A bill that would mandate doubling the energy efficiency of all buildings in the state over the next 15 years might have been overshadowed by a more controversial provision to halve gasoline consumption that was stripped from the bill last week, but it’s ambitious nonetheless. And it’s causing some concern among groups representing commercial building owners.
Senate Bill 350 is legislation by Senate President Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, that encapsulates most of Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to further reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Originally, the bill called for a 50 percent increase in savings from energy efficiency in existing buildings over 2015 levels by 2030. Now, the bill calls for a 100 percent increase, and will apply not just to building owners but to tenants inside those buildings.
The bill requires a state commission to establish annual targets for statewide energy-efficiency savings, and calls on the state Public Utilities Commission and the governing boards of municipal and local utilities to figure out how to get there.
The Building Owners and Managers Association of California and the National Association of Industrial Office Properties have raised concerns about the bill, specifically about regulations those commissions and boards might craft to achieve the mandate.
“The big concern is putting this in statute with such vagueness and with no clear game plan as to how to get there,” said Matthew Hargrove, senior vice president government relations for BOMA California.
But there are other concerns. If state or local agencies decide to apply their mandates to all existing buildings, some landlords might have more wherewithal than others to afford the upfront costs of energy-efficiency improvements, such as new heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems or better-insulated windows.
“The trouble is, how do you force a property owner that doesn’t have capital to do the tenant improvements and make the investment?” Hargrove said. “Proponents may say you make your building more energy efficient, you save money and you will recoup your investment in 20 years. But in the real world, the ROI time frame is five to seven years. That’s a tough speed bump to get over, especially for building owners who may be individuals or families.”
Lobbying for Ex-Im Bank
When Boeing Co. announced this summer that it was laying off hundreds of workers at its El Segundo satellite division because purchase deals for its satellites dried up after Congress allowed the Export-Import Bank’s charter to expire, it set off a lobbying scramble by local business groups to restore the bank’s funding.
The Export-Import Bank, founded 80 years ago, has provided loan guarantees to companies trying to export their products as well as credit insurance and direct loans for U.S. exports.
Funding for the bank is one of the issues Congress is expected to take up now that it has returned from its summer recess. But there’s substantial opposition from both the left and the right, as critics charge the bank is little more than a corporate welfare program for Boeing and other giant companies.
Late last month, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. sent out a letter to its partners and business groups around Southern California urging them to contact their congressional representatives to reinstate the funding:
“There is a critically important tool that helps Southern California companies export their products, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which has been put on the chopping block recently, and we need as much support as possible from Southern California’s elected officials, businesses, unions and individuals to stress the importance of this tool to our Congressional delegation.”
The letter went on to say that should the bank’s funding not be restored, the Boeing layoffs would be just the tip of the iceberg as there are few other tools to help companies export their products.
Clean, Green?
The Los Angeles City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee is set to consider a controversial set of building and zoning changes designed to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of industries such as mining, oil refining, auto body shops and waste yards in three neighborhoods: Pacoima, Boyle Heights and Wilmington.
The so-called Clean Up-Green Up plan consists of building standards, such as buffer zones between facilities and neighboring properties as well as noise restrictions. It also calls for more conditional use permits that require public hearings for new projects or expansions of existing facilities.
Business groups initially were receptive when the Clean Up-Green Up plan was unveiled five years ago, but the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce is now opposed, saying the standards are too restrictive and will prevent businesses from locating or expanding in those communities.
Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached at [email protected] or (323) 549-5225, ext. 227.
