Consider Incentives for Existing Buildings, Too
Further
Tax Credits for “Green Buildings” and Senate File 2046
This past week the Business Record published an
article by
Bill Dikis regarding green buildings for healthy initiatives and tax credits
for LEED Certified buildings. Different levels of LEED “benchmarking” would
result in higher percentages of tax credits. It is important to note that while
most people’s perceptions are that to become a LEED building, it has to be
designed and built that way. However, there are also LEED benchmarks available
for existing buildings that are updated or retro fitted to improve their use of
“natural resources”.
Two well-known Des Moines examples are the new Blue Cross
Blue Shield facility which received the highest level LEED benchmark for a new
structure, and the rehab of our old library, now the World Food Prize building,
which also achieved the highest rating of Platinum for an existing structure. Both
buildings earned these ratings through many hours of engineering and design
work through talented architects like Mr. Dikis, and many hours of filling out
extensive forms and paperwork to receive the rating.
Certainly these buildings deserve some extra incentive to
help justify the time, expense and efforts to attain this rating. A LEED
building is designed and built in a manner which should result in decreased
operating expense, with a reasonable payback over a “standard” building.
However, the task of retrofitting a building and the actual application process
has become a disincentive for many building owners to undertake the task.
The EPA also has a benchmarking system for existing
buildings based on energy usage. The process is comprised of a building survey
to determine which measurement factors the building will be compared against.
For example, the type of building, the number of computers in use, the location,
and size are a few of the details gathered on the survey. Then the past 12
months of energy use (gas, oil, electricity) are submitted with the survey. The
building is then compared against other buildings in a similar climate, type,
etc., and then a cost per square foot determines the ranking. Any building rated
75 or higher (meaning on a scale of 0-100, the building ranks in the 75th
percentile or better than similar buildings), qualifies for Energy Star
designation. This is very similar to the Energy Star you see on appliances and
electronics. Once that rating is achieved the building can be submitted to
officially receive that designation from the EPA. The final step is to print
off several forms and the report, and have them reviewed and certified by a
Professional Engineer. These are then submitted to the EPA and in a few weeks
the facility receives official approval and a plaque to post.
A much more simple process, but it still identifies a
facility that is operating efficiently, also using less of our natural resources.
While it does not necessarily mean it is a healthy building like a LEED
building is designed to be, and does not take into account all the qualifiers
that a LEED building must utilize, it does offer a more palatable process for
most building owners to improve or maintain their building. While the benefits of
an Energy Star building are less pollution, energy use, and the resultant cost
savings, would a tax credit be appropriate for Energy Star rated buildings be
warranted? More often than not, HVAC maintenance, controls and lighting can
often have very short capital payback and long term energy savings. That alone
might be enough justification. If Senate File 2046 rewards a LEED building,
which also receives payback on operating costs, should an Energy Star rated
building be included? Interestingly the Energy Star rating is only for a 1 year
period, which means each year it is reevaluated to make sure it is still
performing at 75% or higher against other similar buildings. That by necessity
means the building must continue to be properly maintained and as new more
efficient technology becomes the standard, the building must “Keep up with the
Joneses” to retain their rating.
While minimizing energy use and the carbon footprint is the
right thing to do for our environment and health, often the decision is an
economic one. The fact that buildings use a very large percentage of our total
energy and may be one of the easiest to “fix”, should we apply a little extra
nudge in a tax incentive to help justify improvements and equipment
maintenance?
