NEWSLETTER OF BUILDING FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY / VOLUME VIII /=20 ISSUE 1 / July 2005

BSR & VGBN Present

Residential <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Green Building

Workshop

An Introduction to Residential Green Building Certifications. A one-day advanced residential green building training geared towards builders, remodelers, architects, interior designers, and other interested professionals. This in-depth training fully prepares you for the residential rating and certification systems. The full= day workshop will cover:

·Opportunities to utilize green building strategies;

·An overreview of Vermont Builds Greener LEED-H pilot program.

·A detailed look at green building concepts covered in t= he Rating System and examples of these approaches achieved in the field.<= /o:p>

Benefits: Trained attendees will obtain future= rate reductions in home certification fees. AIA Continuing Education credits reported by AIA/VT and certificated or attendance are available.

Cost: Including workbooks, $250 if pre-registered and postmarked within 14 days in of each scheduled workshop = or $275 at the door. $25 discount to BSR, VGBN and USGBC members with paid 2006 memberships.

More Information: Learn more about the organizations hosting this workshop, the Rating System and our upcoming trainings at www.bsr-vt.org or call 802.922.4767

3D"Vermont

3D"Text

VBG and LEED for Homes Create the future of Residential Certfications

In the late 80’= s, BSR was founded by a dedicated group of local professionals who had many ideas about how to mitigate the negative consequences that building had on the wo= rld at large. One of those ideas = was to create standards in green building, which could help define the technical aspects of what green building is. To accomplish this, BSR created its Project House and launched the Vermont Builds Greener (VBG) program, a residential green building certification. While BSR work= ed hard to establish green building standards in Vermont, there was general acknowledgm= ent that national building organizations would eventually establish their own standards on the national level. Early on, the VBG committee realized that there was an opportunity to create the most advanced residential green building certification in the nation, which could advance the threshold of what is green on the national level. That time has come.

Our Vermont Builds Gr= eener Certification recently entered operational status, certifying its first gro= up of homes this year. The program has obtained national recognition. “The nation's greenest resid= ential green building program is unveiled in Vermont” declares Environmental Building News.

Nationally, the USGBC= emerged as the entity that will seek to establish a national residential certificat= ion program. The USGBC launched t= heir LEED for Homes Pilot program early this year.

3D"Text

Their one year national pilot program immediately entered states without local certification programs. In states with residential certifi= cation programs already in place, the USGBC agreed not to enter the local market without consent from the local certifying body.

Reflection

The launching of a na= tional residential certification and its potential entry into the Vermont market, which was always expec= ted by BSR, resulted in a high level of self reflection for the VBG Committee. Undoubtedly, the main goal of BSR = and VBG is to advance the cause of green building in Vermont and nationally, but how to do = that is the question. Could the na= tional LEED for Homes Certification be better for Vermont’s green building movement or would Vermont’s homegrown standards created by VBG be more capable of addressing local environmental and social issues? If LEED for Homes entered Vermon= t, how could it be structured to be most beneficial for the state? Could concerns over the USGBC stan= dards be addressed?

There are clear benef= its to working with LEED to establish and promote a residential certification in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Vermont. LEED has a strong marketing appeal= that might foster greater interest in residential certifications. The USGBC also has deeper coffers,= which can be utilized to initiate a more expansive and effective promotional camp= aign aimed at further increasing public awareness for a residential certification program.

The VBG committee, fo= llowing significant deliberation, agreed to work with the USGBC for the duration of= its LEED for Homes pilot. The com= mittee will reassess its commitment to working with the USGBC following the comple= tion of the pilot, pending the outcome of current negotiations.

Opportunities<= /p>

The USGBC is in uncha= rted territory and it is seeking input from local providers about how to structu= re its national residential certification program. VBG has seized this opportunity an= d has initiated high level negotiations with the USGBC regarding the structure of LEED for strengthen the national certification program by addressing import= ant concerns during the pilot.

Here are a few of the= issues we hope to address during the pilot:

Regionalization: A national standard that does not = take into account regional/local factors will be less effective at addressing lo= cal social and environmental concerns. The VBG committee is working with the USGBC to establish regionalized organizational structures and standards.&n= bsp;

Lasting Local Influence: = If local certifying bodies partner with the USGBC, what are the lasting avenues of influence that will be available to local groups? The VBG committee is working to cr= eate a structure through which it can have a lasting influence over the content and structure of the national standards. =

Shortcomings in the LEED for Homes Standards: = The VBG committee worked hard to push the envelope of green building by identifying important issues that were not addressed by other standards, such as VBG’s house-size multiplier. We hope to work with the USGBC to fill the current shortcomings in t= heir standards, so that a more effective national standard can be in place.

VBG Comes Full Circle

VBG has come a long w= ay since its incarnation at early BSR meetings.&nbs= p; The individuals on the VBG Committee have been deeply committed to preserving the integrity of VBG and the virtues of green building.

The high level negoti= ations currently going on between VBG and the USGBC are setting the stage for how = the nation’s leading residential certification program will be structured. These discussions= are being closely watched by both local and national groups, anxious to see how= a national certification will be structured.

BSR members should be= proud to learn that once again we are forging new ground nationally. <= /span>

Brian Hurley

Former BSR Executive = Director and Candidate for the BSR Board

3D"Text BSR Faces the Wind=

BSR jumped into the fray of the Vermont wind power debate by hosting Facing the Wind: a Community Forum on Wind Farms in Vermont<= /st1:place>. BSR’s intent was to examine = wind power development from an environmentally conscious standpoint. What is wind’s potential as = an effective, renewable source of power in Vermont. What are the implications for wild= life habitat, and for environmental and aesthetic degradation?

BSR Faces the Wind th= e Forum, held on Tuesday February 28^that the Unitarian Church in Montpel= ier, drew an audience of approximately 125 people, and featured speakers with substantial expertise in the areas of wind mechanics, the structure and dynamics of the electric power industry, aesthetic studies, wildlife ecolog= y, and the public planning and review process.

Our first and primary= speaker on the benefits of wind power was Lawrence Mott of Earth Turbines Inc., a small-scale wind design and installation firm. Mr. Mott, a mechanical engineer specializing in wind power, is a former chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, a local non-profit group dedicated to exploring and promoting environmentally responsible and renewable energy strategies.

While acknowledging t= heir high visibility on Vermont’s ridgelines, Mott said that wind turbines would provide a low-impact, reliab= le and consistent source of power at a reasonable and stable price. Development of just six percent of=

Vermont’s ridgelines could provide 450 megawatts = of power contributing an average of twenty-two percent of Vermont’s current power demand.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> An additional three percent could = be generated through smaller, non-commercial, on-site wind systems. Other in-state sources of renewable energy – medium-scale hydro power, landfill methane (currently being developed by the local Washington Electric Co-op), and biomass (such as Burlington’s McNeil woodchip plant), could be developed or expanded to substantially reduce Vermont’s dependence on non-renewable and costly= out of state

sources. Mott also noted that maximizing en= ergy conservation would be an increasingly key component in properly meeting Vermont’s = power demand.

Roughly two-thirds of Vermont’s current power comes fr= om Vermont Yankee and from Hydro-Quebec. Current relatively low-cost contracts with both of these utilities w= ill terminate within the next decade. Renegotiated contracts with either one will likely be at substantial= ly higher rates. Mott suggested = that it would be irresponsible for Vermonters to rely heavily on out of state utilities that have little or no motivation to offer power contracts at bel= ow-market rates.

Regarding concerns ab= out local environmental and aesthetic impacts, Mott said that wind turbines cau= sed significantly less bird kill (two to three per turbine each year) than other common man-made objects such as buildings, vehicles, and plate-glass windows. Local impacts, such = as roads, clear-cutting, and erosion, could all be managed within a carefully developed environmental plan. He said that the F.A.A. has recently relaxed their initial requirements and expressed a willingness to review and alter standards for warning lights on wind towers to reduce their visual impact.= De-commissioning costs and impacts would be minimized by the fact th= at the foundations and towers could be re-used or upgraded, and the other parts would be largely recyclable – their scrap value covering much of the decommissioning cost.

John M. Austin, a wil= dlife biologist with Vermont’s Department of Fish and Wildlife spoke about = the relatively low bird kill reported from wind farms in western states, but he said there was not enough known about Vermont’s specific environment to assume the same would be the case here. A more recent concern, according t= o Austin, is a study from West Virginia indicating a significant problem with bat kills – forty or fifty per turbine per year. He pointed out that one study cann= ot be considered conclusive, but it is cause for concern, and he suggested that m= ore specific study in Vermont’s environment was necessary. He= added that such studies are difficult to do here, as the forested landscape and t= he constant activities of feeding wildlife makes searching for dead birds or b= ats difficult.

Of more obvious conce= rn in regard to wildlife impacts is the fragmentation of habitat, which affects a= ll wildlife from nesting songbirds to large mammals such as black bear. “We actually have no idea wh= at will happen when you put in a state-of-the-art wind turbine – what the actual effect on species would be.”&= nbsp; But Austin acknowledged that the local impacts of a wind farms have to be weighed with respect to their potential for reducing reliance on other CO2-producing ene= rgy sources. Global warming, he s= aid, will have a far more significant impact on wildlife.

Jean Vissering, a lan= dscape architect from Montpelier, spoke about wha= t she had learned in producing a discussion paper for the Vermont Department of Public Service entitled “Wind Energy and Vermont’s Scenic Landscape.” This paper = was an attempt to summarize two workshops held in central <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">Vermont in which a variety of particip= ants representing interested groups as well as members of the general public tri= ed to define their aesthetic concerns, and preferences in the siting of wind turbines. This paper may be downloaded by visiting http://publicservice.vermont.gov/energy-efficiency/ee_renewables.html.

Vissering’s mai= n points focused on the importance of:

-&nb= sp; recognizing= key scenic resources and prominent landmarks in the state and avoiding siting turbines near them;

-&nb= sp; improving t= he visual appeal of the turbines themselves – height, size, motion, and = form should all be consistent, for example;&nbs= p;

-&nb= sp; being sensi= tive to the scale of a project in reference to its surroundings.

She noted that while = turbines have become larger, in most cases this was not a problem because from a distance they still did not dominate the landscape.

Helen Whyte, of the Orton Family Foundation, sup= ported this statement with a computer simulation.= This software, called “Community Viz,” was used to simul= ate what a proposed wind farm on Little Equinox Mountain would look like from various points in the Manchest= er, Vermont area.

The software had been employed in a series of community meetings sponsored by the Orton Family Foundation in partnership = with the Town of Manchester to help residents examine the potential impact of the Little Equinox projec= t on their community. This effort = was in anticipation of a non-binding town meeting vote on whether to support the w= ind farm. Whyte, and the Town Man= ager of Manchester, Lee Krohn, spoke about the positive approach of these meetin= gs in educating members of the community, but noted that many communities still had great concerns about the visual impacts of turbines on their local ridg= es and were uneasy about endorsing the project. This assessment was born out by th= e town meeting vote a few days later.

Robert Ide, Director = of Energy Efficiency for the Vermont Department of Public Service, explained t= he public review processes that a proposal must go through before the Public Service Board will issue a permit. These include a certificate of need, a demonstration of reliability, compliance with local town and regional plans, and a green light from the A= gency of Natural Resources. Althoug= h it is generally not a determining consideration, the Department also examines whether there is “general support or disenchantment” within the host community. Ide also note= d that wind developers have attracted “very serious money” from invest= ment houses such as Morgan Stanley and others, indicating that wind power has pr= oven itself as a reliable energy technology.

The presenters generated some heated feedback from among a group of strong opponents of wind power in Vermont. Many of the questions from these p= eople focused on concerns about the aesthetic implications of wind farms within t= heir own communities, and a feeling that they were being made to bear the burden= of aesthetic degradation to serve the power needs of other, more gentrified and built-up areas of the state. = They also were concerned that wind would do nothing to alleviate the need for ot= her fossil fuel-based power sources. Many felt that developers were trying to cash in on environmental credits so that they could build more “dirty power” plants else= where, and that “the whole thing is about money.” Some had brought a considerable am= ount

of evidence and other material to share and were disappointed, that the question and answer period was not really long enough to accommodate them.

BSR, recognizing that= the question and answer period was limited, through the generous willingness and participation of our presenters, has been able to post answers to all the collected questions at the meeting (and many others since collected) on our website at www.bsr-vt.org. To go to the questions directly, y= ou may click on the following link: http://www.bsr-vt.org= /meetings/meetings.html.

Tom Perry

BSR President

3D"Text

BSR Board of Directors:

Tom Perry- tsperry@gmavt.net 434-2462

Jeremy Grip- jagrip@surfglobal.net 388-0863

Jim Vann- yimbo98@gmavt.net 496-9496

Brian Hurley – bchurley@hotmail.com

Ben Gordesky – info@earthboundservices.com=

Chuck Reiss – vbrreiss@gmavt.net=

3D"Text

GREEN BUILDING NEWS

USGBC Conside= rs Changing LEEDs Position on Wood: At its May meeting, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Board of Directors directed the USGBC's LEED Steering Committee (LSC) to address bio-based materials wi= thin LEED through USGBC's fair, open and transparent consensus process.

During the June 26 LSC meeting, the committee issued a formal charge to the Materials & Resources Technical Advisory Group (MR TAG) to examine biobased credits within LEED.

As with any change to the LEED rating system, the proposal will follow USGB= C's consensus process. The LSC's formal charge is the first in a series of step= s in USGBC's consensus based committee process that is required for all revision= s to the LEED rating system.

The proposal calls for a) changing Materials and Resources Credit 6 (MRc6) = from a rapidly renewable credit into a broader, biobased credit; and

b) broadening MRc7, which currently rewards the use of wood certified under Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards, to establi= sh criteria for accepting other biobased-material certification systems as wel= l as waste agricultural materials. (www.usgbc.= org & www.buildinggreen.com)<= /p>

Vermont= Renewable Energy Incentive Program Re-instated $980,000 in incentives now available. Commissioner David O'Brien ann= ounced today that the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) will provide $500= ,000 to the "Vermont Solar and Small Wind Incentive Program" to support photovoltaic, solar hot water, and small-scale wind installations. The Solar
and Small Wind Incentive Program will also receive an additional $238,000 of incentive funds for solar electric and solar hot water systems from Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power for customers in th= eir service territories. Combined with money from the initial Solar and S= mall Wind Incentive Program a total of $980,000 will be available for incentives. The Renewable Energy Resource Center administers = the incentive program. =

Green Doors Made in Vermont: VT Industries manufactures architectural wood doors with agrifiber particleboard cores. The core mater= ial is manufactured from rapidly renewable materials such as wheat straw, soybe= an straw and sunflower hulls, with formaldehyde-free binders. A variety of siz= es and finishes are available, including FSC-certified veneer.

EPA Introduce= s WaterSense Label: The EPA announced the launch of WaterSense, its new water-efficiency program, similar to its successful Energy Star energy-efficiency program. (www.b= uildinggreen.com)

8 out of 10 Vermonters Consider Wind = Turbines on Ridges Beautiful or Acceptable: Eight out of every ten Vermonters (8= 1%) surveyed in a recent statewide poll would consider wind turbines on Vermont mountain= ridges beautiful or acceptable. Andrew Perchlik, Executive Director of Renewable Energy Vermont, shared results from a Ja= nuary poll conducted by ORC Macro in Burlington.

The number of Vermonters who would like to see more wind energy in Vermont increase= d to 43%, up from 30% in a 2002 statewide poll. Renewable energy sources in gene= ral also received strong support, with 83% of those surveyed wanting to see mor= e of these sources in Vermont rather than fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas. This is a 12% increase fro= m a 2002 poll that asked the same question. Support= for natural gas fell sharply from the 2002 poll, dropping from 11% in 2002 = to 3% in the January poll. Nuclear power held

steady at 4%. (www.revermont.org)

Local & National E= vents

January

16 – Introduction to Passive Solar Design; Jessup, MD. Sponsor: The Green Building Institute. Website: http://www.greenbuildinginstitute.org/

17 – Waste Prevention Forum; Montpelier, VT. Sponsor: Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Website:

http:/= /www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/recycling/CandD.htm

22-28 – Renewable Energy in the Developing World; Costa Rica - Webcast. Sponsor: Solar Energy International. Website: http://www.solarenergy.org/workshops/workshop.php?id=3D21

3D"Text 24-25 – ACI New Jersey Home Performance Conference; At= lantic City, NJ. Sponsor: Affordable Comfort Inc. Website: http://affordablecomfort.org/event/aci_new_jersey_home_performance_conferen= ce

26-28 –= Good Earth Home, Garden, and Living Show; Eugene, OR. Sponsor: Berg Productions, Inc. Website:

http= ://www.eugenehomeshow.com/goodearthhomeandgardenshow.html

30 - BSR Topical Meeting - Micro-Hydro: Green Electricity from Running W= ater; Montpelier, VT

website: www.bsr-vt.org

31 – Residential Green Building Workshop: VBG/Leed-H; Manchester, VT.<= /st1:place> Co-Sponsors: Building for Social Responsibility and Vermon= t Green Building Network. Website: http://www.bsr-vt.org or http://www.vgbn.org/wha= tsnew.php?rec=3D732

February

1 – Introduction to Solar Energy Systems: Photovoltaics (PV) and Hot Wa= ter; Arlington, VA.&n= bsp; Sponsor: Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. Website: http://www.greenbuildinginstitute.org/pages/courses/solar_energysystems.htm= l

10 – Seminar: Creating a Sustainable Future; = Savannah, GA. Sponsor: Savannah = Country Day School<= /st1:PlaceType>. Website: http://www.savcds.org/symposium/symposium1.html

21 – Residential Green Building Workshop: VBG/Leed-H; Montpelier, VT.<= /st1:place> Co-Sponsors: Building for Social Responsibility and Vermon= t Green Building Network. Website: http://www.bsr-vt.org or http://www.vgbn.org/wha= tsnew.php?rec=3D732

26-28 – Harvesting Energy Summit: Rural Prosperity and Renewable Energy; Salt Lake City, UT.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Co-Sponsors: Wind Powering America, BBI, = and America’s Energy Future. Website: http://www.harvestenergy.org/

26-28 – Faster Freight, Cleaner Air 2007; Long Beach, CA. Sponsor: California Air Resources Board. Website: http://www.ffca2007.com/

March

6-8 – POWER-GEN Renewable = Energy & Fuels; Las Vegas, NV. Sponsor: American Council on Renewable Energy. Website: http://pgre07.events.pennnet.com/fl/content.cfm?NavId=3D4328&Language= =3DEngl

13-15 – Building Energy 07: Conference and Trade Show; Boston, MA. Sponsor: Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.&= nbsp; Website: http://www.buildingenergy.nes= ea.org/

19-21 – Hydrogen Expo; San= Antonio, TX. Sponsor: The National Hydrogen Association. <= /span>Website: http://www.hydrogenexpo.c= om/

22-23 – Greenprints 2007; = Atlanta, GA. Co-Sponsors: Southface Energy Institute and the Georgia Environmental Facilit= ies Authority. Website: http://www.southface.org/web/greenprints_conference/gp07/whatisGP.htm