BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 35|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 35
Author: Ruskin (D), et al
Amended: 8/27/07
Vote: 21
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 7/2/07
AYES: Simitian, Florez, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Steinberg
NOES: Runner, Aanestad
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-7, 8/30/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton, Runner,
Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-33, 6/5/07 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Environment: state buildings: sustainable
building standards
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the sustainable Building Act of
2007 which requires all state agencies that begin
construction or renovation to a state building, as defined,
on and after July 1, 2010, to design, construct, and
operate that state building to meet minimum standards as
described in the United States Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for a gold
rating.
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
2
ANALYSIS : The California Building Standards Law, sets
procedures for adopting state building codes that require a
building standard adopted or proposed by state agencies to
be submitted to the California Building Standards
Commission (BSC) for approval or adoption prior to
codification. Where no state agency has authority to adopt
building standards applicable to state buildings, the BSC
must adopt, approve, codify, and publish building standards
for the design and construction of state buildings.
This bill creates the Sustainable Building Act of 2007
that:
1.Requires, on and after July 1, 2010, a state agency that
commences construction of, a state building, or
renovation to a building owned by the state, to design,
construct, and operate that state building to meet, at a
minimum, applicable certification standards described in
the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for a gold rating.
2.Provides that the state agency shall consider existing
relevant guidelines and information, including, but not
limited to, all of the following:
A. The Green Building Initiative's "Green Globes"
rating system.
B. The Environmental Protection Agency's "Federal
Green Construction Guide for Specifiers."
C. The Department of Energy's "Greening Federal
Facilities."
D. The state's Building Better Buildings: An
Update on State Sustainable Building Initiative
(Blueprint 2003).
E. The Governor's Executive Order S-20-04.
3.Requires a state agency to also consider existing
relevant information and guidelines, and requires a state
agency to provide for credits to project that uses wood
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
3
products with credible third-party sustainable forest
certification, as determined by the California
Environmental Protection Agency.
Background
Information on Green Buildings . Green Building, also known
as a sustainable building, is a structure that is designed,
built, renovated, operated, or reused in an ecological and
resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to
meet certain objectives, such as the following: protecting
occupant health; improving employee productivity; using
energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and
reducing the overall impact to the environment. A common
green building standard often referenced is the LEED which
includes different ratings, including certified, silver,
gold, and platinum.
The green building approach applies a project lifecycle
cost analysis for determining the appropriate up-front
expenditure. This analytical method calculates costs over
the useful life of the asset.
A green building is generally presumed to cost more
initially, but will save money through lower operating
costs over its lifetime. The belief that green
construction costs more than nongreen construction is not
universal. For instance, in a July 2007 paper titled Cost
of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost
Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased
Market Adoption, by Davis Langston (an international
construction consulting firm), the following finding
regarding green construction was concluded: "there is no
significant difference in average costs for green buildings
as compared to non-green buildings. Many project teams are
building green buildings with little or no added cost, and
with budgets well within the cost range of nongreen
buildings with similar programs." This is essentially the
same result from a 2004 paper titled Costing Green: A
Comprehensive Cost Database and Budget Methodology.
In October 2003, a report was developed for the Sustainable
Building Task Force, which was a group of over 40
California state government agencies. Funding for this
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
4
study was provided by the Air Resources Board (ARB),
California Integrated Waste Management Board, DOF, DGS,
Department of Transportation, Department of Water
Resources, and Division of the State Architect. The report
was a collaborative effort and included the contributions
of Capital E, Future Resources Associates, Task Force
members, and the United States Green Building Council. The
report, titled The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green
Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable Building
Task Force, found "an upfront investment of less than two
percent of construction costs yields lifecycle savings of
over ten times the initial investment." According to the
report, the benefits of green buildings include cost
savings from reduced energy, water and waste; lower
operations and maintenance costs; and enhanced occupant
productivity and health. The report estimated that an
average increased cost of four dollars per square foot
would result savings of $48.87 per square foot if built to
LEED certified and silver standards and savings of $67.31
per square foot if built to LEED gold and platinum
standards, in net present value assuming, conservatively,
the useful life of the building is 20 years.
The report found the premium paid to construct green
buildings to the Silver standard was about 2.1 percent more
than non-green buildings. The premium to use the Gold
standard was about 1.8 percent. This is an anomaly in the
data which the report attributed to a small data set.
Despite this anomaly, the report concluded that "the data
indicates that it is possible to build gold level buildings
for little additional cost. The higher performance levels
associated with gold building combined with their
potentially low cost premiums suggest that, based on
available data, LEED Gold may be the most cost effective
design objective for green buildings" (emphasis theirs).
Executive Order S-20-04 requires state agencies,
departments, and other entities under the direct executive
authority of the Governor to cooperate in taking measures
to reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned
buildings by 20 percent by 2015, through cost-effective
efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies
including the design, construction and operation of all new
and renovated state-owned facilities paid for with state
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
5
funds as "LEED silver" or higher certified buildings. The
Department of General Services (DGS) and the Department of
Finance (DOF) have agreed that all new capital projects for
state buildings would meet the LEED silver rating
standards. DGS reports it currently has 36 projects in
various stages of the process, all meeting the silver
rating standards.
Related Legislation
SB 86 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) , one of the
pending budget trailer bills, contains provisions that
would require state buildings to be designed, constructed,
and operated, to meet, at a minimum, LEED silver rating
standards.
AB 888 (Lieu) , creates Green Building Standards for
Nonresidential Buildings Law and AB 1058 (Laird), creates
the Green Building Standards Law that would pertain to
residential buildings; both of these bills are before the
committee today.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Fund
New building standard unknown
increase in construction GF
costs offset by unknown, potentially
savings in out years
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/31/07)
450 Architects, Inc.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
American Lung Association
California League of Conservation Voters
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
6
California State Employees Association
Nature Conservancy
Sacramento Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/31/07)
American Chemistry Council
California Broadcasters Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California State University
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Green Diamond Resources
Western Electrical Contractors Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"there is enormous potential to realize reductions in
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while
making many other beneficial public health and
environmental gains just by changing the way our State
buildings are constructed. Billions of dollars are spent
on the construction and renovation of state buildings; with
this buying power the State is poised to spur on the market
for sustainable building materials and practices. This
bill ensures that California is the leader in these efforts
and sets the example for the private sector.
Supporters note that green building issues are important to
facility managers, as well as building occupants who now
demand living spaces and work environments that have
environmentally conscious design. Supporters also indicate
that green design standards use one-third less energy than
conventional counterparts, and this bill will reduce energy
use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase
conservation, and save state money.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the California
State University, "AB 35 would likely result in the
creation of requirements that would impose substantial
CONTINUED
AB 35
Page
7
costs and restrictions on design and construction of our
systemwide capital facilities and also likely impose new
requirements and costs on the operations and maintenance of
existing facilities. These broad mandates are unfunded,
and, while well meaning, restrict the ability of the CSU to
effectively manage its capital program and imposed added
costs that have lengthy payback periods and may not be
recoverable over the long term. Proposition 1-D provided
the CSU with $345 million in the 2007-08 Budget for our
capital improvement program to invest in our classrooms,
laboratories, libraries and other parts of our campuses
infrastructure to support out teaching, research, and
student learning. General obligation bonds are the only
source of public funds for our capital program; even well
meaning conditions may have a detrimental effect on limited
dollars when our total capital need of the CSU is over
double the amount provided in Prop 1-D."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Blakeslee, Brownley,
Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fuentes, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones,
Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu,
Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Portantino, Price, Richardson,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio, Swanson, Torrico, Wolk,
Nunez
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff, Jeffries, Keene,
La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Sharon
Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran,
Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Soto
TSM:do 9/5/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED