GreenSuite

LEED's Big Market Bias

The Prevalence of LEED projects by geography is examined in this article featuring Studley's Julia Wilhelm.

Green Building's First Mainstream Push Landed it in the Nation's Biggest Cities. But What About Everywhere Else?

Natomas Gateway Tower, a stylish, 12-story office building under construction just outside downtown Sacramento, CA, is everything a LEED-certified building is supposed to be.

It has an air filtration system equivalent to hospital standards and on-site solar panels. It includes water conservation features expected to save almost six million gallons annually. Its energy usage will be almost 20 percent better than California's Title 24 Energy Standards, already among the most rigid in the nation.

But as Northern California's first privately funded LEED office building (other green development in the area has been for the state government), the property's prestigious LEED tag is being received by an audience somewhat unfamiliar with green buildings and funny eco-friendly real estate acronyms.

In other words, before this building rides the green wave, it has to help build it.

It's not that tenants aren't interested in the building -- leasing interest has been strong and several firms are mulling proposals, even with completion more than a year away, says Tom Aguer, the president of Sacramento-based brokerage group Aguer Havelock Associates who's leasing the property.

"We looked at this as the socially responsible thing to do," Aguer says about the choice by the developer, a local group called Bannon Investors, to pursue LEED Gold certification. "I'm not an ardent environmentalist, but it makes economic sense. To us, it was a no-brainer."

Now, Aguer must convince tenants that it's a no-brainer, a task in which larger markets like San Francisco -- one of the greenest commercial real estate markets in the nation -- have had a head a start. "San Francisco is more cutting edge than most cities," he says. "That level of consciousness hasn't hit Sacramento."

The apparent green gap between the two Northern California cities belies the mere 100 miles that separate them and illustrates the geographic limitations of LEED, even as the popularity of the green building rating platform has skyrocketed.

According to a study last year by institutional investment advisor RREEF, LEED buildings are found in 400 or so U.S. cities, but are "highly concentrated" in the nation's largest metro areas, such as New York, Atlanta and Los Angeles. By CoStar's tally, the 10 largest U.S. cities by population account for almost 10 percent of the more than 11,000 LEED-certified or registered projects to date, for an average of roughly 100 LEED projects per city. That would leave the remaining 350-plus cities with an average of only about 30 LEED projects.

The trend accelerates on a state-level, where two-thirds of LEED-certified building area falls within the 10 largest states, "despite having barely 40 percent of the nation's population," the RREEF study found.

LEED has been slower to penetrate small and mid-major markets because many of the factors driving demand, such as corporate tenancy and new construction, naturally favor larger markets. And although local green building regulation is more prevalent in smaller markets, a much greater amount of space is affected by mandates in the large markets.

Sacramento is about half the size of San Francisco by population. From there, the dots are not difficult to connect.

Aguer, who has more than 30 years under his belt in the Sacramento CRE brokerage market, says most of his big tenants there are regional firms, rather than the national or multi-national corporations that are under fire from clients and stakeholders to green their business practices -- and by extension, the large chunks of office space they tend to occupy.

"Perhaps the most powerful driver behind the move toward green development in the office sector is tenant demand," said a recent study by Prudential Real Estate Investors. "For some businesses, particularly large multinational companies, shareholder pressures have been a powerful catalyst in their newfound interest in greenhouse gas emissions. Because real estate accounts for a significant share of most companies’ aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, green buildings offer an obvious and effective way for companies to ... demonstrate their commitment to the environment."

Also highlighting the corporate connection to green, roughly 80 percent of corporations now consider sustainability a "near-term" business issue and are willing to pay a premium to be green, said a November survey on sustainability trends in corporate real estate by Jones Lang LaSalle and CoreNet Global, a trade group for corporate real estate executives. "It's crystal clear to us that a focus on sustainability has become important to the Fortune 500 and similar companies around the world," Eric Bowles, vice president and director of research for CoreNet Global, stated when the findings were released.

In San Francisco, Julia Wilhelm, an associate director and LEED-Accredited Professional (LEED AP) with Studley, has delved into several California markets as she handles site selection statewide for conservation group The Nature Conservancy. "San Francisco is the farthest ahead of the green curve," she says, comparing it against other California cities. "On the landlord side, there are some very savvy and forward-thinking owners. In a holistic sense between tenants, landlords, and the design and construction communities, everyone seems to have some knowledge of green."

The presence of large corporate users in San Francisco -- which is preparing to extend green building regulation this summer to private sector development -- has created demand for green assets, while another large-market LEED bias, the abundance of new construction, has fostered competition and allowed the greening trend to grow.

According to The U.S. Green Building Council -- the Washington, DC-based nonprofit that administers LEED -- a solid majority of all LEED-certified projects to date have been certified under the LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) platform. Larger markets with more construction activity have been natural LEED magnets, while LEED-NC opportunities have been severely limited in smaller markets. San Francisco had about 3.6 million square feet of office space under construction in the first quarter of 2008, according to CoStar figures. By comparison, the Sacramento market trailed that number by more than a million square feet.

The stats aren't lost on Aguer, who doesn't have any green competition in Sacramento at the moment. "We're competing against non-LEED buildings downtown. When Gateway Tower is complete, it's going to be a real advantage," Aguer says of the LEED property, noting that it's renting at nearly identical rates to the other new buildings. "I'd much rather be in our position than theirs. The awareness is going to get there."

Of course, key to building that awareness in small markets is the arrival and success of LEED buildings. In that sense, Gateway Tower may be its own best friend. "If green buildings lease up rapidly like they have in other markets, that's going to raise awareness right away. The way to get people's attention is to have a successful project that makes money," Aguer said.

But not everyone considers a size disadvantage to be a green disadvantage. "The demand and the desire for sustainable design, whether its LEED or Energy Star, in the last six or eight months has shown up," says Dave Harrison, a vice president with development firm Opus Northwest and general manager of the firm's office in Kansas City, an office market almost identical in size to Sacramento.

With several sustainable projects in the works around Kansas City and in other Midwest cities, Harrison says he's impressed by green awareness across his markets. "Our clients are asking us to inform and educate them so they can make good decisions on the cost and benefit of all the green components," he says. " 'What does it cost? How do we get there?' If they're not asking those questions, we're pushing the envelope to make sure they're thinking about it.

"It's not a question of the size of the market," he says. "It's a mindset. It's what the consumers are looking for. The larger markets may have more velocity and more new buildings coming out, but as [smaller markets] see more new buildings and start looking at existing buildings, there's going to be a strong push for sustainability."

24 Easy Ways to Make Your Building Green

This week's Earth Day has prompted a flurry of PR activity and one of the more interesting of these offerings comes from the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). It has suggested 24 ways to cut the environmental footprint of office buildings, touching on water conservation, landscaping, recycling and education. Greening office buildings is crucial in the quest towards reducing carbon emissions. BOMA says that carbon emissions from office buildings make up nearly 20 per cent of all emissions in the US.  BOMA's 24 tips are listed in full below:

Conserve Water
1. Install low-flow aerators, which simply screw on to bathroom taps and can be purchased for under a fiver.
2. Insert water displacement devices to limit the amount of water used in the toilet tank.
3. Monitor activities with sensors, such as motion-sensor taps and cooling tower sensors.
4. Implement 'dry' cleaning methods. Using a broom, squeegee or dry vacuum cleaner as 'dry' instead of 'wet' cleaning can save gallons of water.
5. Reduce water pressure.
6. Reset hot-water thermostats to the lowest setting possible.
7. Turn off hot-water heaters while the building is unoccupied.

Landscape Sustainably
8. Create a landscaping programme that makes use of indigenous plants and conserves water.
9. Add composting to your landscape maintenance plan.
10. Use drip irrigation or soaker hoses, which use less water than sprinklers.
11. Schedule an annual review of your property's irrigation system.
12. Harvest rainwater to water your building's grounds.

Reduce, Re-use and Recycle
13. Work with vendors who have recycling programmes in place.
14. Establish disposal methods to discard electronics and hazardous waste.
15. Use coreless paper products.
16. Ensure that your janitorial service uses green cleaning products.
17. Ensure windows and skylights are clean to allow in optimal daylight.
18. Encourage tenants to turn off equipment after hours.
19. Encourage tenants to use Energy Star equipment.
20. Develop a recycling program for everything (not just paper) -- lighting, plastics, metal, glass and cardboard.

Communicate and Educate
21. Institute an energy-awareness program.
22. Encourage tenants to institute work from home policies to reduce workplace energy consumption.
23. Create an electronic green newsletter to send to tenants periodically.
24. Encourage tenants and building personnel to use environmentally-friendly modes of transportation.

The Title of the Greenest City Goes To...

This story from today's LA Times compares proposed green building legislation in San Francisco and LA.  - JW

The title of greenest city goes to . . .;
San Francisco's plan is far more strict; L.A.'s covers twice the space.

Mirror, mirror on the wall: Who is the greenest of them all?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has a plan to slash his city's planet-warming greenhouse gases to 35% below the 1990 level by 2030, and make L.A. the "cleanest and greenest city in the country." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has a blueprint to cut his city's greenhouse gases to 20% below the 1990 level by 2012, creating "the greenest large city in the United States of America." In both metropolises, those lofty promises are facing a critical test.

Today, the L.A. City Council will hold a public hearing and vote on Villaraigosa?s proposal to make private developers meet nationally-developed green building standards. Next month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will act on Newsom?s proposed building ordinance.

Which is stricter? San Francisco's, by a long shot.

Which will remove more carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere? Los Angeles' -- but only because it's a bigger city, with a population approaching 4 million; San Francisco's population is under 800,000.

By and large, city governments can't control gas-guzzling SUVs, devastated forests and big industrial pollution, all of which are major causes of global warming. On the other hand, the built environment is their bailiwick. Buildings account for an estimated 43% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., compared with 32% from transportation and 25% from industry.

But buildings' environmental footprints can be dramatically reduced by using low-irrigation landscaping; efficient heating, air-conditioning and lighting; solar panels; roof gardens; and low-emission paints, glues and carpets.

Seventeen states, including California, and 80 localities require public buildings to meet green standards. But so far, only one state and 14 cities are applying those rules to private construction.

Los Angeles would be the biggest city to join the list. Still, San Francisco's proposed standards "would far surpass those of any other large city," according to Brooks Rainwater, director of local relations for the American Institute of Architects and author of a comprehensive study on green building programs.

Both cities use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system, developed by an industry-led nonprofit, the U.S. Green Building Council. The group audits buildings after construction and judges them as LEED certified, the most lenient standard, up through LEED silver, gold, and platinum.

The LEED system is spreading rapidly across the country, with architects and developers competing to offer customers the most eco-chic projects.

Since 2003, L.A.'s public structures, such as libraries and fire stations, have had to be LEED certified if they have more than 7,500 square feet of floor space. But San Francisco has gone a step further, requiring LEED silver certification for any public construction over 5,000 square feet.

San Francisco also has a higher standard for fast-track permitting: Buildings must be LEED gold to qualify, while the threshold in Los Angeles is silver.

Nancy Sutley, L.A.'s deputy mayor for energy and environment, acknowledged that her city is moving more cautiously, but noted the "sheer scale" of its construction activity compared with its Northern California rival. "We think of San Francisco as a boutique city," she said.

Jared Blumenthal, director of San Francisco's Department of the Environment, counters that among other multimillion-dollar projects, his city is converting a 500-acre former Naval base into 6,500 units of housing that will be certified as a LEED platinum neighborhood development. "Hardly boutique!" he exclaimed.

And with slight condescension, Blumenthal adds, "We are thrilled that L.A. is now going to start reducing its CO2 . . . If L.A. implemented our ordinance, it would have an even greater impact for all Angelenos."

L.A.'s new proposal for private construction, which would take effect in November, is looser than San Francisco's in every category. It would require the equivalent of LEED certification only for buildings of 50,000 square feet or more. In San Francisco, over the next four years, commercial buildings of 25,000 square feet or more would have to meet LEED gold standards, and residential high-rises of that size would have to meet LEED silver levels.

The L.A. plan would cover low-rise residential and single family homes only in developments with at least 50 units. San Francisco's would cover all single-family homes and low-rise developments.

Sutley noted that the Los Angeles ordinance would cover more than twice as much space -- 7.5 million square feet -- as the San Francisco program, which would cover about 3 million square feet. "There were legitimate concerns about overwhelming the system," she said. "We will learn by doing."

Some critics discern a lack of political commitment in L.A.'s plan. "San Francisco's Department of the Environment is a robust, well-funded agency led by professionals with experience in green building," says Matt Peterson, president of Global Green, a nonprofit group that has advised both cities on their programs. But L.A.'s effort, he said, is understaffed and lacking in authority.

Sutley countered that green building is "a high priority" for the mayor, and said the city's existing staff has ample experience working with LEED-certified municipal buildings.

As for San Francisco's stricter ordinance, she said with a chuckle, "I don't know what to tell you. It's a different group up there."

--

margot.roosevelt@latimes.com

--

()

Green cred

Los Angeles and San Francisco are moving to adopt laws to cut pollution from buildings. Both plans use the nationally recognized Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design scale, which awards points for efficiency, materials and indoor air quality. Ratings range from LEED to LEED silver, gold and platinum. For residential buildings, San Francisco uses a similar system called GreenPoint.

PROPOSALS

New commercial buildings

* Los Angeles: must meet LEED standard if over 50,000 square feet

* San Francisco: must meet LEED gold standard if over 25,000 square feet

New high-rise residential buildings

* Los Angeles: must meet LEED standard if over 50,000 square feet and six stories high

* San Francisco: must meet LEED silver standard if over 75 feet tall

New low-rise residential and single-family units

* Los Angeles: must meet LEED standard for developments of 50 units or more

* San Francisco: all buildings must be GreenPoint rated

Major renovations

* Los Angeles: must meet LEED standard in buildings over 50,000 square feet

* San Francisco: must meet LEED silver standard in residential buildings over 25,000 square feet; must meet LEED gold standard in commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet

Greenhouse gases avoided annually (by 2012)

* Los Angeles: 83,000 metric tons or 0.02 metric ton per capita

* San Francisco: 60,000 metric tons or 0.08 metric ton per capita

Sources: Los Angeles Planning Department; San Francisco Department of the Environment

Happy Earth Day

A few green real estate articles for your pleasure on this Earth Day 2008 - JW

Legally Green - Law Firms Go Green to Boost Business, Productivity, and Do the Right Thing

Green Law Firms Are Where It's At

Global and national economic pressures influence firms to go green

By Susan L. Ward
New Jersey Law Journal
April 1, 2008

U.S. law firms are beginning to be confronted with questions regarding their implemented environmental policies. On the other side of the pond, firms in the United Kingdom have dealt with these issues for some time. "Pro bono work and charitable programs have been around pretty much forever," said Tom Page, partner at the London office of CMS Cameron McKenna. "Green initiatives are newer, but our firm, which is probably fairly typical, has had some form of green policies for a long time, long before RFPs started including them in their requirements." In practice, Page said, one merely checks the appropriate box on a form. However, some U.S. firms are asked to provide substantial review of manufacturing recycling programs as well as business environmental programs.

Several U.S. firms have adopted internal practices to reduce their carbon footprint by saving energy, reducing paper usage, and engaging in extensive recycling programs. Others, after complying with ABA-EPA Law Office Climate Challenge Waste Wise, Green Power Partnership, and Energy Star Programs, and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, are positioning their firms and their environmental and related practice areas strategically in legal markets.

The greening of America's law firms has not reached critical mass, but the tipping point may come soon. Global and national economic pressures affect law firms, and as consumer concerns about global warming influence corporate strategy, law firms must adapt and respond to the same sustainability challenges as their corporate clients. Additionally, firms find themselves in the worst legal market since 2001, under the cloud of a countrywide recession. Now is the time for management, technology and marketing departments to join forces and establish green initiatives that cut expenses, lessen greenhouse gas emissions and promote corporate social responsibility. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said, "Green is the new red, white and blue."

Green corporate responsibility isn't completely altruistic, although the most recent McKinsey report addressing consumer concerns about climate change focuses on the trust gap between the public and business. In three recent global surveys, McKinsey reports that corporate executives and consumers express equal concern about climate change and other environmental issues, and 80 percent of global executives expect climate change regulations within five years. The other side of the coin is profitability: the reduction of expense by eliminating wasteful practices and adopting clean energy use coupled with the creation of growth opportunities.

"The movement is evolving," said Zacharie Mondel, co-founder and operating officer of the Florida-based Global Green Energy Consortium (GGEC), an organization which promotes sustainability certification and vendor interoperability between 4,600 companies in all industries. "We are at the beginning of a major growth era," Mondel said. "The U.S. has not ratified the carbon-credit/carbon-offset movement. It is a huge global movement in Europe and the Far East. A lot of states are looking into caps on trading carbon emission plans." With the U.S. refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty, attempts to legislate carbon fees have failed at the municipal or state government level.

For example, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District recently proposed charging carbon fees for greenhouse gas emissions, which would offset the costs of the Climate Protection Program in that district. But in a document released in early March, the Environmental Protection Agency said that greenhouse gas emissions were not unique to California and that the entire country is affected by global warming. Several states, including New Jersey, were poised to follow California's lead in reducing GHG emissions. Mondel believes restrictions will remain voluntary in the U.S. with its layers of federal, state and industry standards. "There is a lot of confusion in the marketplace among companies that want to be in compliance," he said. The business community wants to engage with someone who has experience: How green are we? How can you help us? What makes you the expert? Still, businesses and law firms can't simply "greenwash" their environmental practices with empty slogans and marketing programs. Trust is demonstrated by walking the walk before staking a claim in green practices.

Alvidas Jasin, director of business development at Thompson Hine, is one of 1,000 individuals chosen to advocate Al Gore's Climate Project. Jasin recently addressed members of the New York chapter of the Legal Marketing Association. Jasin, who volunteers his time and speaks frequently on the topic of global warming, urged marketers to work with firm management and their IT departments to create awareness and reduce energy consumption.

West Coast firms are leading the way. Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, the first law firm in the country to be certified as a green business, has practice groups dedicated to green businesses in areas such as organics, fair trade, renewable energy and climate change. Marketing director Lydia Bednarik considers the firm's green activities to be an important component in marketing and networking efforts. "When it comes down to it, firms still need to be top-notch," she said, "but if they also share the values of their clients, they may have a leg up in the decision-making to hire."

Farella Braun & Martel was the first law firm to be Green Certified by the city of San Francisco and the second firm tracking air emissions with California's Climate Action Registry. Being "green" is considered one of the firm's core values. The firm established a Green Task Force and implemented programs to recycle paper, batteries, computers, supplies and furniture, among other initiatives.

Nixon Peabody rebranded the firm with a campaign and service mark, "Legally Green." Following a corporate model, the firm appointed the first chief sustainability officer in a law firm, and integrated existing practice areas into broad groups, under the headings Clean Tech, Green Buildings and Sustainable Development, Renewable Energy, Climate Change and Green Investing. The firm made strides by greening its culture, securing LEED certification in their San Francisco office, improving recycling practices, and compliance with its own supply chain.

Portland, Ore.'s Tonkon Torp launched a Sustainability Practice Group leveraging the firm's renewable energy, forestry and green building practice areas. The firm also publishes the Sustainability Law Blog; a recent post titled, "Regional Climate Initiatives Move Forward with Emissions Trading Mechanisms" discusses both the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Western Climate Initiative, and their timelines for GGE credit trading mechanisms.

Andrew Cooper, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based Dickstein Shapiro, said an attorney took the initiative of forming an Environmental Committee, comprised of attorney and staff members, to look at their carbon footprint. The committee encouraged paper recycling and double-sided printing, replaced disposable cups with reusable ones made from 100 percent corn plastic, and increased environmental awareness firmwide. "As an attorney whose own practice is entirely in environmental law, I am pleased to let clients know that our firm is undertaking its own green initiative," he said.

There are approximately 900 LEED-certified office buildings, according to the U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit trade organization, and that number is expanding at the rate of 100 per week. Drummond Woodsum, a 45-lawyer firm in Portland, Me., is designing 30,000 square feet of office space in a new building with recycled carpeting and ceiling tiles, cork flooring, and energy-efficient lighting fixtures, according to marketing manager Ruth Wentzel. "One of the most effective ways to become more environmentally efficient is to move to a greener building, followed by reducing paper consumption and traveling less," said Gastón Bilder, whose blog Derecho y RSE en América Latina focuses on law and corporate responsibility in Latin America.

"I think that 'green initiatives' can and should encompass much more than being the tenant in a green building," said Lincoln Hobbs, owner of Hobbs & Olson, a small firm in Salt Lake City. "Our profession has a long and adverse reputation for burning through paper and energy and other wasteful practices." Indeed, each attorney in the U.S. consumes the paper equivalent of one ton of wood per year, making the legal profession the single biggest user of paper. The life cycle of one ton of office paper, according to the ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, releases nine tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases, from wood production to recycling processes.

Susan Jacobs, marketing director at All State Legal, one of the biggest suppliers of law firm stationery, paper and related products, recently announced that the company became the first nationwide engraver to achieve the Forest Stewardship Council Chain-of-Custody certification. The company offers "tree free" 100 percent cotton fiber paper among its products.

"At the end of the year, when your managing partner is evaluating your value to the firm, your answer should hopefully be in terms of dollars and clients, not in wattage, gallons and reams," advised Rachel Loper, Industry Team Manager at Nixon Peabody. Still, a firm needs to know something about its carbon size to calculate how much energy and money can be saved. To champion green initiatives, firms can get started with the ABA-EPA Waste Wise Program and implement three simple practices: purchase office paper with 30 percent recycled content, recycle office paper and use double-sided copying

Buildings Worse Than Cars, but Cheaper to Employ Measures to Cut Co2 Emissions

A recent report (below) put out by the tri-national (US, Canada and Mexico) Commission for Environmental Cooperation has determined that building greener buildings would do more for the environment than any other single measure (including transportation!).  -JW

Promote Green Buildings for Biggest, Easiest Cuts in North American CO2 Emissions, says new CEC report

Buildings responsible for over one-third of continent’s CO2 emissions;Report prescribes policies to slash buildings’ energy use

Vancouver, 13/03/2008 – Promoting the green design, construction, renovation and operation of buildings could cut North American greenhouse gas emissions that are fuelling climate change more deeply, quickly and cheaply than any other available measure, according to a new report issued by the trinational Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). North America’s buildings cause the annual release of more than 2,200 megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, about 35 percent of the continent’s total. The report says rapid market uptake of currently available and emerging advanced energy-saving technologies could result in over 1,700 fewer megatons of CO2 emissions in 2030, compared to projected emissions that year following a business-as-usual approach. A cut of that size would nearly equal the CO2 emitted by the entire US transportation sector in 2000. It is common now for more advanced green buildings to routinely reduce energy usage by 30, 40, or even 50 percent over conventional buildings, with the most efficient buildings now performing more than 70 percent better than conventional properties, according to the report. Despite proven environmental, economic and health benefits, however, green building today accounts for a only small fraction of new home and commercial building construction—just two percent of the new non-residential building market, less than half of one percent of the residential market in the United States and Canada, and less than that in Mexico. The report, Green Building in North America: Opportunities and Challenges, is the result of a two-year study by the CEC Secretariat. It was prepared with advice from an international advisory group of prominent developers and architects, sustainability and energy experts, real estate appraisers and brokers, together with local and national government representatives. “Improving our built environment is probably the single greatest opportunity to protect and enhance the natural environment. This report is a blueprint for dramatic environmental progress throughout North America—mostly using the tools and technology we have on hand today,” says CEC Executive Director Adrián Vázquez. “Green building represents some of the ripest ‘low-hanging fruit’ for achieving significant reductions in climate change emissions.” Even with rapid growth projected in the green building market across all three countries, the report says public and private sectors must embrace substantial changes to the planning, development and financing of commercial and residential buildings to overcome what it says are significant barriers to the widespread adoption of high-performance buildings throughout North America. Jonathan Westeinde, managing partner of The Windmill Development Group in Ottawa and the CEC’s advisory group chair, states “As a developer, I rely on the fact that green building is a proven concept—with construction costs and market benefits that are rapidly improving. This report shows what is needed to scale up and put green building at the heart of a healthy, energy-secure North America.” The report highlights the importance of green building in urban development. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, whose city hosted a CEC symposium on green building in May 2007, states, “Green building is a cornerstone for creating strong, sustainable communities. In Seattle, we are convinced that cities that make the commitment and investment in green development now will have a significant advantage in the long run.” Report authors describe a number of disincentives to green building to be overcome. For example, how to encourage developers to incur the marginal cost of green building features when the long-term energy-saving benefits will be passed on to the new owners or tenants. They recommend ways to accelerate the market uptake of green building and make it the standard practice for all new construction and renovation of existing buildings in North America. Among its recommendations, the report calls upon North American government, industry and nongovernmental leaders to: Create national, multi-stakeholder task forces charged with achieving a vision for green building in North America; Support the creation of a North American set of principles and planning tools for green building; Set clear targets to achieve the most rapid possible adoption of green building in North America, including aggressive targets for carbon-neutral or net zero-energy buildings, together with performance monitoring to track progress towards these targets; Enhance ongoing or new support for green building, including efforts to promote private sector investment and proper valuation methods; and Increase knowledge of green building through research and development, capacity building, and the use of labels and disclosures on green building performance. The recommendations complement ongoing efforts by federal, state/provincial and local governments as well as industry and trade associations and nongovernmental organizations. The CEC study notes several government and industry initiatives that promote aggressive energy performance improvements in the building sector. One study completed for the report signals the potential of green building to yield tremendous energy improvements and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the building sector by 2030, and suggests a path toward zero net-energy and carbon-neutral buildings. The report was produced by the Secretariat of the CEC, prepared under Article 13 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and is not intended to reflect the views of the Parties to that agreement. Information for the report came from background reports prepared by independent experts and from two public meetings. The report and associated background reports, along with a portfolio of selected green buildings in Canada, Mexico and the United States, will be available to the public on 13 March 2008, at <www.cec.org/greenbuilding/>. The CEC was established by Canada, Mexico and the United States to build cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners in implementing NAAEC, the environmental side accord to NAFTA. The CEC addresses environmental issues of continental concern, with particular attention to the environmental challenges and opportunities presented by continent-wide free trade.