你需要了解在纽约和哥伦比亚特区的大胆的新建筑法是什么

The District of Columbia and New York City both recently passed bold laws to meet their commitments to slash their greenhouse gas emissions in half in a little more than a decade and by more than 80 percent by 2050.

By passing the first two laws in the country that require broad swaths of existing buildings to improve their energy performance, the two cities catapulted ahead of every other U.S. jurisdiction. What does this mean for each city and its real estate communities? How are they different? To realize the full economic, environmental and health impacts of the new laws, both cities will need to wisely and effectively implement their legislation. And, they’ll need to take additional bold steps addressing buildings, transportation and waste to meet their climate commitments.

How do the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act and New York City’s Int. 1253 compare?

房屋account for the lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions (74 percent in D.C. and 67 percent in New York). To meet these ambitious climate goals, public and private buildings must be made dramatically more energy efficient. Fortunately, both cities are already longstanding leaders in green building, green building codes and climate and energy policies.

Each benefits from having sophisticated building industries and tenants and consistently rank within the top five cities for the most Energy Star- and LEED-certified buildings. In fact,D.C. was named the world’s first LEED Platinum cityin 2017. Yet both Washington and New York City stand to reap an economic windfall of billions in cost-saving opportunities by putting the pedal to the metal on energy efficiency and distributed energy resources as alternatives to building new gas and electric distribution infrastructure.

Washington and New York City stand to reap an economic windfall of billions in cost-saving opportunities by putting the pedal to the metal on energy efficiency and distributed energy resources.

Despite their similarities and starting from a strong foundation, the two cities have important differences, and many crucial steps remain to implement their building laws to have the greatest impact. Below are some key differences between the District’sClean Energy DC (CEDC) Omnibus Act和Int. 1253(the centerpiece of New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act), why they matter and what steps each city is taking to succeed.

New York builds on a decade of leadership

Since their passage in 2009, NYC’sGreener Greater Building Plan laws(GGBP) have been the gold standard for addressing the root causes of wasted energy in existing buildings. Along with efficiency incentives and innovative programs such as纽约的改造加速和Building Energy Exchange, the GGBP laws form a package that serves as a model for other cities, including D.C. Currently, D.C. funds less generous incentives than are available in NYC; following NYC’s lead, D.C. is in the process of standing up a高性能建筑毂.

While NYC’s GGBP package is helping drive energy efficiency in buildings, it is not at the pace needed to meet the city’s climate commitments. Incorporating Int. 1253 into the package provides the best model to date of the comprehensive approach that will be needed to transform a city’s real estate market and meet bold climate commitments.

D.C. benefits from its unique combination of city and state powers

New York’s gas and electric utilities are regulated at the state level. In contrast, D.C. is uniquely a city and a de facto state that regulates its utilities. Using this power, D.C. included a nation-leading 100 percent renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) as a central plank of its CEDC law, which must be met by 2032.

D.C. focuses on energy reductions, while New York focuses on carbon reductions

重庆高发司法的另一主旨，最具创新性规定是它的建筑能源性能标准（BEPS），这需要至少一半的现有建筑物的投资在提高能源性能。这影响了50000平方英尺建筑在2021年开始，将逐步下降到建筑物，小10,000平方英尺。值得注意的是：特区的小额批量支付系统只侧重于对财产发生了什么和不做任何基于绿色电力购买的调整。BEPS的一两冲和一个100％的RPS要求每个大型建筑中D.C.是有效或投资效率和可再生能源被供电。这是任何一个城市一个巨大的和必要的步骤，低成本地满足大胆的气候承诺和重庆高发司法最大的优势。

D.C.’s BEPS is built on the popular federalEnergy Star1-100 building energy efficiency rating system. Purchases of green electricity generated off-site do not affect Energy Star scores, thereby focusing owner and tenant attention on the key opportunities of energy efficiency and to a lesser degree on-site renewable generation. And Energy Star accounts for weather, occupant density, operating hours and other factors which from a fairness perspective should not affect a building’s score.

New York’s Int. 1253 sets构建排放，包括从电力排放年度碳强度限制消耗所涵盖的建筑物25,000 square feet and larger. The law therefore can be thought of as a "building carbon performance standard." Int. 1253 applies to NYC’s 50,000 largest buildings, which account for only 5 percent of the total number of properties in the city but whichconsume nearly 60 percent (PDF)of all energy in buildings in NYC.

Both Energy Star scores and NYC’s carbon intensity limits are massively correlated with progress against greenhouse gas emissions, but neither is a perfect match. Future rule-making ultimately will determine which metric will be a better match.

工作improve buildings’ energy efficiency将创建本地就业,提高弹性,减少utility bills, increase property values, make buildings healthier for occupants and improve both Energy Star scores and carbon intensity. Purchases of distantly generated renewables satisfy RPS requirements and will improve carbon intensity (at least under NYC rules through 2029) but produce none of the benefits above.

When will each law affect real estate?

As a next step, D.C. will define through rule-making a number of property types (all office buildings might be grouped as one type), evaluate the Energy Star scores of every building in each type, and set a performance standard for each type that is no lower than the median score for buildings of that type. Therefore, at least half of all buildings will have to improve their performance by picking from one of these options: improving its Energy Star score to the level of the BEPS; reducing its normalized energy consumption by 20 percent; or picking from a menu of prescriptive options that will be developed during rule-making, but which are required by the law to equal 20 percent reductions in consumption.

The law would cut NYC’s GHG equivalent to nearly 6 million tons of CO2 per year by 2030, making it likely the biggest positive climate impact of any single law by a city.

The process will repeat every five years so the energy performance bar naturally will ratchet up. This approach has the virtue of flexibility and fairness for building owners (no owner will be required to cut its energy use by more than 20 percent in a five-year cycle); however, it provides less certainty regarding the amount of emissions reductions it will generate, especially in the out years.

In contrast, NYC’s Int. 1253 spells out carbon intensity limits that effectively will require improvements by the bottom 20 percent of worst performing buildings in the initial 2024-2029 compliance period, and by the 75 percent highest GHG intensity buildings in the 2030-2034 compliance period. The law does not cap the reductions that may be required of a building owner to meet the intensity limits, but it wisely gives NYC’s Department of Building discretion to provide building owners flexibility to cope with financial, legal or technical limitations. It also requires that by 2021 the department decide whether and how to set up a system of carbon trading among buildings.

Such a system likely would provide an escape valve to reduce total costs while ensuring total emissions reductions and prevent building owners from bearing an excessive financial burden. But it will be a monumentally difficult job for the department to establish a trading system that is fair and effective while balancing many important interests including environmental justice.

In both cases, the key outcomes are still subject to rule-making processes. In contrast to D.C.'s approach, Int. 1253 places a higher value on certainty regarding the level of emissions reduction that will be achieved than on providing certainly regarding the impact to building owners.

其法有较大的气候影响？

特区初步预计（PDF）that in 2032 its CEDC law will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 3 million tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent annually, equal to removing over 600,000 cars from the road. The NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability estimates that Int. 1253 will cut the much larger city’s greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to nearly 6 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030 (equivalent to removing 1.3 million cars from the road), making it likely the biggest positive climate impact of any single law adopted by any city.

即使法律得到充分和大力实施，这两个城市将需要做更多。

Nevertheless, while Int. 1253 saves more in absolute terms, D.C.’s law saves more in relative terms — over 40 percent of D.C.’s entire carbon footprint relative to the 2006 baseline. To be fair, a little over half of D.C.’s savings come from its RPS, an option not available to NYC.

当然，这些节省将依赖于强大的和有效的规则制定和实施新的法律，和业主，公用事业和当地利益相关者积极和主动的方式应对，导致了房地产市场的转型。例如，业主需要迅速开始理解什么样的改进，他们就需要让他们对自己的建筑物，定价了这些改进，并将其纳入其资本计划的过程。复杂的楼宇业主的法律通道前开始，因为他们知道，测量和管理能源的使用和提高效率是一项明智的投资。现在，需要协同推进，以确保即使是最小的业主这样做，能够获得效率和清洁能源的好处;因为这样努力的一部分，纽约已经翻了两番其改造加速器的预算和人员。

Similar to when D.C. and NYC passed energy benchmarking and transparency legislation a little over a decade ago, these new building performance laws put the cities ahead of their peers. But even if the laws are fully and vigorously implemented, both cities will need to do more. The cities will need to take additional bold steps to be on pace to meet their climate commitments.