.cfm?pagename=angle_nwsltr_20070621&archive=1#Nevada.
75 Una Song, Policymakers Recognize Value of “Green” Job Creation, October 17, 2007, Worldwatch Institute,
www.worldwatch.org/node/5404.

Federal energy policy acts dating back to 1992 also produced a majority of the green building
practices and policies promoted at the federal level. In the past five years, the federal government
has passed two major energy bills with important implications for green building: The Energy
Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 established a wide range of time-limited tax incentives to
promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. The law authorized tax credits to promote
home energy efficiency improvements including the purchase and installation of energy-efficient
appliances and products such as windows, doors, insulation and heating and cooling systems. It also
provided tax credits to businesses and contractors that built energy-efficient buildings or improved
the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Tax incentives in the bill further provided significant
credit for installation of photovoltaic and solar water systems. Many of the tax credits were
scheduled to expire at the end of 2007.
Growing concern about high energy prices and global warming, along with the change in political
leadership after the 2006 elections, sparked the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.76
According to ACE3, combined provisions in the legislation are projected to provide consumer and
business savings of more than $400 billion through 2030, and reduce 2030 forecasts of energy
consumption by 7 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by 9 percent. The act extended the energy
efficiency tax credits for photovoltaic and solar water systems as well as those available to businesses
and contractors created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition to energy efficiency features,
it includes numerous provisions that specifically promote green building elements including:
• New minimum appliances and equipment efficiency standards. Several of the new standards are
based on levels previously adopted by several states. The new efficiency standards for light bulbs
will eventually result in banning the currently accepted incandescent bulbs.
• Creation of an Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings in DOE’s Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) division and development of an industry Green
Building Partnership Consortium.
• A Zero-Net-Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative to be run by the newly created Office of

Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings and industry consortium. The goal of the
initiative will be to develop and disseminate technologies, practices, and policies for net-zero-
energy commercial buildings for all new commercial buildings by 2030, half of commercial
building stock by 2040, and all commercial buildings by 2050.
• Establishment of an Office of Federal-High Performance Green Buildings within GSA which will
conduct analysis, guidance, and training on life-cycle costing for green buildings, identify green
building incentives through recognition awards and retention of savings, and other duties.
• Healthy High Performance School grants to states to provide technical assistance to address
environmental issues and the development and implementation of school environmental health
programs (grant will sunset in five years).
• Funding for a study of indoor environmental quality in schools to determine how sustainable
building features such as energy efficiency impact multiple perceived indoor environmental quality
stressors on students in K-12 schools.
76 Alliance to Save Energy, 2007 Energy Bill Detailed Summary, www.ase.org/content/article/detail/4157.

• Energy reduction and water management goals for federal buildings along with establishment of
federal building energy efficiency performance standards.
• Funding for research, development and demonstration projects to promote alternative and
renewable energy sources such as solar and geothermal.
Finally, the Energy Independence and Security Act created the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program. The EECBG program authorizes $2 billion
annually over five years to help larger cities and counties address energy efficiency and emissions
concerns. Grant funding could go a long way to help cities create or expand green initiatives.77
Under the law, funding can be used for virtually any energy efficiency or green project.
Other Energy-Specific Policies
Table IV: Energy-Related Policies

Examples of Where
Policy Enacting Jurisdiction Description the Policy Exists
Net Metering State Electricity policy for consumers that own small 42 states plus D.C., including: NJ,
renewable energy sources such as wind or solar AR, CA, TX
power. Net metering allows the system owner See map: www.dsireusa.org
retail credit for a portion of the electricity their
system generates.
Utility Decoupling State Breaks the link between a utility's ability to CA, CT, IN, MD, NJ, NC
recover its agreed-upon fixed costs, including
the profit margin, from the actual volume of
sales that occur through a rate adjustment
mechanism. If a utility promotes less energy
use, it is rewarded rather than punished.
Energy-Efficiency Federal/State/Local Sets purchasing guidelines that specify Federal – FEMP;
Purchasing minimum energy-efficient standards for a range Statewide: CA, WI, IL, NY, AZ, VA,
of products, including appliances, office NC, UT, VT, MA, NM, MD
equipment, vehicle fleets, etc. Local: Portland, Ore.;
Montgomery Co., Md.;
Washington, D.C.
Appliance Efficiency Federal/State Establishes efficiency standards on household Federal – Energy Star;
Standards and commercial appliances. Targeted at widely State – At least 16, including CA,
used and energy-intensive products such as NJ, KS, and RI
refrigerators, air conditioners, dryers, lamps,
furnaces, etc.
Public Benefit Funds Federal/State State controlled fund generated by levying a 16 States plus DC, including NY,
small surcharge on consumer electricity use. VT, OR, MD, ME, MN, MI
Funds are used to support a range of energy
programs, including: weatherization; rebates;
renewable energy R&D.
Renewable Portfolio State Requires utilities to obtain a minimum At least 24 states and the District
Standards (RPS) percentage their power from renewable energy of Columbia have mandatory
resources. RPSs and 5 have voluntary
programs.
Energy Saving Federal/State/Local Jurisdictions contract with energy services Federal Agencies;
Performance companies (ESCOs) to conduct energy audit and States: CO; MN;
Contracts (ESPC) provide energy retrofits. ESPCs guarantee a Local: Cambridge, Mass.
minimum energy savings and cover energy
retrofit costs. ESPCs recover investments in
energy upgrades by sharing cost savings over
set period of time—generally 2 to 10 years.
Note: Maps indicating where many of the referenced energy policies can be found are available on the Database
of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency website at www.dsireusa.org (click on Maps).
77 For details about the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, please see
www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/eecbghandout.pdf.

A multitude of states have successfully employed energy policies such as net metering, energy-
efficiency performance standards, green power, decoupling, environmental disclosure, renewable
portfolio standards, and public benefit funds to encourage energy efficiency and investment in
renewable energy products. Some energy policies, such as cap and trade programs often have
indirect impacts on green building and energy policies related to the built environment. Financial
returns from cap and trade programs can help fund state energy efficiency and weatherization
programs. Many of these energy policies work hand-in-hand or complement green building policies
and add an extra incentive for consumers to invest in products considered “green” such as solar
panels.
For example, net metering policies that allow consumers with renewable energy sources to sell
excess energy back to utilities make huge sense. Not only does it benefit the consumer, it also
provides an additional energy source to the utility. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia
currently have net-metering laws that allow consumers, both residential and commercial, with grid-
tied renewable-energy systems to run meters backward when they produce more electricity than they
consume.78
Net Metering
Net metering is a low-cost, easily administered method to encourage customer investment in
renewable energy technologies. Over a billing cycle, net metering lets customers use their energy
generation to offset their consumption by allowing their electric meters to turn backwards when
they generate electricity in excess of use. The offset means that the consumer receives retail prices
for the excess electricity they generate. When net metering is not allowed, a second meter that
measures the electricity that flows back to the provider is usually installed. The provider then
purchases the power at a much lower rate than retail.79
According to the Apollo Alliance, New Jersey has one of the most comprehensive net-metering and
interconnection laws. Interconnection rules determine the type of equipment needed to hook a
renewable energy source to the grid. New Jersey Administrative Code 14:4-9 covers all electricity
generated by solar and geothermal technologies, wind, fuels cells, wave or tidal action and methane
gas from landfills or biomass facilities. The law expanded the scope of eligible technologies and the
maximum system capacity to 2 MW. It further standardized and simplified interconnection
procedures for residential and small business consumers and provided more incentives: if a
customer generates a net energy excess by the end of a month, the credits are carried over to the
next month. At the end of the year, customers are paid for every excess kWH they produce.80 The
Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) provides a state-by-state listing that compares state net
metering policies and voluntary utility programs.81
Decoupling
Another step several states have taken to encourage energy efficiency is not with the consumer, but
with utility service providers. Traditionally, utility regulators set the profit margin that a utility service
78 A Net Metering Map can be found on the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Energy website,
www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/topic.cfm?TopicCategoryID=6&CurrentPageID=10&EE=1&RE=1.
79 Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Green Power Markets,
www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml.
80 New Energy for States: Energy-Saving Policies for Governors and Legislators, The Apollo Alliance,
www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/resources_apollostate_report.pdf., page 5; New Jersey Board of Public Utilitites NJ

Administrative Code 14:4-9, www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/NJ11R2.htm.
81 IREC’s state-by-state net-metering information can be found at www.irecusa.org/index.php?id=90.

provider can make based on its fixed costs. Rates are determined by estimating service costs over a
period of time and dividing that amount by unit sales. When sales meet the forecast, the utility
recovers its fixed costs and receives its profit margin. If sales exceed the forecast, the utility
company receives extra profit; however, when sales do not meet the forecast, not only does the
utility earn less profit, it may not recover its fixed costs. Under this scenario, there is no incentive for
utility companies to support energy conservation or efficiency measures.
To get utility companies on board with energy efficiency measures, many states are decoupling utility
rates from sales and adjusting how rates are determined. Under decoupling, if actual sales fall beyond
what was forecast, rates may be adjusted slightly upward (2 to 3 percent) to adequately compensate
the utility. While, in most cases, rate changes are barely noticeable to consumers, some jurisdictions
do set caps on the allowable percent increase to protect them.
Public Benefit Funds (PBFs)

Many states also work with utility companies to develop Public Benefit Funds (PBF).82 These PBFs
support a range of energy programs, from weatherization to renewable energy research and
development to rebate programs. Revenues for PBFs are generated by levying a small surcharge on
consumer electricity use. The charge is typically determined by energy consumption, although some
states, such as Pennsylvania, charge a flat fee.83 Studies by the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy show PBFs have a positive impact on state economies: every $1 spent from a
PBF leverages approximately $3 in related business and consumer investment.
Sometime, when states are strapped for cash they have a tendency to “raid” dedicated funds such as
PBFs. Vermont took a proactive stance when it created Efficiency Vermont, its state PBF, by
including legislative language that ensured funds could not be shifted beyond its intended purpose.
When Washington, D.C., created its fund in 2004, it took the same route.84
Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACE3) considers appliance and
equipment efficiency standards established by states and the federal government to be one of the
most successful class of policies developed to save energy. Efficiency standards set minimum
efficiency requirements and prohibit the production and distribution of appliances and other energy
consuming products that do not meet minimum thresholds. In addition to the significant savings
consumers and businesses receive from efficiency standards, the standards save an enormous
amount of energy as well as reduce pollutants and improve electric system reliability. Standards also
help spur product innovation resulting in improved product performance and help reduce or
eliminate products with high operating costs. At least 16 states and the District of Columbia have
adopted energy-efficient appliance standards.85 Efficiency levels are based on ENERGY STAR
specifications or minimum efficiency standards adopted by other states or industries. Several go
beyond standards set by the federal government and have the potential to guide future changes to
federal standards.
82 Sometimes also referred to as: System Benefit Funds, Public Purpose Charges, Public Good Charges.
83 Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action, Guide to Public Benefit Funds for Energy
Efficiency, www.epa.gov/solar/documents/gta/guide_action_chap4_s2.pdf.
84 Ibid.
85 New Energy for States: Energy-Saving Policies for Governors and Legislators, The Apollo Alliance,
www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/resources_apollostate_report.pdf.

California has some of the oldest and most extensive appliance efficiency standards. California
passed its first standards legislation in the mid-1970s and continues to be the leader in setting state
standards. As of 2008, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has set energy efficiency standards
for 30 products, ranging from hot tubs and swimming pool pumps to external power supplies.
According to the CEC, between the state’s building efficiency standards and its standards for energy
efficient appliances, the state has saved more than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since
1978. The Commission estimates the standards will save an additional $23 billion by 2013.86
To help states and the federal government improve and increase the number of products subject to
energy efficiency standards, ACE3 partnered with Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Energy Foundation to create the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), which works with interested parties to improve state standards.87
Energy-Efficient Purchasing
Energy-efficient appliance standards have helped promote innovative energy-efficient products, but
the market remains limited and small. This market size is a major barrier to green building and
energy efficiency. Although green materials and energy-efficient products exist, in many instances
the products are not always cost competitive with conventional materials. While advocates
understand that the benefits outweigh additional cost, it is sometimes difficult to convince
consumers and cash-strapped local governments. Energy-Efficient Purchasing has the potential to
not only increase the market, but help local and state governments save money and reduce energy
consumption at the same time.
According to the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, the potential market impact of energy-efficient
purchasing, if adopted by all state and local governments as well as the federal government, would
be huge. State and local governments currently spend $50 to $70 billion annually on energy-related
products and $12 billion on energy bills. If every level of government, from local to federal,
employed energy efficient purchasing practices, energy costs could be reduced by at least $1 billion
annually, with state and local purchasing accounting for approximately 75 percent of the total.
Moreover, with a buying power of $50 to $70 billion, energy efficient purchasing by state and local
governments alone could spur and transform the market for energy efficient products.88
The federal government introduced energy-efficient purchasing with the 1992 Energy Policy Act
and a subsequent Executive Order in 1999. The order directed federal agencies to purchase energy
efficient products—either those rated highly energy efficient by the market or labeled ENERGY
STAR®. The Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) oversees the
program by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of distributed
and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at federal sites across the
country. To date, adopting energy-efficient purchasing has substantially cut on-going operating costs
as well as reduced environmental impact.
Many state and local jurisdictions have adopted energy-efficient purchasing policies as part of
broader “buy green” policies that emphasize recycled and environmentally preferred products. Many
jurisdictions use the federal government’s energy-efficient purchasing criteria with ENERGY STAR
86 California Energy Commission, www.energy.ca.gov/title24/.

87 Appliance Standards Awareness Project, www.standardsasap.org/.
88 Energy-Efficient Purchasing by State and Local Government: Triggering a Landslide down the Slippery Slope
to Market Transformation, Consortium for Energy Efficiency, www.cee1.org/gov/purch/2004_purchasing.pdf. This report

includes a table outlining EE purchasing by states and local governments, page 4.

equipment as a common starting point. Jurisdictions that employ energy-efficient purchasing as part
of a larger “buy green policy” often include the purchase of fuel efficient and hybrid vehicle fleets.
California, as is often the case at the state level, is a leader in energy-efficient purchasing, but other
states have embraced the practice as well.
Wisconsin adopted its first energy-efficiency purchasing requirements in the early 1990s, but key
state and local agencies had already been engaged in the practice for a while. The Wisconsin
Department of Administration (DOA) oversees three agencies with a large influence over state
purchasing: the Division of Energy, the purchasing authority, and the office that builds and
operates state buildings. Until fairly recently, DOA also housed the division responsible for
statewide housing programs. Under this structure, the Division of Energy worked other DOA
offices to specify and purchase energy-efficient equipment. ENERGY STAR and energy-efficient
criteria were built into most building design guidelines and equipment specifications. Due to the
savings and success DOA had with energy-efficiency purchasing, the Division of Energy is now
working with the University of Wisconsin, the Housing and Economic Development Authority, and
the Department of Transportation to incorporate energy-efficiency purchasing into their programs.
Wisconsin’s first energy-efficient purchasing requirements specified energy-efficient motors,

compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), and light-emitting diode (LED) exit signs. The list has expanded
exponentially to now include a wide variety of building equipment, appliances, lighting, and traffic
signals.
Wisconsin also has a centralized purchasing authority that allows it to take advantage of economies
of scale to lower costs for large-volume purchases. The state has passed this benefit on to counties,
cities, school districts, and utility districts through cooperative purchasing agreements. This means
that a majority of these localities are now buying energy-efficient equipment because that’s what the
state buys.
State energy-efficiency purchasing has been a boon to the energy-efficient equipment market and its
influence over many other indirect purchases is helping the market expand even further. Numerous
state agencies require or give preference points for projects that incorporate ENERGY STAR
products and energy-efficient equipment. Housing developments competing for low-income
housing tax credits from the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA)
receive preference points if they include ENERGY STAR appliances and equipment; Division of
Housing grant recipients must use ENERGY STAR appliances; and, unless it can be shown to not
be feasible, the state low-income weatherization program requires all local weatherization agencies to
use ENERGY STAR equipment.
As the requirement to use energy-efficient products has expanded it also has helped educate
contractors about new technologies and lowered purchasing costs by creating supplier competition.89
Renewable Portfolio Standards

While at first glance, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) may not seem directly related to green
building policies, RPS’s can significantly impact and promote green building and energy-efficiency
markets. Under a Renewable Portfolio Standard, utility companies are required to obtain a minimum
percentage of their energy from renewable resources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. The RPS
sets the minimum, letting the utility determine which renewable resource(s) will best meet demand.
Utilities also have the option to exceed the minimum standard. To date, at least 24 states and the
89 Ibid.

District of Columbia have established mandatory RPS’s; at least five other states have voluntary
programs. Energy requirements from renewable resources range from 2 percent in Iowa to 40
percent in Maine.
While most RPS policies have been created through state legislative action, some have been
developed via regulatory rule and even citizen ballot measures. Standards and compliance timelines
vary from state to state, generally reflecting resource availability and the financial resources to
support renewable energy projects as well as the state’s economic and environmental goals.
As states enact RPSs, utility providers will look for a variety of means to expand their access to
renewable resources. The development of new industries related to alternative resource generation
will be encouraged. Many utilities will most likely provide rebates and other incentives to encourage
consumer practices such as solar panels that can return excess levels of generated resources to the
utility through net metering.
Created in 1999, Texas was one of the first states to implement an RPS and it is often sited as one of
the most successful programs. Eligible resources include: solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric,
biomass, and biomass-based waste products (e.g., landfill gas). A large part of the success in Texas
can be traced to the availability of good renewable resources in the state, especially wind. According
to the EPA, more than $1 billion has been invested in new wind development in rural west Texas
which has substantially increased the region’s tax base. This newly-found income is providing much-
needed funding for key local services such as schools and hospitals. Moreover, the RPS sparked the
expansion of wind industry statewide, creating an influx of manufacturing jobs and related
opportunities.90
Several publications and guides have been produced to help states determine what should be
considered during the development and implementation of an RPS, including the EPA’s Guide to
Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Renewable
Portfolio Standards in the States: Balancing Goals and Implementation Strategies.91
Energy Savings Performance Contracts

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) are agreements between energy service companies
(ESCO) and building owners in which the ESCO completes an energy audit that identifies and
evaluates energy-saving opportunities, makes a recommendation for energy-efficiency
improvements, completes the agreed upon energy upgrades and, most importantly in most cases,
finances the energy-efficiency project upgrades. The cost savings associated with the energy upgrades
are used to reimburse the ESCO for the improvements and pay off the loan. The ESCO guarantees
that savings meet or exceed annual payments to cover all project costs, usually over a contract term
of seven to ten years. If the improvements do not result in the projected savings, the ESCO pays the
difference, not the building owner. To ensure savings meet projections, the ESCO generally offers
facility training and long-term maintenance services.92
90 Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action, Chapter 5, pg 6. Available online at
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap5_s1.pdf.
91 RPS practices in EPA’s Guide to Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action can be found online at
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap5_s1.pdf. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s

Renewable Portfolio Standards in the States: Balancing Goals and Implementation Strategies can be found online at
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41409.pdf.
92 For more information about Energy Performance Contracting, please visit the Energy Services Coalition website at
www.energyservicescoalition.org/. The site provides information on federal and state programs as well as state activities.

The financing element of an ESPC is one of its appealing factors. The federal government and many
states have implemented ESPC policies to help make public buildings energy efficient without
seeking upfront appropriation approvals or the budget to cover the upgrades. Yet because ESCOs
are generally selected based upon qualifications rather than lowest bids, most government
jurisdictions must adopt approval policies, especially where competitive bidding requirements exist.
This does not mean that ESPC are not competitive in labor and material costs, but merely that an
ESCO ultimately responsible for a project’s performance must be selected based on a combination
of both cost and expertise.
As part of its efforts to reduce the city’s carbon footprint, the city of Cambridge, Mass., is partnering
with local ESCOs to provide energy-efficiency upgrades for city residents and businesses. Led by the
Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA), a city-sponsored nonprofit, the Performance Contract campaign
helps residents and businesses get loans for energy-efficiency upgrades.93 The ESCOs conduct
energy audits and work with owners to determine what upgrades are best suited to their needs.
Unlike standard ESPCs, financing is provided by foundations and private entities who have
partnered with CEA and the city to provide low-interest loans to cover the cost of the upgrades.
The ESCOs guarantee that the energy savings that result from the upgrades will more than offset
the cost of the loan, including interest.94 Once the loan is repaid, usually five to seven years, the
benefits of the upgrade accrue directly to the owner.
In addition to the energy and natural resource savings that energy-efficiency programs provide there
are two other points that strongly support them: 1) energy efficiency creates a vastly larger number
of jobs versus a new utility plant; and 2) money spent on energy efficiency stays in the community.
Although construction of a new power plant initially employs a large number of workers, once built,
the plant only employs a small number of workers for ongoing day-to-day operations. Conversely,
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies require a large ongoing workforce—from
research and development to installation and maintenance. Technicians and trades people
responsible for installing, maintenance, and monitoring energy-efficiency technologies generally
reside in the community, so dollars spent on upgrades and retrofits remain in the community while
providing jobs for community residents.95
While this is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list of energy policies, these few policies
illustrate the impact energy policies have on the built environment and their ability to support green
building practices. An energy-efficiency policy that has a negative impact on indoor air quality will
obviously have health consequences contrary to green building goals down the line. Consequently, as
jurisdictions determine what policies are needed to achieve sustainability and climate protection
goals, it is imperative that energy and green building policies work hand-in-hand to complement
each other.
93 Cambridge Energy Alliance, www.cambridgeenergyalliance.org/.

94 PBS NOW, www.pbs.org/now/shows/413/.
95 Interview with Dan Sosland, Executive Director, Environment Northeast, March 13, 2008.

Opportunities for Funders

Philanthropy has the opportunity to help advance green building and energy policies—and there are
numerous ways that foundations can engage. Organizations and federal government agencies
referred to throughout this primer—such as USGBC, Global Green USA, ICLEI, ACE3, ASE,
EPA, and DOE—provide a vast amount of information and technical assistance to elected officials
interested in designing policies to address climate change and global warming. Yet often missing are
the political and community will and/or financial resources to enact and implement the policies.
Because of their varied community relationships, foundations are in a unique position to help move
green building and energy policies forward. Funders can encourage elected officials to educate
themselves about the community benefits related to green design and introduce them to the
advocates and practitioners with the knowledge and expertise to help guide and implement local
policies. They also can help build community awareness and education about green building
practices and promote the market for green building products and services.
As foundations consider what strategies to employ to advance green building and energy policies, it
is important to remember that different regions, states, and even cities require different approaches.
Every recommendation provided here may need to be tweaked and adjusted to fit the particular
circumstances and political environment of a foundation’s community, the foundation’s policy goals,
the foundation’s ability to commit to policy endeavors, and the foundation’s network of contacts.
The following recommendations and strategies for foundations interested in advancing green
building and energy policy change are based on an examination of past and current policies, as well
as conversations with practitioners, advocates, elected officials, and funders about their experiences.
[Note: Foundations can legally participate in the policy and advocacy arena in a variety of ways. The Foundation
Advocacy Initiative of the Alliance for Justice provides detailed information regarding the broad suite of advocacy
activities that foundations can engage in (other than lobbying) as well as the definitions of lobbying and lobbying limits
for public charities and public foundations. For more information, visit www.allianceforjustice.org].
1. Fund Policy Initiatives with Long-Term, Multi-Year Commitments

Revolutions cost money and take time. Since policy change rarely happens overnight, funders
interested in engaging in policy should consider the long-term nature of this work and likely prepare
to commit for the long haul. Securing funding for specific policy and legislative efforts is one of the
most difficult tasks many nonprofit organizations face (although foundations cannot restrict grants
for legislative or lobbying activities, they can make general support grants to organizations working
on policy and legislative efforts). In fact, many nonprofit organizations cite lack of funding and
funder commitment to the time-line needed to enact and implement major policy changes as the key
impediments for not engaging in policy action. Moreover, unlike program initiatives that produce
hard tangible results (i.e., funding produced this many houses or high school graduates), funding for
policy is difficult to quantify unless or until a policy is actually enacted or adopted and implemented.
Policy action involves numerous steps along a continuum and can take place in both the executive
and legislative branches of government. Having legislation adopted is just one aspect of policy
development. Policy initiatives often include a variety of steps that require support: research;
message development; relationship building; development of model legislative or administrative
language; mobilizing support for specific action; advocating regulations that reflect the intent of
legislation; securing adequate funding for policy initiatives; and finally, actually implementing policy
within designated agencies or authorities.

While ordinances and policy development may happen more quickly at the local/municipal level, it
often takes much longer at the state and federal levels. It is not unusual for policy proposals to take
two to three years from introduction to enactment or adoption. Foundations interested in advancing
policy action should be prepared to take a long view of this work. And, as we see with the current
economic and credit crisis, the economic and political climate plays an enormous role in how quickly
policy change occurs.
Growth States: States projected to increase their populations (and hence political power) provide a
perfect opportunity for foundations considering where to invest and make long-term, multi-year
commitments to policy change. While some projected growth states, such as California and
Colorado, may already have fairly well-established green building records, several Southern states
projected to grow would significantly benefit from a greater influx of foundation support for policy
innovation. For example, until the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) was created in
2003, the Southeast was the last major region in the United States without an established regional
energy-efficiency alliance, even though it is experiencing record growth and increasing air quality
issues. Based in Atlanta, SEEA works in Georgia and Florida, two of the fastest-growing states in
the nation.96
2. Go Beyond the Choir: Create Networks and Alliances to Build Influence

Foundations often have the opportunity to work with and influence people from a variety of
different sectors, not only a range of nonprofits, but also industry and business. While green
building and energy policy advocates tend to be associated with environmental fields, as foundations
look to advance policy it is important to consider where other, perhaps non-traditional, allies might
be found.
Green design spans a wide variety of sectors and interests—environmental, energy, public health,
equity, education, economic, national security, etc.—and has the potential of being a key solution to
many community issues. These sectors and interests also often have different constituencies as well
as varying degrees of influence with key policymakers. And, unfortunately, they tend to work within
their own silos. Even when a sector recognizes the value of green design, it tends to work within its
own silo to promote and pursue green building policies.
As foundations support policy work, one of the biggest opportunities they have is to help break the
silos and bring different sector and interest groups together to address green building and energy
efficiency (see the Barr Foundation case study on page 9). Value to green building policy is added by
the variety of vantage points as well as the ability to influence a variety of policymakers that
otherwise might not have been accessible.
• Business and Industry. To be effective, networks and alliances must be formed to garner
political influence. It may be important to note that different regions and states have very
different spheres of political influence. For example, environmental and community
development groups may hold sway over policy decision-makers in the West and Northeast, but
that is often not the case in other regions. In those instances, foundations could seek alliances
with other sectors, such as business and industry, which understand how green building
positively impacts their bottom line and economic development. For example, the Turner
Foundation in Atlanta found that elected officials still skeptical about global warming were not
96 SEEA also works in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia. More information about the organization can be found at www.seealliance.org/.

moved to action by environmental discussions, but business and industry advocates were able to
appeal to some of those same officials using arguments in relation to the energy cost savings
achieved through energy efficiency and renewable sources, and the economic development and
workforce potential of energy technologies and the green building market.
• Non-conventional. Strength in numbers and maybe even strange bedfellows also wields
political influence. When two or more seemingly disparate groups come together to work on an
issue, politicians (and the media) often take note. Just a few years ago, the idea that labor unions
and environmentalists would be working together seemed far-fetched. Yet today there is the
Apollo Alliance, a coalition of business, environment, labor, and community leaders that is
working on energy and climate change issues while expanding economic opportunities for
businesses and workers.97
3. Develop Strategic Collaborations

Just as it is common for many foundations to collaborate on specific community programs, many
opportunities exist for foundations to advance green building through strategic collaborations with
other funders, nonprofits, and business interests. Funder collaboration and interaction on green
building and energy-efficiency efforts ensures coordination that can produce related policies enacted
at every government level. Moreover, since few community programs command the economic
potential of green building, there are opportunities for collaborations beyond the usual community
suspects. Collaborations can take a number of different forms:
• Funding Pools. Foundations interested in pursuing green building policy could organize a pool
of funding to pursue policy action. Funding pools can be organized at the national or local level
depending upon the reach and objectives of the foundations. The collaborative funding model
established by the Living Cities Initiative would be a fairly good model for funders interested in
green building to employ.
o Living Cities funders established a series of outcomes and goals they hoped to achieve,
targeted a set number of specific cities where they would work, and determined a limited
number of grantees based upon who they believed had the ability and experience at both the
national and local level to accomplish their community development and revitalization goals.
They also split the target cities between the grantees and established multi-year funding
commitments to assure the grantees the on-going support they would need to undertake the
objectives set forth. Additionally, as Living Cities became more involved in policy issues,
funders offered their grantees another commitment: their time. Grantees brought Living
Cities funders to Washington, D.C., to not only meet key elected officials to discuss
programs, but also secure additional federal funding for the programs.
• Objectives Portfolio. Foundations are frequently called-upon to be everything to everyone,

which can dilute their effectiveness as they try to accomplish too many goals. As foundations
become more engaged in green building policy initiatives, a collaboration based upon the
concept of a portfolio of objectives could serve to advance green building policies more
effectively and efficiently.
Under an Objectives Portfolio model, funders and partner corporations within the collaborative
would identify their core competencies to determine who would take the lead on each element
97 Learn more about the Apollo Alliance at www.apolloalliance.org.

needed to advance green building policies. Elements needed to ensure that every leg of the
policy stool is covered could include: development of demonstration projects, trainings,
educational campaigns, research, advocacy and outreach, and additional fund raising. Elements
might change depending upon the organizations involved in the collaborative as well as the
political and community environment in which policies are being pursued.
Collaboration members could work together to ensure that every member had information
about each other’s projects to present a complete picture to elected officials as they promote
green building policies. For example, one foundation funds the demonstration project, which
another funder uses to illustrate the cost savings and benefits of green building to advocate for
policies with elected officials, while another funder supports community and industry trainings,
and still another supports media and education campaigns to build community awareness of the
benefits of green building—all relying on information gained from the initial demonstration
project.
In a sense, and although it was not coordinated in this fashion, both the Turner Foundation and
the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation took this approach to pursue green building
policies in their respective communities. The Turner Foundation made the conscious decision to
fund policy efforts when they realized that several other foundations in the region were willing
to fund construction projects, but were unable to fund policy. On the other hand, the Illinois
Clean Energy Community Foundation supported trainings but not direct policy, yet their efforts
helped pave the way for advocacy that resulted in a statewide building code. Adding the
intentional efforts provided under a collaboration ensures that each piece needed to support
advocacy efforts was moving in concert.
• Corporate. For the most part, community interest groups such as nonprofits, advocacy
organizations, foundations, and others are currently driving green building and energy policy.
Industry is also a driver, but not always in the direction communities would like. With a green
building market potential of $20 billion by 2010, there is a very large opportunity for
foundations to partner with corporations to advance green building policies.98 Although the
interests of foundations and corporations may not always be aligned, green building and energy
policies offer the potential to achieve a common objective even if the motivating factors are not
the same. In addition to business opportunities offered via the green building market, many
corporations recognize the long-term bottom-line benefits and cost savings available through
green building. The casinos that benefited from green building legislation in Nevada are a prime
example, as are the healthcare facilities in relation to the Green Guide to Healthcare.
Building collaborations with corporations offers foundations an opportunity to leverage their

combined capabilities and resources to advance policies more effectively. Collaborations with
corporations can bring additional financial resources, access to key policymakers, and
perspectives to the design of green building policies that can make them more effective.
4. Think Globally, Act Locally

Foundations working on green building and energy issues clearly understand the need to think
globally as they work to combat global warming. Yet often in the quest to address global issues,
attention to local actions can be diminished or their relevance to and impact on larger policy
development forgotten. Foundations have the opportunity to invest in local policy capacity to
98 According to the USGBC, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124.

support local actions while also impacting the broader, long-term green building and energy policy
movement.
• Technical Assistance. While there seems to be no lack of guidance and technical assistance at
the macro (i.e., global) level to help advance green building and energy policies, there is a definite
lack of resources at the micro level. National and international organizations such as the USGBC
and ICLEI may provide elected officials a number of resources, but they really need to rely on
the expertise and community knowledge local and regional green building organizations bring to
bear when designing policies for their communities. Unfortunately, many local and regional
alliances and advocacy organizations have very small staffs (if any at all) and are in a constant
struggle to stay afloat.
Foundations can support local and regional organizations to ensure green building policies are
tailored to accomplish community goals and interests. These organizations can provide research,
key technical assistance, and consulting services essential to help guide local officials through
every stage of the policy process, from design to passage to implementation, all with an intimate
understanding of the community to achieve the policy objective.
• Policy Initiatives. States have long been the incubator for actions later enacted at the national
level. As foundations look to impact long-term, national green building policy action, it is
important to ensure good demonstration policies are being created at the state and local level,
and that local legislators are fully aware of and educated on the benefits of green building.
Foundations have the opportunity to promote local policy initiatives and work with local
advocacy and program organizations to develop and track how the policies are working.
Most elected officials are not big risk takers. They want to know not only “will it work?” but
also, “will it work here?”. They also have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that policies will not
bankrupt the community, and even more importantly, will benefit the community.
Demonstration policies also need to address different levels of green building and energy-
efficiency efforts, from new construction to retrofit, from commercial to residential and schools,
to entire communities to reflect and appeal to the interests of an elected official and his/her
constituency. Demonstrating how policies work in a variety of political and community
environments at the state level make them much more viable options when it comes time to
enact national level policies.
• Build Political Farm Teams, especially in growth states. Just as major league baseball has its
minor league “farm” teams that it calls upon to fill vacancies on the bench, so does Congress in
the form of city halls and state legislatures. Foundations have the opportunity to help strengthen
members of the farm team before they are called up. Foundations can work with advocates and
practitioners to ensure that everyone who has been a state or local legislator and goes to
Washington, D.C., goes with a “brand” loyalty to green building. The more educated and
involved legislators are in the design of green building policies at an early stage in their political
career, the more likely they are to become and remain champions. With population growth and
political power shifting among the states, foundations have a real opportunity to influence future
national policy decisions by working to educate state and local legislators in growth states about
the community benefits of green building.

5. Lead the Convening: Encourage and Support Broad Stakeholder Involvement

Foundations can use their influence and capacity to bring a broad range of stakeholders together to
develop potential green building practices and policies best tailored to their community.
When a jurisdiction is developing green building and energy policies that can have an enormous
impact on the community, it is essential to hear from as many stakeholders as possible. Foundations
are uniquely positioned to serve as conveners because, although they have a vested interest in the
well-being of the community, foundations are often viewed as unbiased participants. This allows
them to engage stakeholders from a variety of sectors without the stakeholder concern that the
foundation is pursuing a specific agenda.
By facilitating the discussion, foundations bring a range of expertise and experience to policy
development. Bringing key stakeholders together allows each to share their individual perspective,
voice their concerns, and expand their knowledge. Even if clear consensus is not reached, being
involved in the process allows participants to own the policy because they were part of its
development.
• Incentivizing Policy. A perfect opportunity for foundation involvement exists when a

jurisdiction is considering whether or not to provide an incentive to encourage green building
and energy-efficient practices. Stakeholder input is crucial to ensuring the incentive is effective.
Industry representatives understand the day-to-day costs and timelines involved in development,
while advocates can address the impacts of development and provide research regarding how
incentives are implemented in other jurisdictions. Foundations can provide a neutral
environment when convening conversations that allows for frank discussion and helps bridge
any gaps between stakeholders to forge policies that meet both industry’s bottom-line as well as
benefit the community, without giving away the farm or forestalling development.
• Increasing Energy Efficiency. Foundations have the opportunity to lead efforts and
convenings that bring municipal leaders, utility companies and other stakeholders together to
promote utility decoupling and other energy-efficiency efforts. For example, foundation support
would go a long way for groups such as Virginia’s Piedmont Environmental Council that is
convening stakeholders to discuss energy-efficiency improvement in the state building code and
adding energy-efficiency criteria to the state’s certified home inspections.
6. Collaborate with Organizations that Elected Officials Rely on and Trust

Foundations interested in advancing green building and energy policies in several states and
municipalities could save themselves significant time and effort by working with national and
regional membership organizations such as the National Governors Association (NGA), the U.S.
Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), the National
Association of Counties (NACo), and the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) and reaching out
to elected officials en masse. Elected officials rely on these organizations for peer-to-peer learning
opportunities as well as information about innovative practices and policies. The NGA works with
all 50 Governors, while the USCM represents mayors from 1,139 cities, the NCSL boasts a
membership of 7,382 state legislators, and NACo represents the interests of 3,033 counties and 33
city-county governments. Even if a foundation’s focus area is only the city, county, or region in
which it works, there is value in working with these organizations due to the clout they carry with
their membership and the opportunity their members have to influence decisions made by their
peers and colleagues.

Even if foundations are not inclined to directly fund these organizations, they can help their key
green building advocates by collaborating and working with them. Philanthropic organizations that
work with these organizations greatly influence some of the programs and messages that elected
officials receive and, almost more importantly, who delivers the message. Funders, working with
these national organizations, can provide green building and energy advocates entre that they may
not otherwise have.
Many of these organizations also provide on-going resources to help build elected officials’
awareness about green building and energy policies and practices. Foundations can work with these
organizations to expand access to resources and help guide the development of the programs they
offer their members.
Another advantage foundations gain by working with these organizations is the opportunity to
showcase successful policy initiatives. Highlighting the success a city or state has achieved brings
positive visibility to elected officials and the local jurisdiction as well as helps build broader support
for green building and energy policies.
• Capitalize on existing programs. Where Do We Grow from Here? was the 2000 NGA Chair’s
Initiative that helped launched the Smart Growth movement across America.99 When former
Maryland Governor Parris Glendening was NGA’s Chairman, he worked with his fellow
governors and the NGA Center for Best Practices to design strategies and tools necessary to
move the initiative forward. Numerous smart growth initiatives and policies at every level of
government have been implemented and enacted across the country since. Foundations can
work with membership organizations to ensure that their programs and initiatives include
advocates with expertise to advance green building design and help guide future initiative
undertakings.100
• Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It is highly likely elected officials will be
looking to their membership organizations for guidance with several provisions of this Act.
Foundations can help ensure adequate appropriations are granted by Congress as well as work
with the organizations to ensure that advocates are involved in discussions about how cities and
counties can best to utilize Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding,
implement the high performing school program, etc. Since the EECBG funding can be used for
virtually any energy-efficiency or green project, foundation and advocate involvement is key to
ensuring initiatives created or expanded by cities achieve optimal results.
7. Adoption is Easy, Compliance is Tough: Support Training and Implementation101

While some may disagree that policy and code adoption is easy, there is no debate that committing
to policy engagement means committing not only to the adoption of the policy, but also to its
implementation. Many foundations are beginning to discover that, although their jurisdiction may
have adopted the latest energy code, it does not mean it is being enforced. Jurisdictions may find
themselves passing green building ordinances and codes without a true understanding of what
“green building” means, how to market it to local builders, developers, and suppliers, or if the new
green design policy will work with existing codes. This recommendation is especially well-suited to
99 Information on this initiative as well as a listing of past initiatives can be found on the NGA website at www.nga.org.
100 More information about these national member organizations and the programs and resources they provide elected
officials can be found in the Appendix under “Beyond the Usual Suspects” (beginning on page 55).
101 Interview with Joe Loper, Vice President of Policy and Research, Alliance to Save Energy, March 12, 2008.

foundations that would like to help advance policy change with actually being involved in the
“politics” of policy.
Trainings and Education. A substantial number of opportunities exist for foundations to help
ensure compliance with adopted codes or enacted legislation:
• Offer training grants and programs to bring and keep local code and municipal officials up-to-
speed on the most current energy and green building codes to ensure compliance.
• Support development of education programs that help municipal officials and staff understand
the range of green building practices and products and their benefits.
• Work with local organizations and officials to offer trainings to the community-at-large, local
builders, developers, and suppliers to ensure they understand what green building entails, how
green building practices work, and the benefits associated with green building and energy
efficiency.
• Provide on-going capacity building support to ensure regulatory input and oversight, as well as
adequate technical support; and
• Support on-going work groups to provide feedback to the jurisdiction about the effectiveness of
the policies.
Research Implementation Barriers. A number of jurisdictions run into problems implementing

green building policies due to barriers caused by their building codes. This presents an opportunity
for funders to research how green building practices are affected by the jurisdiction’s building codes
and what actions need to be taken to ensure the barrier is broken. In some instances, barriers are not
recognized until the implementation stage; consequently the research and recommendations should
occur during policy design stages as well as on-going as the community attempts to implement the
policy.
8. Support Policy Evaluation and Next Generation Policies

While a large majority of green building and energy-efficiency policies are relatively new,
jurisdictions are beginning to reach the tipping point where it will be possible to evaluate key
elements of the policies to determine if they are achieving their intended goals. Jurisdictions that
were front-runners in green building policy adoption provide foundations an opportunity to “up the
ante” and promote policies that advance green building to the next level.
• Post Evaluation. To advance effective green building policies, foundations can work with local
jurisdictions to conduct unbiased policy evaluations once enough time has passed to determine
the policy’s impact. Jurisdictions interested in enacting green building policies frequently use
policies created by other jurisdictions as models. Often they are unaware of whether or not the
policy is really being successfully implemented. Post evaluations that identify the intent of the
policy, its development ramifications, how, what, and who it took to enact it, its implementation
timeline, and its current level of effectiveness provide a value tool to policymakers and ensures
the possibility of improving policies as they move to the next jurisdiction.
• Next Generation Policies. As green building practices become the acceptable standard,
foundations have the opportunity to help advance green building to the next level through
research, demonstration projects, and by promoting next generation green building and energy
practices and policies. A prime example of such as opportunity lies in the Cascadia USGBC’s
Living Building Challenge.102 As green building becomes almost the norm in the Northwest, the
102 Living Building Challenge brochure, Cascadia USGBC, www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc/lbc-web-brochure.pdf.

USGBC’s Cascadia Chapter is attempting to move green building to the next level by issuing a
challenge to build in an even more sustainable way for a future. Not content to rest on their
laurels, Cascadia USGBC designed the Living Building Challenge to go beyond LEED green
building strategies and requirements to meet site, water, energy, materials, and indoor air quality
sustainability standards that not only produce self-sustaining structures, but also structures that
give back more to the environment than they take (i.e., living buildings).
9. Advance Policies without Taking the Legislative Route

There are many ways foundations can help support efforts to embed green building and energy-
efficient policies into the community without actually promoting legislative action.
• Executive Orders. Many Lead by Example policies are created through Executive Orders
issued by the jurisdiction’s chief executive. While these policies tend to initially only impact how
public facilities are constructed and renovated and government purchases made, they can have a
substantial impact on building awareness and support for green building and energy policies, and
building a market for green products.
• Green Strings. Most green string policies do not require legislation. They are incorporated into
policy through regulations governing how government money is used. Regulations that govern
affordable housing programs such as the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) or
state housing trust funds provide a great example. The LIHTC is the largest vehicle for creating
affordable housing in the country. Every state must produce an annual plan that explains how a
developer can qualify to receive credits. A significant amount of public input is required in the
plan. While many states now include some green building or energy-efficiency elements in their
plans, foundations and advocates can work to include green building and energy-efficient
standards either as threshold elements in all state plans or as extra bonus points. Because the
credits are worth a fair amount of money, they are extremely competitive and developers often
include green building elements to increase their chances of being awarded credits. Where states
have not included green building policies into their plans, foundations can submit comments on
the plan to their state housing division and/or support organizations such as Global Green USA
and Enterprise Community Partners, which are working to incorporate green practices into
every state plan. Additionally, as green design practices become more standard, foundations can
work to raise the bar in the plan.
• Land Redevelopment. As military bases close and large tracks of municipal land becomes
available for development or redevelopment, foundations can support work to ensure that green
building and energy-efficiency standards are an integral element of the redevelopment plans. As
the Denver and Austin airport redevelopment examples show, although the development itself
does not constitute policy action, it does promote greater awareness and acceptance of green
design which can lead to future policy action.
• Retrofits. Foundations can encourage policies that incorporate green building renovation
practices into existing buildings and support funding to make it happen. Sometimes it is
necessary to enact policies that adjust how capital expenditures occur so that our municipalities
can consider on-going operating costs when renovating and/or modify low bid regulations that
would prevent some green building practices and energy-efficient products.

10. Educate the Next Generation of Elected Officials

In the zeal to support momentous policy changes, foundations should not forget opportunities to
influence policy decisions by taking advantage of unforeseeable circumstances or obvious actions
with policy implications.
• Candidate Education. Every change in administration, regardless of the level of government,

offers an opportunity to meet elected officials, educate them about green design, and promote
green building standards. Beyond simply funding advocacy organizations to conduct outreach
and education, philanthropic organizations can take a more direct role. Most foundations, from
their program officers to their boards and trustees, tend to be very well-connected with
candidates, elected officials, and corporate interests. Foundations can use these networks to
make introductions between grantees working on green design issues, policymakers, and key
stakeholders, as well as host gatherings or briefings to help build relationships and understanding
of the issue, or support candidate forums.
An organization may ask a funder to directly contact a candidate or elected official to discuss
green building issues and concerns, especially if there is a personal connection. Advocates
recognize that often it is not what’s being said that makes a difference, but who’s delivering the
message and having a well-respected foundation representative make the call or convene an
educational session—which can make all the difference.
• Natural Disasters. Every jurisdiction can be devastated by natural disasters, floods, fires,
tornadoes, or hurricanes (the granddaddy of recent natural disasters). Every disaster offers the
opportunity to rebuild green. Most people are familiar with the green building efforts in the
rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Fewer know
about the green accomplishments of Greensburg, Kansas.
In 2007, Greensburg, a small town in rural Kansas, was devastated by tornadoes: 95 percent of
the town was flattened. Greensburg is using the disaster as an opportunity to institute green
building policies and educate its community in green building practices. Greensburg is the first
city in the nation to institute a requirement that all city buildings be constructed to LEED
Platinum levels. Many of the town’s residents also are working to rebuild green.
As devastating as natural disasters are, foundations could use them as opportunities to advance
green design policies. Oftentimes, foundations are involved in the rebuilding efforts anyway.
Additionally, in many cases, not only does green design ensure healthier, more energy-efficient
places to live, but also a faster way to rebuild.
Conclusion
As foundations support policy change and advancement, certain questions surface, the most
important one being: What does a policy “win” look like? Is success achieved merely by passing and
implementing legislation or is it measured by a mass change in the way people think and act? When
Governor Glendening left the Maryland State House, the next administration was not keen on the
concept of Smart Growth and moved to dismantle many of the programs established under his
leadership. But a funny thing happened on the way to Annapolis. It turns out that a lot of people
liked Smart Growth practices, even many former opponents. So even as programs were dismantled
or funding gutted, Glendening’s administration had achieved a significant policy “win” by shifting

how the public and industry regarded Smart Growth and what they expected from their elected
officials. Even without state government support, many smart growth efforts continued to flourish.
While solar and renewable energy languished once the energy crisis of the 1970s was abated,
between global warming and the latest energy crisis, it is highly unlikely that scenario could repeat
itself. With gas prices reaching all-time highs in 2008 and continued tension in the Middle East,
energy policy again takes a prominent role in the United States. Many different policies and ideas
have been proposed to deal with the energy crisis, but green building and energy-efficiency policies
are some of the most cost-effective and sustainable. There is no question that: 1) now is the time
for green building and energy policy action; and 2) opportunities abound for foundations interested
in helping to advance policy change.
The energy-efficiency, renewable energy, and green building sectors offer huge economic
development potential in coming years. Investments in energy efficiency can not only effectively
reduce energy consumption by 25 to 30 percent over the next 20 to 25 years, but also they can be an
enormous boost to the economy.103 By most accounts, these sectors will be the major economic
drivers in the 21st Century. According to a study commissioned by the American Solar Energy
Society (ASES), while these sectors are already large, immeasurable economic benefits could accrue
from policy supporting their increased growth. The USGBC estimates there is currently a $12 billion
market for green building products and services and it expects the market to grow to $20 billion by
2010. An ASES report, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, found
that the energy-efficiency and renewable energy industries generated more than $933 billion in
revenue and employed more than 8 million Americans in 2006. With policy initiatives aggressively
promoting renewables and energy efficiency, forecasts show that by 2030 there could be more than
40 million people working in these industries. That represents nearly one in every four employed
American. Moreover, these industries could be generating approximately $4.3 trillion in annual
revenue.104 A recently released study by ACE3 concurs with these findings and provides additional
information about the range of potential benefits that investment in these industries could yield.105
Turns out that green design policies may not only determine how we live, work, and study, but also
where we work as well. Opportunities abound for support of the development and implementation of
these policies at the local, state, regional, and federal levels.
103 The Size of the U.S. Energy Efficiency Market: Generating a More Complete Picture, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, May 2008, www.aceee.org/pubs/e083.htm.
104 Roger Eezdek, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, 2007,
http://asesprot.org//images/stories/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf.
105 The Size of the U.S. Energy Efficiency Market: Generating a More Complete Picture, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, May 2008, www.aceee.org/pubs/e083.htm.

APPENDIX
46
The Appendix is designed to provide background information regarding the context for green
building and energy-efficiency policies. It provides an overview of land use, population, and regional
trends; outlines definitions and standards; offers a brief history of the early years in green building;
shares resources and allies for funders interested in learning and doing more; and provides
information about where to turn.
Green Building and Community Planning
This section provides background information regarding the land use and population trends that set
the context for the current climate surrounding green building and energy-efficiency policies and
practices.
Sprawling Patterns of Development and the Built Environment

According to U.S. Census projections, by 2030 the U.S. population is expected to increase by 82
million people.106 Although more than 80 percent of the population currently lives in urban areas
and the Census predicts that trend to continue as the country’s population grows, urbanized areas in
some regions are growing at a pace greater than warranted by their population growth. Recognizing
the negative impact that sprawling patterns of development have on natural resources, economic
well-being, and public health, smart growth advocates, such as the Funders’ Network, are working to
change the development paradigm in the United States to promote smarter solutions to
accommodate the growing population and conserve natural resources. Green building and green
neighborhoods policies, practices, and solutions are natural outgrowths of this work.
Just as sprawling development negatively impacts the environment, so do standard construction

practices, from building materials to use and maintenance to demolition. According to the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC), buildings use nearly 40 percent of all the energy consumed in the
United States, more than 70 percent of the electricity; 40 percent of the raw materials stripped from
the Earth; and 12 percent of the potable water. The EPA estimates that 136 million tons of building-
related construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated in the United States in a single year.
Moreover, most buildings, as they are currently built, emit significant amounts of sulfur dioxide,
nitrous oxide, and particulates that damage air quality and produce close to 40 percent of the carbon
dioxide causing global warming.107, 108 The United States may only represent 5 percent of the world’s
population, but it consumes 25 percent of the world’s energy and produces 25 percent of the
greenhouse gases contributing to global warming.
With the projected increase in U.S. population, it is important to consider not only where, but how
people will live. Just as sprawling development patterns cannot continue, neither can building
practices that diminish natural resources, damage the environment, and contribute to climate
change. Unfortunately, for too many, the term “green building” may still conjure-up an image of
someone living “off the grid” in a remote area. Yet green building practices are much broader and
are especially well-suited for urban environments. Given their concerns and expertise, smart growth
advocates are well-positioned to promote green building policies.
106 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Population Projections,
www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html.
107 USGBC Green Building Research, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1718. Accessed April 2008.
108 USGBC, Green Building by the Numbers, www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3340. Accessed May 2008.

The Impact of Population Growth
Environmental
Over the next 20 years, the U.S. Census projects that 88 percent of the nation’s population growth
will occur in the South and West. Ten of the fastest growing states predicted over this period,
including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, and Georgia, are in these two regions. Just three
states—Florida, California, and Texas—will account for 46 percent of the projected growth.109
Population growth and shifts throughout the country will have a significant impact on the
environment and available natural resources, from energy to crop development. Growth states,
especially, will need to address the impacts that increased population will have on energy demand
and natural resources. Many are already experiencing major challenges with energy and water and
struggling with problems that result from scarce resources.
Energy consumption and demands increase with population growth. Seventy percent of the
electricity consumed in the United States comes from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil;
only 2 percent comes from renewable sources.110 In the past, when a tightening in the supply of one
energy source was encountered, such as natural gas, it was possible to turn to another conventional
source to fill the gap. In recent years, however, global issues and increases in energy consumption
have caused supply shortages and increased fuel prices across the board.
Not only are the costs of traditional energy sources soaring, but also these sources are generally the
ones with the gravest impact on the environment. Extraction and burning of fossil fuels contributes
to global warming, are shown to cause cancer and many other health problems, and destroy habitat
and water. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), electricity generated by fossil
fuels is the single greatest source of air pollution in the United States. Fossil fuel combustion
produces nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and a myriad of pollution particulates. Coal
power plants release more emissions related to global warming than any other source of electricity.
To address the increase in population and the growing energy crisis, many utility companies are
suggesting construction of new coal power plants, despite the impact on the environment. The UCS
reports that 150 plants are proposed nationwide.111 Companies proposing these new plants claim
that coal power plants are the most cost-effective way to meet growing energy demands;
unfortunately their cost evaluations do not assess the public health and environmental costs that
generations to come may bear.
Energy demands are not the only issue to be addressed as the population increases. Fresh water,
especially in certain regions, is a growing concern. Many experts maintain that water is quickly
assuming the same level of importance as oil. Although the Great Lakes contain nearly 20 percent of
the Earth’s surface fresh water, U.S. cities such as Detroit, Syracuse, and Cleveland that sit in close
proximity to this abundant water source continue to lose residents. Their residents are moving to
Sun Belt areas; most often to states already awash in natural resource problems, especially lack of
water.
Two of the fast-growing states, Nevada and Arizona, are the driest in the country. Georgia continues
to suffer through one of its most severe droughts; and hills throughout southern California are
109 Florida, California and Texas to Dominate Future Population Growth, U.S. Census Bureau News, www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/population/004704.html.
110 Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/.
111 Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html.

charred from wildfires after the driest summers in recorded history.112 While the simplest answer
might be for more people to move to areas that have the natural resources to accommodate them, as
population growth trends show, that scenario is highly unlikely. The alternative? Beyond shipping
water to water-strapped states, which might be possible but extraordinarily expensive and energy
intensive, strong water conservation and efficiency mechanisms could be employed.
Business as usual is no longer an option. While alternative renewable energy sources must be
considered, every expert interviewed for this report agreed that policies that incorporate high
energy-efficiency and conservation standards are the first, most-cost effective step towards a
solution. They further agreed that policies must go beyond near-term relief measures to be
sustainable (i.e., quick-fix solutions will not address the quagmire caused by current building
practices). It is time to pursue policies that promote energy efficient technologies and renewable
resources. Greening the built environment—the buildings themselves as well as how and where they
are sited—will help jurisdictions reduce consumption to meet energy needs and conserve natural
resources as the country’s population grows. Fortunately, some states have already taken steps to
enact green building and energy efficiency policies, but a majority must be brought up-to-speed.
Political
There are strong political implications associated with population growth. A state’s population
determines the allocation of congressional seats. As the population shifts to Southern and Western
states, political clout long held in the Northeast and Midwest will shift as congressional seats are
gained and lost. With the 2010 census, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are projected to
gain congressional seats: Texas is on track for two, while the other three states are projected to add
one each. In the West, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are expected to each add
one congressional seat. States projected to lose congressional seats include Wisconsin, Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. While New York and Illinois
also are expected to lose a congressional seat, they will continue to control the third and fifth largest
House delegations, respectively.
While most green building policy action is currently taking place at the state and local level, power
shifts at the federal level could lead to broader and more uniform green building policies being
adopted nationally as states with green building experience gain prominence. Growth states in the
West, such as California and Colorado, have strong green building track records. Although Nevada
has dealt with some trials and tribulations as it has incorporated green building into state policy, it
too appears to be on pace as business and industry—sectors with strong political influence—begin
embracing the benefits of green. In the South, Georgia has some strong green building advocates—
especially within the industry and business sectors—that are building awareness of the benefits of
building to green standards. Texas has strong “islands” of green building proponents and could be
spurred to statewide green building policy action through cost and resource savings illustrated by the
innovative policies and practices currently being implemented in those “islands.”
Edward McClelland, How to Solve America’s Water Problems,

112
www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/07/water_problems/.
Green Building Definitions and Standards
How buildings are developed and constructed today will have environmental and community
impacts for decades to come. Green building policies and practices address the way structures are
designed, constructed, and maintained in order to decrease energy and water consumption and costs,
improve the efficiency and sustainability of the building systems, and reduce the negative impact
buildings impose on the environment and public health.
The benefits of green standards flow throughout the systems and features of a building. Building
“green” includes, among other things, sustainable products; products with high recycled content;
improved framing techniques; recycling waste from deconstruction, demolition, and construction;
construction materials with no or low volatile organic compounds (VOC) to improve indoor air
quality; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems that increase energy efficiency and improve
indoor air; water conservation methods and equipment; and renewable energy sources. Green
building design also considers local climate and site conditions to ensure that climate-appropriate
materials are used efficiently and quality of life is enhanced (i.e., you stay warm in Boston and cool in
Austin).
While it is generally accepted that green construction practices may increase the upfront costs of a
building, especially until the initial learning curve is surmounted, green construction practices may
actually decrease upfront costs. A 2004 study by Pulte Homes, one of the largest home builders in the
nation, found that the advanced framing techniques commonly used in green building (2x6 wall
framing on 24-inch centers) substantially reduced lumber costs. Pulte found that advanced framing
saved a considerable amount of lumber, reducing costs by more than $1,100 per house (this amount
does not even include related labor savings). Advanced framing techniques also lowered the number
of cracked drywall call-backs, which saved the company close to $1,200 per house.113
Moreover, the savings extend beyond the individual buildings to the community. In reviewing the
impact green building practices have on local landfills, Southface Energy estimates that a community
of 915 homes built to EarthCraft standards cuts the amount of wood and drywall going into the
landfill by 600 and 230 tons, respectively.114 This can translate into significant savings on landfill
costs for a jurisdiction.
Several programs across the country provide clear green building standards and/or offer third-party
certification. They include local programs such as Green Points in Boulder, Colo.,115 Built GreenTM
Seattle,116 Austin Green Build,117 and EcoBuild in Shelby County, Tenn.;118 statewide programs such
as North Carolina’s HealthyBuilt Homes119 and California Green Builder;120 regional programs such
113 David Johnstone and Scott Gibson, Green from the Ground Up, p. 88; Steve Baczek, Peter Yost, and Stephanie Finegan,
Using Wood Efficiently: From Optimizing Design to Minimizing the Dumpster, 2002 Building Science Corporation, www.3-d-
buildingsolutions.com/resources/articles/wood_efficiency.pdf.
114 Taking Green Building into the Mainstream, PowerPoint presentation by Dennis Creech at the Fourth Annual New
Partners for Smart Growth conference, Miami, Fla., January 28, 2005.
115 Green Points Boulder, www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/green_points/GreenPointsWeb.pdf.
116 Seattle BuiltGreen, www.builtgreen.net/index.html. Accessed April 2008.
117 Austin Energy Green Building,
www.austinenergy.com/energy%20efficiency/programs/Green%20Building/index.htm.
118 Memphis Light, Gas and Water, EcoBUILD program, www.mlgw.com/SubView.php?key=about_ecobuild. MLGW
serves more than 420,000 customers and is the largest three-service municipal utility in the nation.
119 North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program, www.healthybuilthomes.org/.
120 California Green Builder, www.cagreenbuilder.org/.

as EarthCraft House;121 and national programs such as the EPA Energy Star Home122 and the well-
known Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED)123 program developed by the
USGBC.
A few specialized green building criteria standards also have been developed such as Green
Communities,124 created by Enterprise Community Partners and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), which focuses on affordable housing; the Green Guide for Healthcare,125 which
focuses on greening healthcare facilities; and the California Collaborative for High Performance
Schools (CHPS),126 which brings green building to the design and construction of schools
Green neighborhoods take the concept of green building further by incorporating smart growth
principles and green building standards into neighborhood scale development. Two major
certification programs exist for green neighborhoods: EarthCraft Communities and LEED-ND
(neighborhood design). EarthCraft Communities was launched in 2003, while LEED-ND was
released in pilot stage in 2007 and should be fully launched by 2009.127
121 The EarthCraft House was developed by Southface Energy and the Atlanta Home Builders Association. It was
originally only available in Atlanta, but has expanded throughout the Southeast with support from state agencies and
home builder associations and is now available throughout Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia,
www.earthcrafthouse.com.
122 EPA Energy Star Home, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index.
123 U.S. Green Building Council, LEED program, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19.
124 Enterprise Community Partners, Green Communities Program, www.greencommunitiesonline.org.
125 Green Guide for Health Care, www.gghc.org/.
126 California Integrated Waste Management Board, High Performance Schools,
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Schools/.
127 U.S. Green Building Council, LEED-ND program, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.

Green Building: The Early Years
Early green building practices Early Green Building Timeline

initially started as a means to 1990 Austin Green Building Program launched
promote energy-efficiency. 1992 AIA Environmental Resource Guide developed. First
Cities such as Austin, Texas, assessment of building products based on life-cycle
and Boulder, Colo., began analysis.
enacting energy-efficiency 1993 Clinton “greens” the White House
1993 U.S. Green Building Council formed
measures and policies in the 1994 Boulder, Colo., Green Points Program launched
early 1980s to address that era’s 1995 Built Green Colorado Program launched (Denver)
energy pinch. Over time, and as 1997 Build a Better Kitsap Program launched (Kitsap County,
technologies changed, these Wash.)
policies evolved beyond simple 1998 Green Building Challenge: Representatives from 14
energy efficiency to include nations create an international assessment tool that
considers regional and national environmental, economic,
broader environmental goals. and social equity conditions
As late as the early- to mid- 1998 Build a Better Clark (Clark County, Wash.)
1990s, only a handful of cities 1998 City of Scottsdale, Ariz., Sustainable Building Program
and states had started enacting 1998 Clinton issues first green building executive orders
energy-efficiency and 1998 LEED 1.0 Pilot Program released
conservation policies and fewer 1999 EarthCraft House Program launched
still were enacting green 2000 LEED 2.0 released
2000 Increasing number of municipalities and corporations
building policies.128 In fact, begin to set internal standards for green building.
according to AIA, a majority of Source: Green Building Timeline, www.greenbuilding.com/greenHistory.html.
the green building policies
currently in effect across the country were not enacted until well after 2003.
As public awareness and concern about global warming has grown, many cities, states, and counties
have begun examining what they can do to mitigate the growing problem. In the past five years, as
energy prices have shot up, public health concerns have increased, and an increasing number of
jurisdictions have confronted severe water challenges (from flooding to droughts), the number of
green building and energy policies enacted by city, county, and state governments has exploded.
Green Building Policy Approaches: Carrots and Sticks
Green building is still a fairly new concept to many people. Barriers to green building still exist in
many areas, from outdated building and zoning codes to misperceptions about costs to inadequate
product markets to fear of the unknown. To enact green building and energy policies, many
jurisdictions must work to overcome these barriers.
Most people working in the field are aware of the common misperceptions about the costs of
sustainable design so the first step for almost any green building policy is to edify skeptics and the
uninformed. Policies that educate consumers, developers, and financial institutions about the
benefits and true costs of green building are key to the success of the green building movement.
Green building policies can help make the societal case for why sustainable design is essential and
can underscore the critical nature of integrated planning and design. In many cases, at least initially,
Austin created its Green Building Program in 1990; Boulder created the Green Points system in 1994; Built Green
128
Colorado began in 1995.

it is common for jurisdictions to provide financial and/or technical assistance to promote green
building, especially when it involves the retrofitting of existing buildings.
To challenge and correct green building misperceptions, many jurisdictions are developing programs
that provide presentations, workshops, and educational materials that describe the elements of green
building, what types of building practices and materials qualify as green, and where to find green
products. In some instances, jurisdictions have staff dedicated to a green building program, in
others, they may train existing staff in green building practices. To encourage green building or make
it more palatable when it is mandated, many jurisdictions provide a range of incentives—from
technical to financial assistance—to address the learning curve or costs associated with building
green.
For many years, jurisdictions have utilized a variety of incentives to promote and encourage
practices with community and societal benefits. Almost every incentive used for green building has
been employed and tested in other areas such as affordable housing production. Yet while it is
unlikely that the market will ever support affordable housing without added incentives, the same
cannot be said about green building. Green building benefits continue to accrue long after a building
is constructed—both for the occupants and the community—so as green building becomes more
widely understood and the initial learning curves are hurdled, there is no doubt that market demands
for green building will increase.
Long-time leaders in green building, such as Austin, Boulder, Portland, and Seattle, have
continued to improve their policies over the past five years, but several new leaders such as
Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Atlanta also have emerged. And while larger cities tend
to dominate the green building policy field, smaller cities and towns are embracing it as well.
Frisco, Texas, a small town outside Dallas, not only mandates green building, it also assesses
a fee for projects that do not comply. Greensburg, Kansas, a small town devastated by
tornadoes in 2007, has committed to rebuilding itself green.129
Initiatives that address climate change concerns also are stimulating policy action. The
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, launched in 2005 by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels,
encourages mayors to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their cities. The
Cool Counties Climate Stabilizations Declaration drafted by the Sierra Club and several large
counties—including King County, Wash., Fairfax County, Va., and Nassau County, N.Y.—in
2007 mobilizes counties to take action. At last count, more than 850 mayors had signed the
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and 28 counties had joined Cool Counties.130, 131
129 Philipp Roefrock, Greensburg KS to Rebuild as LEED Platinum City, Green Building Elements, January 28, 2008,
http://greenoptions.com/author/philipproefrock.
130 Mayors Climate Protection Center, U.S. Conference of Mayors, www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/about.htm.
131 Cool Counties Initiative, King County, Washington State, www.kingcounty.gov/exec/coolcounties.

Policy Enactment and Code Adoption Resources
Funders interested in determining if a policy has been enacted in their jurisdiction or what codes
have been adopted can access several important resources for information: USGBC’s Government
Resources link; the Government Green Building Programs Inventory; the International Code
Council database; and the Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.
• U.S. Green Building Council’s Government Resources. This site features several links to key
policy information including its LEED Initiatives in Governments and Schools reports, which
are updated on a quarterly basis. The USGBC also offers the Playbook for Green Buildings and
Neighborhoods, and State and Local Government Toolkit, which can help guide elected officials as
they enact and implement local green building and energy policies. Funders interested in federal
level policy activities may also find USGBC’s analysis of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to be
informative. Go to www.usgbc.org [> Resources > Government] to access these resources. While
USGBC resources focus almost solely on policies that call for implementation of LEED
standards, it is a good policy starting point.
• Government Green Building Programs Inventory. For a comprehensive listing of green

building policies, funders can consult this inventory compiled by the University of Wisconsin-
Extension and Flad & Associates. While it does not necessarily list the most recently passed
green building policies, it does offer the most comprehensive listing of green building policies
available. The database was initially completed in 2004 for the city of Madison Mayor’s Energy
Task Force. It has since been updated in 2007 and is available at
http://www4.uwm.edu/shwec/GovtGreenInventory.pdf. Although the inventory itself is
continuously updated, the information available is not provided as a searchable database, only as
a hardcopy report. The inventory is scheduled to be linked to the USGBC site in the near future.
• International Code Council. This site provides links to a database of what codes have been
adopted by states and jurisdictions across the country, as well as a quick synopsis of which codes
have been adopted where. Information includes the code and level adopted (i.e., which year) and
is available in map form, as Excel spreadsheets, or PDF tables. It can be accessed at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html.
• Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. For energy specific policies,
this is by far the best database available. Maintained by the North Carolina Solar Center and the
Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the
Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency is searchable by state as well as by
policy incentive and initiative. It also provides numerous summary maps outlining where energy
policies have been enacted. It can be accessed at www.dsireusa.org.

Beyond the Usual Suspects: Who’s Helping Drive State and Local Green
Building and Energy Policies
Elected officials have a vast amount of information and resources available to help them identify,
develop, and enact green building and energy policies to achieve their climate protection goals.
Trying to decipher how best to use the information can sometimes be overwhelming. When this
occurs, public officials often rely on a number of familiar organizations to guide them and make
sense of the pool of information. Long-time national membership organizations such as the
National Governors Association (NGA), U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), and National
Association of Counties (NACo) can offer elected officials a nonbiased, nonpartisan approach to
green building and energy policy development.
Although the goal of most of these membership organizations is to represent their members’
interests in Washington, they also offer peer-to-peer learning and networking opportunities where
policymakers can share and learn about promising policies. They often feature best practices,
develop reports, and issue briefs that outline the benefits (and pitfalls) of certain policies and serve
as essential information clearinghouses. Many regional associations develop documents that not only
outline best practices, but also provide policy information and material specific to the challenges in
elected officials’ regional environments. Many of these organizations feature forums to advance local
and state concerns. In recent years, several have become involved in initiatives designed to target
climate change and are working to help members meet energy efficiency and environmental goals.
Since the first priority of these national organizations is advancing state and local interests on
Capitol Hill and with the administration, almost all of them are working to secure funding for the
new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program created under the Energy
Independence and Security Act. Although Congress authorized the program, funds have yet to be
appropriated so ongoing advocacy to secure funding is essential.
National Association of Counties (NACo)

The National Association of Counties is the only national membership organization with a dedicated
resource for green building issues.132 Launched in 2007, NACo’s Green Government Initiative133
partners with organizations such as the USGBC, AIA, and the ICC to provide counties a
comprehensive resource for “all things green.” The Initiative provides information about green
practices, products, and policies as well as addresses misperceptions to help elected officials educate
the public about the benefits of going green.
Resources available through the Initiative include a database of green county government actions;134
Webinars that feature discussions and examples of green practices ranging from green purchasing
and green fleets to LEED; and a variety of green publications and presentations including county
case studies and fact sheets.135 The Initiative also sponsors the Green Government Network, an
electronic mailing list that circulates information about county activities relating to green practices,
products, and policies, best practices, announcements of new publications and resources, upcoming
trainings, workshops, and funding opportunities.
132 National Association of Counties (NACo). More information is available at www.naco.org.

133 NACo Green Government Initiative, www.naco.org/greencounty.
134 The database is available through www.naco.org/greencounty. While it provides a catalogue of documents related to
green practices, there is no synopsis of what each document contains.

135 NACo Green Government Initiative, www.naco.org/greencounty.

The Green Government Initiative also links directly to NACos dedicated Energy and Green
Building page. Although this site provides much of the same information found in other issue areas
within NACo, it highlights information and provides links specific to energy and building issues.
One of its key links is to the NACo ENERGY STAR Challenge.
The NACo ENERGY STAR Challenge is a partnership with EPA which encourages counties to
improve their energy efficiency by 10 percent or more. The Challenge provides a free, web-based
program to help counties track and assess the energy performance of their buildings. Counties
participating in the Challenge receive community outreach assistance to promote energy efficiency
throughout community and private sector facilities. So far, 57 counties have participated in the
challenge. Data on at least 29 buildings have been tracked and 19 of the buildings have earned an
Energy Star Rating.
NACo also helps advance green building and energy policies through its County Climate
Protection Program.136 The program was launched in 2007 to help counties mitigate the impacts
of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. To participate, counties commit to NACo’s
Climate Protection Agreement by agreeing to reduce their county’s greenhouse gas emissions by a
numerical target. Rather than provide a uniform, prescriptive target, NACo allows each county to
determine its own goal by selecting from a list of greenhouse targets designated by existing national
campaigns or by determining the appropriate goal for their individual county.
NACo’s Climate Protection Program provides links to tools, resources, and best practices
necessary to help counties develop strategies to achieve their climate protection goals. It also
maintains an online Climate Protection Discussion Forum137 to give county officials an opportunity
to discuss climate change and share ideas on a range of issues linked to climate protection. NACo is
currently in the process of developing a searchable clearinghouse of county policies and programs,
much like the Green Government Database, that highlight actions taken by individual counties to
achieve their climate protection goals.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM)

The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement was launched by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels in
2005 and endorsed by USCM soon after.138 The Mayors Climate Protection Agreement calls on
mayors across the country to commit to reduce their city’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 7
percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Seven percent is the suggested U.S. target in the Kyoto Protocol.
The agreement further calls on mayors to lobby their state and the federal government to enact
policies and programs to meet or beat the suggested Kyoto Protocol targets for the United States
and to establish a national emission cap and trade system.139
Two years later, USCM launched the Mayors Climate Protection Center to support mayors’
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet their climate protection goals. While USCM
has been a resource on best environmental policies and practices for years, the Center goes further
by providing mayors the guidance and technical assistance they need to develop climate action plans
that will meet or beat their emission targets.140, 141 In conjunction with its 2007 Mayors Climate
136 NACo Climate Protection Program, www.naco.org/climateprotection.

137 NACo County Climate Protection Discussion Forum, www.naco.org/cffiles/climate/discussion.cfm.
138 Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/.
139 As of May 2008, 852 Mayors had signed the agreement. For a list of participating majors, please go to
usmayors.org/climateprotection/list.asp.
140 USCM produces an annual Energy and Environmental Policy Guide. The 2007 Guide can be found at:
www.usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices/EandEBP07.pdf.
Protection Summit, USCM produced the Climate Protection Strategies and Best Practices Guide, which was
developed using information compiled from the First Annual Mayors Climate Protection Award.
The Guide highlights comprehensive, multi-faceted approaches to reduce GHG emissions; regional
initiatives that include both public and private sector efforts to meet conservation and GHG
emission targets; and energy and resource conservation initiatives on which cities have embarked as
part of a larger, broader-based conservation effort.142
While the Mayors Climate Protection Center is the preeminent program for green building within
USCM, it is not the only area in which green building policies and practices can be advanced. The
USCM offers a breadth of programs that, in one fashion or another, have the potential to promote
green building policies and practices, including a Brownfields Program, the Mayors’ Institute on City
Design, and the New Mayors Training Institute.
National Governors Association (NGA)

The National Governors Association produces an annual State of the State Addresses report which
outlines information that governors present in their annual constituent addresses. A review of the
2008 State of the State Addresses report indicates that 40 out of the 50 governors intend to focus on
policies related to energy, environment, and natural resources this year and that 80 percent of that
group (36 governors) will concentrate on renewable energy efforts. Half of the nation’s governors
emphasized the role that “green” energy development will play in spurring economic development
within their respective states.143
Although NGA does not have a program specifically geared toward the advancement of green
building and energy policies, much of its work helps governors develop and implement key policies.
Two NGA programs specifically offer the potential to advance green building and energy policies:
the Chair’s Initiative and the Policy Academy. The Chair’s Initiative gives the NGA Chair an
opportunity to lead a national effort with the help and support of fellow governors during his/her
one-year term. The Initiative is directed by a bi-partisan task force of governors that work with the
Center for Best Practices to determine strategies and tools necessary to move the initiative forward
and achieve its goals. An example of the influence the NGA Chair’s Initiative can have is illustrated
by the Where Do We Grow from Here?144 initiative launched by Maryland’s Governor Parris
Glendening in 2000, which in many ways, launched the Smart Growth movement across America.
The 2008 Chair’s Initiative, selected by NGA Chair and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, was
Securing a Clean Energy Future.145 During the course of the year, the Initiative Task Force146 addressed
ways the United States could improve energy efficiency and conservation, promote alternative, non-
petroleum based fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and accelerate R&D of clean energy
technologies. The initiative held workshops on Clean Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration and hosted two summits—one on Alternative Transportation Fuels and Advanced
141 Mayors Climate Protection Center, www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/about.htm.

142 A copy of the guide is available at www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/2007bestpractices-mcps.pdf.
143 The Governors Speak – 2008: A Report on the State-of-the-State Addresses, National Governor’s Association, April 2008,
www.nga.org/Files/pdf/GOVSPEAK0804.PDF.
144 Information on this initiative as well as a listing of past initiatives can be found on the NGA website at www.nga.gov.
145 For more information about the Securing a Clean Energy Future initiative, please see www.nga.org/ci.
146 Governor Pawlenty (R) co-chaired the Task Force with KS Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D). Other members of the
task force included: CT Governor Jodi Rell, FL Governor Charlie Crist, HI Governor Linda Lingle, MT Governor Brian
Schweitzer, PA Governor Edward Rendell, and WA Governor Christine Gregoire.
Vehicles and another on Clean Power and Efficiency.147 This year’s Initiative culminated in the
release of the State of the States Clean Energy Report at NGA’s annual meeting in July 2008.
While the Chair’s Initiative formally ends with the passing of the Chair to a new Governor, the task
force is structured to allow NGA to continue the Initiative’s momentum with the co-chairs leading
the effort. Follow-up activities generally include state challenge grants and/or policy academies.148
Green building policies certainly fit within the realm of the 2008 Chair Initiative, providing
advocates an opportunity to work with NGA to educate governors on this essential element of clean
energy. An even more optimal approach would be for a future Chair’s Initiative to focus specifically
on green building and the broad benefits it offers.149
The NGA Policy Academy is often used to continue a Chair Initiative as well as educate and help
governors address other important challenges. Each Academy150 addresses a different issue and
provides a handful of states intensive coaching on the selected topic. States must apply to participate
in the Policy Academy, which ensures that only interested states—ready to take action—are
involved. NGA recruits national policy experts to act as Academy faculty and provides technical
assistance to state teams, comprised of the governor and senior staff, to develop state action plans.
The plans help guide implementation of large-scale initiatives in participating states that address the
challenges covered in the Policy Academy.151
Western Governors’ Association

Regional organizations that support local elected officials also are creating initiatives to advance
green building and energy policies. The WGA152 sponsors initiatives and workgroups that examine
green building and energy issues. Reports such as WGA’s Building an Energy-Efficient Future153 provide
recommended policies and best practices for energy-efficient building that can help improve the
region’s economic outlook while reducing water and energy demand.
WGA’s Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative (CDEi) was launched in June 2004 with the
ambitious goals of developing 30,000 Megawatts (MW) of clean and diverse energy by 2015,
increasing energy efficiency within the region 20 percent by 2020, and providing adequate
transmission to meet the region’s needs through 2030. The CDEi Advisory Committee Report
outlines policies that states and the federal government can enact to achieve these goals. In June
2007, WGA released the first annual report monitoring progress toward reaching the Initiative’s
goals.154
147 More information about each of these events can be found on the NGA Chair’s Initiative site under Meeting
Summaries, www.nga.org/ci.
148 Interview with Darren Springer, Senior Policy Analyst, NGA Center for Best Practices, April 11, 2008, and follow-up
emails, May 13, 2008.

149 Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell became Chair of NGA in July 2008. At that time, he announced that his
Chair Initiative will focus on Rebuilding the Country’s Infrastructure. More information on the new Initiative, along with
the State of the States Clean Energy Report, is posted on the NGA website at www.nga.org.
150 While the Chair Initiative from the previous year is often used to select the study area, other feedback from
Governors’ offices or available funding may help spark development of a Policy Academy.
151 Interview with Darren Springer, Senior Policy Analyst, NGA Center for Best Practices, April 11, 2008, and follow-up
e-mails, May 13, 2008.

152 The Western Governors’ Association includes the 19 states and U.S. Territories: www.westgov.org.
153 Building an Energy-Efficient Future, www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/EnergyEfficiency07.pdf.
154 Western Governors’ Association, Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative,
www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/index.htm.
Midwestern Governors Association

The Midwestern Governors Association155 developed an Energy Security and Climate Stewardship
Platform156, which shared goals for the Midwest region, including setting specific timelines for
energy- efficiency advancement, promotion of biobased products, production of renewable
electricity, and development of advanced coal and carbon capture and storage programs. Midwestern
states launched The Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord to meet these goals.157
The Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord158 was signed in 2007 by six
Midwest governors and the Premier of Manitoba159 to develop regional strategies to achieve energy
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Accord, members agree to establish
greenhouse gas reduction targets, including a long-term target 60 to 80 percent below current
emissions levels, and develop a market-based, multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism to help achieve
the targets. Accord participants also agree to engage in a greenhouse gas emission tracking system, as
well as implement policies such as low-carbon fuel standards and funding mechanisms to help
reduce emissions.160
National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC)

The National Association of Regulatory Commissioners is another key resource for policymakers
searching for ways to improve energy efficiency standards in their jurisdictions. It is the nonprofit
membership organization serving state public utility commissioners. It operates several grant
programs in conjunction with DOE, EPA, and the Energy Foundation that provide education and
information on critical regulatory issues. NARUC offers several program areas that can help elected
officials work with their energy offices and public utility commissioners to develop effective-energy
efficiency policies as well as improve and increase the availability of renewable energy sources. Of
particular note is NARUC’s engagement in energy-efficiency performance evaluation through its
Emission Management and Clean Energy program. As states work to develop strong energy
efficiency policies, this type of evaluation and best practices information is essential.161
Other Initiatives
In addition to these resources and programs, several other regional and national climate change
initiatives and agreements have been created over the past few years with the potential to
significantly advance green building and energy policies. In some instances, the agreements are as
“simple” as two or more governors coming together to address mutual climate change concerns.
Others are large-scale initiatives that challenge federal, state, and local governments to lower
greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of means (technological advances, conservation,
efficiency standards, etc.) to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil and curb global
warming. Many of the initiatives feature some combination of information, resources, and/or
hands-on technical assistance to help states and local governments create energy and emission
targets and action plans to achieve these goals.
155 The Midwestern Governors Association includes Governors from the following 12 Midwestern states: IL, IN, IA,
KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI, www.midwesterngovernors.org.
156 Midwestern Governor’s Association, Governors Sign Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform and Greenhouse Gas
Accord, www.midwesterngovernors.org/govenergynov.htm.
157 Midwestern Governors Association Energy Security Platform,
www.midwesterngovernors.org/Publications/MGA_Platform2WebVersion.pdf.
158 Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord,
www.midwesterngovernors.org/Publications/Greenhouse%20gas%20accord_Layout%201.pdf.
159 IL, IA, KS, MI, MN and WI, along with the Manitoba, signed the Accord as full participants; IN, OH, and SD as
observers to participate in the development of the cap and trade system.

160 Midwestern Governors Association press release, www.midwesterngovernors.org/govenergynov.htm.
161 For more information on NARUC and its programs: www.naruc.org/programs.cfm?c=domestic.

The Cool Counties Climate Stabilizations Initiative162 was launched in July 2007 under the
leadership of King County, Wash., Fairfax County, Va., Nassau County, N.Y., and the Sierra Club.
Participating counties commit to: reducing county operational greenhouse gas emissions;
eliminating increases in GHG emissions by 2010; reducing annual emissions 2 percent per year
thereafter to reach an 80 percent reduction by 2050; and advocating for federal fuel economy
standards to be raised to 35 miles per gallon within a decade. King County serves as the Initiative’s
lead organizing government.
The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP)163 is an
international vehicle for information-sharing and joint policy development that has addressed a
variety of environment, economic, and energy issues. In 2001, NEG/ECP launched the New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan.164 The plan
is a voluntary agreement to pursue coordinated actions on climate change and lays out a series of
ambitious goals: a shift to lower/zero carbon energy resources; support and development of actions
to stimulate the region’s economy; maintaining secure and reliable energy supplies; fostering
environmental and economic sustainability; and advocating within their respective federal
governments to develop additional national and international solutions to global warming. The Plan
seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, to 10 percent below 1990 levels by
2020, and to reduce emissions 75 to 85 percent over the long-term. To date, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have developed State Climate Action Plans to meet the
NEG/ECP goals.165
The Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)166 was created in 2005 in response
to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan. The
RGGI is a cooperative effort between ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States167 to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), throughout the region. It establishes
the nation’s first cap-and-trade program setting a numerical cap on CO2 emissions from power
plants and creating a system to trade emission allowances. The program, which requires legislative
authorization by participating states, will go into effect in 2009, capping greenhouse gas emissions at
current levels and then ratcheting down emissions 10 percent by 2019. Emissions permits will be
auctioned off to the highest bidder. While final decisions are pending in some RGGI states, most
states are likely to use auction proceeds to invest in energy efficiency and renewables, further
reducing greenhouse gas pollution.168
According to Dan Sosland, the executive director of Environment Northeast, if RGGI works as
designed, it will create an important new source of revenues for participating state investments in
energy efficiency. For example, Maine’s public benefit fund—which is used to support energy-
162 For more information: www.kingcounty.gov/exec/coolcounties.aspx.

163 The NEG/ECP is a program of The New England Governors’ Conference, www.negc.org/premiers.html.
164 NEG/ECP 2001 Climate Change Action Plan, www.negc.org/documents/NEG-ECP%20CCAP.PDF.
165 New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEGC), Climate Change Action Plan,
www.neep.org/policy_and_outreach/NEGC.pdf.
166 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), www.rggi.org. An Initiative Overview can be found at
www.rggi.org/docs/program_summary_10_07.pdf.
167 Participating states include ME, NH, VT, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MA, MD, and RI; Observer states and regions: PA, DC
and several Eastern Canadian Provinces.

168 Environment Northeast provides a good background paper at www.env-
ne.org/public/resources/pdf/RGGI_Backgrounder.pdf.
efficiency programs throughout the state—currently accrues approximately $15 million annually;
under the RGGI proposal it would receive closer to $25 million.169
Launched in 2007, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)170 is a collaborative between several
Western states and Canadian Provinces171 to develop regional strategies to address climate change.
The Initiative is working to identify, evaluate, and implement collective practices and policies to
reduce regional greenhouse gases. Partners in the WCI have set a goal of reducing overall
greenhouse gas emissions an aggregate of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Each Initiative
participant has set individual state GHG reduction targets to meet the regional goal. Recently
released draft recommendations for the Initiative call for creation of a regional cap-and-trade
program (similar to RGGI).
The Southwest Climate Change Initiative172 is an agreement between Arizona and New Mexico
to collaborate on strategies that will address the impact of climate change in the region and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the Southwest. Under the agreement, the two states will
develop methods to measure and report on greenhouse gas emissions; work together to identify
emission reduction options; promote the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies; and share information about how to reduce the impact of climate change across the
Southwest. The two governors involved in the Initiative are hoping that the agreement also will
provide added economic benefits such as new jobs, improved air quality, and cost saving.
Architecture 2030, the brainchild of architect Edward Mazria, is a challenge to transform the U.S.
building sector from a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions to a major part of the solution to
global warming.173 The goal of the 2030 Challenge is to accomplish a significant reduction in
greenhouse gas emission from the building sector by changing the way buildings and developments
are designed, planned, and built. 2030 calls for all new buildings and major renovations to reduce
their fossil-fuel GHG emitting consumption by 50 percent by 2010 and incrementally thereafter as
necessary so that all new buildings are carbon neutral by 2030. The challenge was issued in 2006 and
numerous groups, from a variety of sectors, have signed on and are working to implement the
Challenge Targets.
In addition to the resources posted on the 2030 Challenge site, the American Institute of
Architecture (AIA) Sustainability Resource Center features many tools and resources, such as the
Sustainability 2030 Toolkit, that can help local and state policymakers advance green building and
energy policies as they strive to meet their 2030 targets.174
25x’25 is a renewable energy initiative developed by a group of farm leaders and organizations that
has gained the support of a broad cross-section of the agriculture and forestry communities. Leaders
from business, labor, conservation, and religious groups are joining the effort as well. The goal of
25x’25 is for farms, forests, and ranches across America to produce 25 percent of the total energy
consumed in the United States by 2025 through renewal energy resources such as wind and solar,
169 Interview, Dan Sosland, Executive Director, Environment Northeast, March 13, 2008.
170 Western Climate Initiative, www.westernclimateinitiative.org/.
171 WCI Partners: Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Quebec, Utah,
Washington; Observers: U.S.: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming; CANADA: Ontario, Saskatchewan;
MEXICO: Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Tamaulipas.
172 New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group, Southwest Climate Change Initiative,
www.nmclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O117F8087.pdf.
173 Architecture2030, www.architecture2030.org/.
174 AIA Sustainability Resource Center, www.aia.org/adv_sustainability.

while still continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food. To achieve the 25 percent
goal, coalition members are calling for an increase in energy efficiency and production of renewable
energy and development of mechanisms that can move that energy efficiently to consumers to
ensure that there is a market for renewable energy. 25x’25 also calls for a substantial increase in
government funding over the next five years to adequately invest in renewable energy.175, 176
Federal Tools and Resources

The federal government, largely through the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), provides significant research and resources—from technical assistance to
funding—to help state and local governments advance green building and energy-efficiency
practices. While federal government agencies do not advocate for specific policies at the state and
local level, the resources they provide support local jurisdiction development of green building and
energy policies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA introduced the ENERGY STAR program in 1992 as a voluntary program designed to
identify and promote energy-efficient products. Computer and monitors were the first labeled
products. Over the next few years, EPA expanded the program to include other office equipment
and residential heating and cooling equipment. In 1995, EPA partnered with DOE and established a
series of product categories that include buildings and plants, new homes, and home improvement.
The ENERGY STAR label is now on major appliances, office equipment, lighting, home
electronics, and much more. In 2007 alone, ENERGY STAR labeled products were credited with
avoiding greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 27 million cars, while saving $16 billion in utility
bills.177
The ENERGY STAR Home was the first energy-rating system for homes. To earn the ENERGY
STAR rating, a home must meet EPA guidelines for energy efficiency, be at least 15 percent more
energy efficient than homes built to the 2004 International Residential Code (IRC), and include
additional energy-saving features that typically make them 20 to 30 percent more efficient than
standard homes.178 The EPA recently initiated the ENERGY STAR Challenge, a national call-to-
action to improve the energy efficiency in commercial and industrial buildings by 10 percent or
more.
Since 2003, EPA also has sponsored, primarily at the staff level, the Green Building Workgroup.
The Workgroup brought the many EPA programs focusing on the building and development
sectors together to improve their environmental performance. The Workgroup’s goal is to create
effective EPA leadership in the green building movement in the federal government by coordinating
and guiding the development of Agency policies, programs and partnerships.179
The EPA recently broadened its Green Building approach to help facilitate mainstream adoption of
green building practices. Although EPA does not currently fund green building projects, it has
developed a new EPA Green Building Website180 that accesses a myriad of green building
175 25x’25: America’s Energy Future, www.25x25.org.

176 The 25x’25 Action Plan can be found at:
www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/IP%20Documents/Action_Plan/apexecsummfinalweb07-23-07.pdf.
177 ENERGY STAR, www.energystar.gov.
178 ENERGY STAR Home criteria, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.nh_features.
179 Interview with Ken Sandler, Co-Chair EPA Green Building Workgroup and Megan Susman, EPA Office of Smart
Growth, April 16, 2008.

180 Environmental Protection Agency Green Building portal, www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/index.htm.

information. This Green Building “portal” provides a gateway not only to EPA programs and topics
related to high performance, environmentally-friendly buildings but also to other resources and
funding opportunities key to successful design and implementation of green building and energy-
efficient practices and policies. The EPA also provides information on how to create Green
Neighborhoods on its Green Communities181 site. The site provides a checklist and tools to help
communities become more sustainable.
The EPA also features a Climate Change Portal that provides states and municipalities with
essential information and tools to understand the impact of climate change on their communities.182
The site links to resources ranging greenhouse gas emissions to health and environmental effects. It
also links to EPA’s Clean Energy183 site where localities can find information to help them develop
long-term action plans for energy efficiency and clean energy supply for their community, as well as
links to best practices and summaries of state clean energy-environmental policies.184
The federal government also funds the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing
(PATH),185 a multi-agency effort led by DOE and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), which focuses on the development and use of advanced housing technologies
to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of a home.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office at DOE features a breadth of
programs and resources that can be used to help support the development of green building and
energy policies. Its Building Technologies Program (BTP) works with states and the building
industry to improve the energy efficiency of the nation’s buildings, both new and existing residential
and commercial. The BTP conducts research and development on building energy efficiency as well
as provides tools, guidelines, training, and access to technical and financial resources. The BTP
features several program areas relevant to green building and energy from appliance and equipment
standards to energy codes to high performance building.
In addition to working with EPA on ENERGY STAR, DOE sponsors the Building America
program under the EERE’s BTP umbrella. Building America conducts research to help produce
homes on a community scale that, on average, use 30 to 90 percent less energy. By 2020, DOE
hopes to support development of onsite building power systems (distributed energy) that can
achieve “zero-energy” homes and ultimately, produce as much energy as they use.186
181 Environmental Protection Agency Green Communities, www.epa.gov/greenkit/index.htm.

182 Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change, www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
183 Environmental Protection Agency Clean Energy, www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/.
184 Environmental Protection Agency Clean Energy, Policy and Best Practices Resources,
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/by-topic/policy.html.
185 PATH Guide to Green Building, www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=24934.
186 Building America, www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/about.html.

Additional Resources and Policy Tools
Articles of Interest
Build it Right: Cleaner Energy for Better Buildings
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/buildings2.pdf
Green Building is Here to Stay
http://media.iccsafe.org/news/ePartners/0707/20070523082448385.pdf
Green Building: Onus or Bonus
http://www.planning.org/zoningpractice/pdf/ZPApr05Matrix.pdf
American Planning Association
Green Building and the Bottom Line
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic130901.files/whitepaper06_1_.pdf
Building Design+Construction, November 2006
It’s Not Easy Being Greenest: 10 Cities to Watch
http://www.briannegoodspeed.com/being_greenest.pdf
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, 2007
http://www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf
American Solar Energy Society
Best Practices and Policy Design

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)
http://www.standardsasap.org/
Building Codes Assistance Project
www.bcap-energy.org
Joint initiatives of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Alliance to Save Energy, and
the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Community Toolkit
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/toolkit_home.php
Green Building Ordinances
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/green_building_ordinances.php
Clean Air Cool Planet
Clean Energy Action Guide
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap3_s1.pdf
Clean Energy - State Best Practices
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/state-best-practices.html
Environmental Protection Agency
Creating Energy Smart Communities
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/
Smart Communities Network
Developing Green Building Programs: A Step by Step Guide for Local Governments
www.globalgreen.org
Global Green

Developing Municipal Codes and Policies to Encourage Green Development

http://www.cascadiagbc.org/resources/presentation/greening-the-building-code-06-29-
07/BennettGreenCode_062907.pdf
Rob Bennett, Clinton Climate Initiative
Compendium of Champions: Chronicling Exemplary Energy Efficiency Programs from Across the U.S.
http://aceee.org/pubs/u081.pdf?CFID=525111&CFTOKEN=34903990
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Green Building Incentives that Work: A Look at How Local Government are
Incentivizing Green Development, November 2007
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=180426
Green Guide to Healthcare
http://www.gghc.org/
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability
www.iclei.org/usa
/www.iclei-usa.org/success-stories/copy_of_built-environment/green-buildings/green-building
Innovation and Sustainability in the States
http://www.ecos.org/content/innovations
The Environmental Council of the States
LEED Initiatives in Governments and School
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=691
U.S. Green Building Council
Municipal Green Building Policies: Strategies for Transforming Building Practices in the Private Sector
http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11295
Environmental Law Institute
New Energy for States: Energy-Saving Policies for Governors and Legislators
http://www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/resources_apollostate_report.pdf
New Energy for Cities: Energy-Saving and Job Creation Policies for Local Governments
http://www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/resources_new_energy_cities.pdf
Apollo Alliance
Playbook for Green Buildings and Neighborhoods: Strategic Local Climate Solutions
www.greenplaybook.org
U.S. Green Building Council
Selected Clean Energy Policies in 5 Leading States
http://www.raponline.org/showpdf.asp?PDF_URL=%22Pubs/Hawaii(HCEI)-
Murray_Policy_Approaches_in_Five_Leading_States.pdf%22
Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)
Sustainlane Government
http://www.sustainlane.us/category/c7?pageno=2
Energy / Utility Related Resources

Alliance to Save Energy (ASE)
www.ase.org
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACE3)

www.aceee.org

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

www.ashrae.org
Association of Energy Service Professionals

www.aesp.org
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

www.naruc.org/commissions.cfm
Energy Reports
2008 Energy Trends Outlook
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/trends.html
Energy Efficiency’s Next Generation: Innovation at the State Level, November 2003
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e031full.pdf
National Review of Exemplary Energy Efficiency Programs
http://www.aceee.org/utility/exemplary_programs/0709exemplary-programs.pdf
Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money and Reducing Pollutant Emissions through Greater Energy Efficiency, September
2001
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e012full.pdf
The Size of the U.S. Energy Efficiency Market: Generating a More Complete Picture
http://aceee.org/pubs/e083.htm
American Council for Energy Efficient Economy
State-by-State Net Metering Regulations
http://www.irecusa.org/index.php
Interstate Renewable Energy Council
Scorecards, Ranking Sites

America’s 50 Greenest Cities
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities?page=1#
Popular Science, February 2008
2006 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e075.pdf
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Federal Resources
Department of Energy (DOE)
Building Energy Codes
http://www.energycodes.gov/
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Energy Consumption by Sector 1949-2006
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_4.pdf
Household Consumption
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Utility Market Oversight
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/market-oversight.asp

Interviews
Judy Adler, Program Officer, Turner Foundation, April 11, 2008

Glen Andersen, Energy Program, National Conference of State Legislatures, April 11, 2008
Barry Berlin, Advisor, The Kendeda Fund, March 19, 2008
Tobie Bernstein, Senior Attorney, Environmental Law Institute, May 7, 2008
Gregory T. Black, Senior Asset Manager, Washington State Housing Trust Fund, May 5, 2008
Dennis Creech, Executive Director, Southface Energy Institute, March 17, 2008
Jeff Harris, Vice President of Programs, Alliance to Save Energy, March 12, 2008
Jason Hartke, Manager of State and Local Policy, U.S. Green Building Council, March 11, 2008
Brian Higgins, Program Director, Enterprise Community Partners, Columbus, May 10, 2008
Stewart Hudson, President, Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, April 7, 2008
Diane Ives, Fund Advisor, The Kendeda Fund, April 8, 2008
Jon Jensen, Executive Director, Park Foundation, April 2, 2008
Howard Learner, Executive Director, Environmental Law and Policy Center, March 31, 2008
Joe Loper, Senior Vice President, Policy and Research, Alliance to Save Energy, March 12, 2008
Jim Mann, Executive Director, Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, March 5, 2008
Kate Marks, Energy Program, National Conference of State Legislatures, April 17, 2008
Kevin McCarty, Director, Mayors Climate Protection Center, U.S. Conference of Mayors, March 14, 2008
Tom McClimon, Assistant Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, March 27, 2008
Alison Partin, Policy Analyst, Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Division,
National Governors Association, April 11, 2008
Rob Pratt, Senior Vice President, Henry P. Kendall Foundation, April 28, 2008
Mariella Tan Puerto, Senior Program Officer, Barr Foundation, March 31, 2008
Jenny Russell, Executive Director, Merck Family Fund, February 28, 2008
Ken Sandler, Co-Chair, EPA’s Green Building Workgroup, April 16, 2008
Bill Shutkin, Director, Institute for Sustainable Development, Chair in Sustainable Development, Leeds
School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder (former Interim Executive Director, Business
Alliance for Local Living Economies), April 2, 2008
Amy Solomon, Program Officer, Bullitt Foundation, April 8, 2008
Dan Sosland, Executive Director, Environment Northeast, March 13, 2008
Darren Springer, Program Director, Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Division,
National Governors Association, April 11, 2008
Megan Susman, EPA Office of Smart Growth, April 16, 2008
Ben Taube, Executive Director, Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, April 2, 2008
Fred Wacker, Director and Chief Operating Officer, The Home Depot Foundation, March 6, 2008
Walker Wells, Director, Green Urbanism Program, Global Green USA, March 26, 2008

Pathways To Green Building - Policy Primer 081112

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pathways To Green Building - Policy Primer 081112

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pathways to Green Building and

Researched and Written by:

Green Building/Green Neighborhoods Working Group

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ i

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities i

Opportunities for Funders

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities ii

economic development potential also suggests funder collaborations with corporations to

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities iii

How to Use the Primer

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities iv

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities v

Advancing Green Building Policy

A View of the Field: Regional Green Building Policy Trends

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 1

The Path to Policy

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 2

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 3

Green Building Policies in Action

Mandatory Green Building Policies

Table I: Mandatory Policies

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 4

8 City of Boulder. Green Points Program History,

consumption, performance and cost.

planning and design phase.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 5

February 2, 2007, www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0202/0202p_bostondc.cfm.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 6

Numerous jurisdictions have enacted energy-efficiency policies, such as energy-efficiency

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 7

LEED Adoption Green Building Lead by Example policies are

Policy, March 2008, http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/issues/volume11number1/index.htm.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 8

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 9

Attaching Green Strings

Codifying Green Building and Energy

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 10

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 11

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 12

Promoting Statewide Energy Action increased, municipal support for statewide

statewide energy code: the Illinois Energy Efficient www.cdb.state.il.us/green_initiatives.shtml.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 13

Voluntary Green Building Policies

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 14

Green Building / Energy-Efficiency Funds

32 Austin Energy, Austin Energy Green Building Program,

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 15

Green Neighborhoods, Green Communities: A Holistic Approach

35 Stapleton Redevelopment, www.calthorpe.com/Project%20Sheets/Stapleton.pdf.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 16

38 Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, 2005 InterCity Visit, Denver,

built throughout the Southeast, www.earthcrafthouse.com.

all 50 states included in the SustainLane Report go to www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 17

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 18

45 City of Chicago, Department of Buildings, Green Permit Program,

Extension. Available online at edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW252. Accessed April 2008,

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 19

49 King County, Wash., BuiltGreenTM Program, www.builtgreen.net/incentive.html.

Professor Patricia Salkin. lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/illinois-becomes-first-state-to-initiate-green-

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities 20

Sales Tax Abatement

programs such as low-income utility assistance and energy-efficiency programs.