Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1
December 10, 2007, 10am to 12:30pm
7761 Waterloo Road
Jessup, MD 20794

Task Force Members:
Erin Shaffer (for Vicki Worden), Green Building Initiative
Tom Liebel, Marks and Thomas Architects
Senator Gwendolyn Britt, Maryland Senate, Acting Task Force Chair
Steve Pattison, Maryland Department of the Environment
Martin Mitchell, Mitchell and Best Homebuilders
Ely Jacobsohn, Maryland Energy Administration
Julia Craighill, Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse, Inc.
Julie Gabrielli, Gabrielli Design Studio, LLC
Nancy Erwin (for Beth Wojton), Maryland Environmental Service
Eric Schmitt (for David Costello), Maryland Office of Smart Growth
Lee Peschau, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
Matt Power, Maryland Department of Planning
Stanley Sersen, Green Building Institute

Interested Parties:
Karen Forbes, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
John Papagni, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
John Kortecamp, Home Builders Association of Maryland
Steven Hubert, Buchanan Partners

Jason Dubow, Maryland Department of Planning
Caroline Varney-Alvarado, Maryland Department of Housing and Community


10:15 Remembering Delegate Jane Lawton, Minutes Review, Status of Final

      Senator Gwendolyn Britt opened the meeting by saying a few words in
      remembrance of Delegate Jane Lawton, who chaired the Green Building Task
      Force. She said the Task Force as a whole felt the loss of Delegate Lawton. She
      acknowledged that Delegate Lawton brought much to Maryland and the Task
      Force, including her passion, mission, ideas, and vision. Senator Britt said it
      would be a tribute to Delegate Lawton and all of her hard work to see the Task

      Force through to its fruition and to have a work product that represents the efforts
      of all involved and which would meet her vision. Senator Britt said she would
      facilitate the meeting and the remaining steps for completing the Task Force’s
      work in Delegate Lawton’s absence.

      Senator Britt asked for edits of the November 15, 2007 minutes. Caroline Varney-
      Alvarado and Stan Sersen provided edits. Tom Liebel made a motion to accept the
      minutes. Stan Sersen seconded the motion. All approved the motion.

      Jason Dubow provided an update on the final report. He said a final draft will be
      sent out by the end of December 11 and would then provide the Task Force with a
      week to review the report. Senator Britt asked that a deadline for edits be

10:30 Additional Recommendations, Modifications to the Existing

      Senator Britt noted that there were recommendations brought forth at previous
      meetings that had not been captured by the workgroups. She asked the Task Force
      to spend some time considering these recommendations and to vote on including
      them with the consolidated recommendations.

      Jason Dubow explained that the consolidated recommendations were from the
      three workgroups and said they were organized by which organization the
      recommendations will be directed toward—the Governor, the General Assembly,
      the Smart Growth Subcabinet, and the Green Building Council.

      Martin Mitchell asked that under Recommendation #2e that Renovation be put
      first to emphasize its importance, especially on the residential side. He said that
      98 percent of housing stock is built and that this fact should be mentioned as well.
      Lee Peschau said the first sentence of Recommendation #2e should be modified to
      say “with emphasis on existing buildings”.

      Tom Liebel made a motion to incorporate his recommendations from his
      November 15 Green Building Task Force presentation. These included:

            Encourage the rehabilitation of existing buildings by amending the
             Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program for commercial
             historic buildings, restoring it to a full program with predictability for
             users by repealing the cap per jurisdiction, removing the aggregate cap on
             the program, and considering removing the per project cap (currently $3
            Consider a new tax credit (e.g., 10%) for the rehabilitation of non-historic
             buildings that are at least 50 years old. Minimum rehabilitation standards
             would be required, but they would be less stringent than those for historic

       Promote reuse of existing infrastructure and other publicly funded
        improvements through implementation of Smart Growth Guidelines and
        focus on Priority Funding Areas. Make use of pre-existing right-of-ways
        for transportation enhancements and Transit Oriented Developments
       To the extent that the Task Force may recommend that all State owned
        and leased properties may be required to meet Leadership in Energy and
        Environmental Design (LEED) or other energy efficiency standards,
        recognize that the integrity of State owned historic structures should not
        be compromised in an effort to meet those standards.
       Provide the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) with the services of a LEED
        Accredited Professional (LEED AP) to assist and educate local
        governments, for-profit developers, nonprofit organizations, and private
        individuals in the development of projects that both meet the Secretary of
        the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (required by all MHT funding
        and regulatory programs) and incorporate green building techniques into
        historic rehabilitation projects.

Erin Shaffer asked for a conversation on the fifth recommendation of the motion
regarding hiring a LEED Accredited Professional. Stan Sersen asked if MHT
anticipated hiring someone new versus training someone. Tom Liebel said that
MHT has expressed the need to have someone on staff with this type of training
since MHT does not currently have anyone with this type of background. Stan
Sersen said he would be more comfortable saying that “existing resources be
allocated so that they can train existing staff if possible in sustainability issues.”
He felt LEED did not need to be mentioned. Tom Liebel agreed but said there
should need to be some measure of documented competence.

Also regarding Tom Liebel’s fifth recommendation, Nancy Erwin asked if other
State agencies have this type of training already. Matt Power said that to different
degrees there are staff at other State agencies with this type of background and
training. Nancy Erwin suggested expanding this recommendation to advise that a
number of different State agencies have a person with this type of background.
She said that when possible staff who already have this background could help
with cross-training. Stan Sersen asked whether there is a State policy or agency
policy regarding payment for training, specifically, whether the State pays for
training. Matt Power said the training budget at most State agencies is the first
thing to go and that there is not a dedicated portion of State budgets for training.
Stan Sersen recommended that the recommendation be expanded to include
critical departments, especially those with a need for funds for training. Julie
Gabrielli said that this recommendation should be added as a new bullet under
Recommendation #3c, “Training for Building and Government Professionals”.

Regarding Tom Liebel’s second recommendation, Martin Mitchell expressed his
concerns. He felt this recommendation would hinder Smart Growth efforts. He
said the cost upfront is a problem and that in some cases existing structures might

never be as energy efficient as a new structure regardless of the upgrades

Senator Britt asked that the Task Force come to a resolution on Tom Liebel’s fifth
recommendation first and then address Martin Mitchell’s comment. Erin Shaffer
asked whether the language should say “sustainability coordinator” versus LEED
AP. Tom Liebel said the language could say “someone with extensive training in
sustainability issues” or “sustainability coordinator” and that we do not need to
mandate a particular standard. He noted that the Green Globes rating system does
not provide accreditation. He agreed that the intent is to have a staff person with
“training on sustainability issues”.

Regarding Tom Liebel’s second recommendation, Senator Britt asked if there was
a method to assess which 50+ year structures would be appropriate for a tax credit
and which would not be appropriate. Martin Mitchell said there is already an
extensive process to determine whether a building is historic or not.

Julie Gabrielli said the historic tax credit is built on the premise that certain
structures are of historic or cultural significance and therefore there should be a
public subsidy for preservation and ensuring their continued existence. The idea
of taking old buildings (versus historic buildings) assumes that they are already in
an area that is already developed; therefore, since this is existing infrastructure, it
is already covered by Tom Liebel’s third recommendation, which focuses on
Smart Growth and Priority Funding Areas. She said there was an analysis in the
Pittsburgh Green Building Alliance newsletter which showed that a new building
can be more energy efficient over time even when embodied energy is
incorporated in the analysis. She said Tom Liebel’s recommendation could focus
on supporting Smart Growth and trying to support existing infrastructure in
whatever way possible, whether financial incentives, public outreach, or builder
training, versus saying provide tax credits for old (but not historic) buildings.

Tom Liebel said the recommendation is to allow for consistency with the federal
law which allows 10 percent tax credit for old (but not historic) buildings. He said
his first recommendation was most important—to see the Historic Rehabilitation
Tax Credit fully funded. Matt Power agreed, saying that it will be a challenge to
achieve this, and that the Task Force would more likely achieve this if the other
tax credit is removed from the recommendations.

Eric Schmitt said there is still a need for a second tax credit, in this case, to
renovate existing buildings, focusing on energy efficiency. He said Oregon had a
good model through its Business Energy Tax Credit which funds 35 percent of
eligible project costs, which would be the incremental costs of the system or
equipment that is beyond standard practice. In this case, all types of energy
efficiency projects are eligible for the tax credit but must be a certain percentage
more energy efficient than existing installation or equipment in the resident’s
home. Ely Jacobsohn asked that the tax credit be provided for both residential and

commercial buildings. Julie Gabrielli suggested that instead of getting into the
details of what the tax credit would look like, that the Task Force would
recommend that the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) deal with it.

Tom Liebel said the Task Force could say that a sustainable design tax credit
recognizes the potential for an existing structure to be renovated and used
independent of its historic status and that this shows that it sometimes (but not
always) makes sense to renovate an old (but not historic) structure. He said the
reclamation of a building should be included as part of the rating system used by
Maryland when determining whether to fund a project for the Green Building Tax
Credit. Eric Schmitt said that instead of focusing on the Green Building Tax
Credit, that a new tax credit should be made available for Residential Energy

Julia Craighill asked if Tom Liebel’s recommendations were focused on changing
the Green Building Tax Credit. Tom Liebel said that the recommendations were
not focused on this. Julia Craighill noted that the Green Building Tax Credit
covers commercial but not residential. Eric Schmitt said this points to the need for
a Residential tax credit. Julie Gabrielli said the Green Building Tax Credit covers
any commercial project, whether a new building or for renovation. She
recommended “consideration of another program that would be a tax credit for
renovation that focuses solely on energy efficiency” versus a whole new green
building package. That would allow both homeowners and businesses to tap into
the program and would be an option for those who do not want to pursue a more
comprehensive green building project. Julia Craighill asked if MEA already has
programs to cover this. Ely Jacobsohn said MEA does not have programs for
commercial or residential energy retrofits.

Julie Gabrielli said the original Green Building Tax Credit required LEED Silver
with certain other credits that under LEED would normally be optional but for the
tax credit would be required such as site selection and energy efficiency. She said
the intention of Recommendation #2a is to revisit the issue of what would qualify.
Stan Sersen said the original Green Building Tax Credit was based on 20,000 sq ft
or larger. Tom Liebel said the credit was modified to be based on 10,000 sq ft or
larger and to provide a pass-through for non-profits but that this is currently

Ely Jacobsohn said residential buildings should not be added to the Green
Building Tax Credit. The Task Force members agreed. Ely Jacobsohn said if a
certain percentage of increased energy efficiency was achieved, then a certain
amount of tax credit could be provided. Stan Sersen asked how this would be tied
to the EmPOWER Maryland program. Ely Jacobsohn said it would be best to not
recommend a particular percentage at this time for tax credit eligibility, but could
say “to be determined by MEA”. Julie Gabrielli recommended adding “to be
coordinated with the EmPOWER Maryland initiative”.

Senator Britt asked if the Task Force could make a decision on Tom Liebel’s
discussion. All agreed to modify his recommendations as follows:

      First recommendation concerning the Heritage Structure Rehabilitation
       Tax Credit Program. No modifications requested. All agreed to include
       this as a Task Force recommendation.

      Second recommendation regarding tax credits for old (but not historic
       buildings). Strike this and instead include language that recognizes that
       “reclaiming old (but not historic) buildings may be a strategy for meeting
       the requisite number of points under the Green Building Tax Credit.” All
       agreed to include the modified recommendation as a Task Force

      Third recommendation concerning use of existing infrastructure and right-
       of-ways to promote TODs. Julia Craighill said she was not prepared to
       vote on this particular recommendation. Tom Liebel either new or existing
       right-of-ways were needed to provide for TOD and light rail. Matt Power
       suggested modifying the language to say “examine the use of existing
       right-of-ways to support TODs”.

      Fourth recommendation regarding importance of not losing historic value
       in State facilities when pursuing green renovations. Nancy Erwin asked
       that the recommendation be forwarded to the Green Building Council and
       the Governor. Ely Jacobsohn said this should be rephrased to say
       “recognizing that all State agencies must meet SB267 which requires State
       agencies to save 5 percent of energy use by 2009 and 10 percent by 2010.”
       Tom Liebel said that MHT was concerned about bad retrofits of historic
       schools in the past. Julie Gabrielli said the language should say “to
       achieve a balance” versus “do not compromise” since this implies that
       historic value is more important than energy efficiency. Tom Liebel
       suggested “a balance be struck in an effort to meet the standards.” Julie
       Gabrielli asked if this was only for State historic status buildings. Tom
       Liebel said yes. Ely Jacobsohn noted that energy efficient behavior could
       also be used to help meet the SB267 goals.

       Erin Shaffer asked that LEED specifically be removed from the Task
       Force recommendations and instead indicate that the objective is to get
       closer to a high performance building definition. She said the definition
       could be developed by looking at things identified in LEED, Green
       Globes, and/or other national rating systems. Tom Liebel said he took
       exception to that modification. He said it was important to be exclusive to
       LEED or LEED and Green Globes because other rating systems do not
       seem to have the same level of quality or accountability. He discouraged
       keeping the definition too wide open. Julia Craighill said it was important
       to set a standard and to then say “or equivalent” to at least provide a

    definition of what constitutes a high performance standard. She said the
    Task Force would have liked Green Globes to educate them on what
    constitutes equivalency.

    Erin Shaffer asked that the recommendations say “LEED or Green
    Globes”. She noted that the architects of the U.S. Capitol are using Green
    Globes and Energy Star in their greening of this historic structure. Julia
    Craighill said Green Globes could not be added until the Task Force
    understood the equivalency of Green Globes to LEED. For example, does
    Green Globes address historic structures or measurement and verification.
    She said to add Green Globes a huge education curve was needed.

    Erin Shaffer noted that there was a conference call set up for December 7
    but there was poor attendance and the issue was not resolved. Tom Liebel
    said that in a previous correspondence there was a request for a narrative
    from the Green Building Institute that explained how a particular LEED
    rating could be achieved through Green Globes, for example, a side-by-
    side comparison. He said the Task Force was trying to understand the
    rating system and was not being hostile towards it.

    Lee Peschau said there should not be only one program or standard
    recognized. Tom Liebel disagreed saying the State should be careful to
    recognize a standard that provides a true value and that there are systems
    that might be greenwashing. Lee Peschau said he had examined a number
    of standards and that there were problems. For example, in some cases
    buffer requirements are required without scientific backup and sometimes
    lead to buffers on top of existing buffer requirements. In addition, many
    buildings that are possible in Maryland, which already has strict
    stormwater management requirements, would not achieve green building

    Senator Britt said there were two options, either to be as inclusive as
    possible or specifically identify a particular standard. Tom Liebel
    suggested completing a vote on his recommendations before delving into
    the Green Globes versus LEED issue. Ely Jacobsohn suggested discussing
    the Residential Energy Retrofit Tax Credit as well before jumping into the
    more contentious issue.

   Fifth recommendation regarding MHT seeking a “sustainability
    professional” on staff. Julie Gabrielli said this would be added to
    Recommendation #3c. The Task Force discussed whether to include other
    agencies aside from MHT in this recommendation. The Task Force noted
    that the recommendation was to the Smart Growth Subcabinet. Tom
    Liebel suggested moving the recommendation to Recommendation #1d,
    which is a recommendation to the Governor. Eric Schmitt suggested
    adding this to the bullet “Provide green building training to builders,

       construction managers, and architects, and to local and State government
       staff throughout the state”. Senator Britt agreed. Tom Liebel suggested the
       following language: “sustainability professionals should be provided,
       hired, or trained for the following State agencies”. Jason Dubow suggested
       limiting the recommendation to State agencies that work with buildings
       the most. Julie Gabrielli recommended the “built environment”. Stan
       Sersen and Tom Liebel suggested “State agencies that are specific to
       effects of the built environment should have a dedicated sustainability
       coordinator.” Steve Pattison said the definition could be very clear since
       all State agencies are represented on the Smart Growth Subcabinet.

Eric Schmitt made a motion to create a Maryland Residential and Commercial
Energy Retrofit Tax Credit to offer tax credit to homeowners and business owners
to invest in energy conservation and leave the details to MEA. Ely Jacobsohn
suggested amending the motion to refer to a tax credit that would have a verifiable
level of energy savings as determined through a method by MEA. Stan Sersen
recommended that MEA develop or adopt a protocol or standard for initial testing
and follow-up verification.

Ely Jacobsohn noted that the Residential Building Workgroup asked him to come
up with some incentive programs for residential homeowners. He noted that the
following were identified as the most efficient across the country. He
recommended the following programs be added to the Task Force’s

      Refrigerator Trade-In/Rebate Program. Offer rebate of $75 to
       encourage homeowners and rental property owners to trade-in their old
       refrigerators for a new ENERGY STAR refrigerator rebate.
      Clothes Washer Rebate. Offer $100 rebate for new ENERGY STAR
       clothes washer. Almost all ENERGY STAR washers are front loaders
       which are typically more expensive.
      Air Sealing Financial Incentive. Offer $0.50 per cubic feet per minute
       (cfm) air leakage reduction up to $200 for existing homes. To achieve this,
       a pre- and post-blower door test would be required to verify leakage
       reduction. This is the best way to address energy consumption in most
       existing residential dwellings, which are leaky, and since most energy in
       homes goes to condition the air.

The Task Force agreed with Ely Jacobsohn’s recommendations.

Steve Pattison asked about Recommendation #1c to clarify the phrase “provide
credits to developers for off-site treatment of stormwater”. Jason Dubow
explained that Hamid Omidvar and Martin Mitchell developed the
recommendation. Tom Liebel said this meant that there is a need for
acknowledgment of offsite treatment as an alternative means of compliance and
not that a tax credit was being sought. Steve Pattison noted that new regulations

are being developed as mandated by the Stormwater Management Act of 2007
and a new schedule was recently released to complete the regulations by the end
of 2008. He suggested tying the recommendation into the regulatory development
process as a recommendation for the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) to consider. Stan Sersen said he believed the intent was to refer to the
credit discussed in Chapter 5 of the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual that if
remediation is provided offsite then that effort could be credited to onsite
requirements. He said perpetuity and easements could be an issue. Tom Liebel
suggested saying “allow developers the opportunity to pursue offsite treatment of
stormwater, especially when environmental benefits will be higher.” Steve
Pattison believed this provided enough of a general direction for MDE. Jason
Dubow confirmed with Steve Pattison that the language should also say “MDE
should consider this as it develops its new regulation as mandated by the
Stormwater Management Act of 2007.”

Steve Pattison also requested that for all of the recommendations, each should be
tied to a specific agency responsible for implementing them. In response, Eric
Schmitt suggested a proposal that for any recommendation not assigned to a
specific agency, that the Smart Growth Subcabinet be charged with oversight and
with assigning tasks to Maryland departments and agencies to ensure
implementation of the actions and recommendations listed in the Green Building
Task Force report. Tom Liebel asked if the DNR Office of Sustainability was
represented on the Smart Growth Subcabinet. Matt Power said the DNR Secretary
is represented.

Senator Britt asked if there were any other new recommendations to include.
Martin Mitchell noted that on page 12 of the draft final report there was a
discussion of a cost reduction analysis. Jason Dubow noted that edits to the final
report would be obtained by e-mail and requested that he send them to him to
incorporate. He noted that the methodology for the DHCD cost-reduction analysis
would be included in the report.

Ely Jacobsohn requested an edit to Recommendation #1d, under the “Influencing
local government development review and local codes.” He said that local code
enforcement is extremely important and yet extremely lacking. He requested an
addition, “provide a process to allow the State to ensure local government
compliance with current energy codes. DHCD would be responsible for
determining and implementing the appropriate process for accomplishing this.”
Ely Jacobsohn said DHCD currently does not have a process for ensuring code

Caroline Varney-Alvarado asked what the process should be. Ely Jacobsohn said
he did not know at this point but said it could be to change the law. Lee Peschau
said the State of Maryland code agency is very limited. He said they adopt
national codes and through legislation they give local governments a period of
time to adopt the codes. He said the agency had no field staff and that to address

Ely Jacobsohn’s proposal would require a major retooling of the code agency. Ely
Jacobsohn that the proposal could also be implemented by providing local
governments resources to enforce the current code, to audit their enforcement
procedures, and to provide training to code officials. Tom Liebel asked if there
was a precedent to follow when the Maryland Rehabilitation Code was
implemented since this code trumped local code. He asked how this code was
written into law.

Ely Jacobsohn said that DHCD has told MEA that local governments are
supposed to be enforcing the State-adopted energy code but do not have the
authority not to enforce local codes. Local governments can amend local codes to
make them more strict than the State-adopted energy code but can not adopt or
make use of a code that is less strict than the State-adopted energy code. Ely
Jacobsohn said there are some counties that are still using the 2000 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) but the State-adopted energy code is the 2006
IECC. Ely Jacobsohn said that there are counties that are neither adopting nor
enforcing current State-adopted energy code. He said that even though there is a
time limit for when counties are supposed to adopt this code there is no process to
ensure this happens. Caroline Varney-Alvarado said that Ed Landon at DHCD
said only one county has not adopted the 2006 IECC. She said the three steps
were review, adoption, and then enforcement.

Tom Liebel said he believed the biggest issue was the enforcement of the energy
code. Stan Sersen suggested the recommendation be adjusted to request that the
Maryland Attorney General’s Office look at the enforcement side of this issue and
how this ties to the General Accounting Office or Treasurer’s Office on how this
gets tied into funding, for example, withholding State funding until compliance is
provided. Ely Jacobsohn noted that counties have limited funding and staff and
training. Lee Peschau said that some of the Smart Code policies dilute life/safety
issues, for example, high-rise buildings being renovated do not have to have
sprinklers added. He said that this is a contentious issue at the local level. Nancy
Erwin said the Task Force should recommend that the Attorney General’s Office
look into both adoption and enforcement issues because in “commission counties”
the County Council must adopt the code. Without council approval, the energy
code has not been adopted locally.

Karen Forbes of DHCD said the department trains code officials and architects of
new energy codes. She said local governments are aware of the new code and the
need for training. She said DHCD provides the training within the county itself.
Tom Liebel asked how the State could ensure local enforcement of State code.
Ely Jacobsohn suggested the local governments could submit documentation that
the State could audit, and the State could then do site visits to verify code
implementation. Tom Liebel said there are different interpretations of the State
code and that this presents a challenge when doing field verification. To sum up,
Stan Sersen suggested the recommendation say that the Task Force “recognizes
there should be a process” and that it should be referred to the Attorney General

and the Treasurer and that is as far as the Task Force could go. Senator Britt said
they could then determine the process which could include reporting from the
local governments to the State and then from the reports, determine the need for
audits or other State actions. Ely Jacobsohn suggested adding “with the advice
from the DHCD code department.”

Stan Sersen said he did not see the importance of cost-accounting reflected in the
recommendations, for example, that capital expenditures be linked to the
operation and maintenance costs. Tom Liebel noted this was captured in
Recommendation #4a. Stan Sersen provided a correction that the word should be
“cost-accounting” not “cost-counting”.

Stan Sersen asked that under the recommendations to the General Assembly,
Recommendation #2a, that the State should “require recipients of Green Building
Tax Credits to file a post-occupancy review and energy analysis report within 18
months to review the first 12 months of performance.” Tom Liebel asked what the
implications would be of not meeting this requirement. He asked whether the
report should indicate why a certain level of performance was not achieved. Stan
Sersen said he would not want to withdraw a tax credit. Matt Power said the
reports could help the State learn from the results and incorporate any necessary
changes to the program. Stan Sersen suggested the State should begin to create a
database of building performance within Maryland, for example, to begin tracking
carbon footprints. Julia Craighill agreed that a penalty should not be assigned
because there is a need for full disclosure of the results. She felt the database
would provide great benefit and that honest disclosure would be necessary to add
value to the database. She suggested tying the post-occupancy measurement to the
existing protocol in LEED, EA CR 3 or tie this to a commissioning agency.

Martin Mitchell said a tax credit was available for going beyond ENERGY
STAR.. Ely Jacobsohn said this was a federal tax credit. Martin Mitchell said the
tax credits are not sufficient to cover costs, for example, the costs of home energy
raters. Julia Craighill said the Green Building Tax Credit covers more of the costs.
Martin Mitchell said it was important for tax credits to cover additional costs.

Senator Britt confirmed that the recommendation was to create a database. Stan
Sersen said the data would be covering 12 months of building performance. Jason
Dubow confirmed that the reporting would be required and provided to the

Julia Craighill suggested that details should be provided to define “loaded LEED
Silver”, which is listed under Recommendation #2a. She said the requirement
would be to achieve the LEED Silver rating while meeting certain mandatory
requirements as well. The mandatory requirements would include measurement
and verification, maintaining the energy efficiency standards outlined in the
original Green Building Tax Credit legislation (25% for existing buildings, 35%
for new buildings). Julia Craighill made a motion to change the existing

recommendation to say “loaded LEED Gold, version 2.2”. Tom Liebel said the
language could read, “Using the United States Green Building Council's LEED-
NC Rating System, version 2.2, projects must be capable of achieving a minimum
of 39 points. Of those 39 points, credits SS 6.2, WE 3.1, WE 3.2, as well as 7 of
10 possible points for credit EA 1 shall be mandatory.” Tom also said the
recommendation should include language from the LEED Commercial Interior
and LEED Core and Shell standards as well. He said there would be a separate
rating system for projects seeking to qualify for a tax credit under LEED CI and

Tom Liebel and Stan Sersen said the recommendation should address other rating
systems to use for assessing tax credit eligibility with the following language, “or
the equivalent as determined by the agency, the equivalent loaded Green Globes
system or LEED CI or LEED CS”. He said the Commercial Building Workgroup
had concerns about determining which Green Globes rating would be the exact
same. He felt the agency with jurisdiction over the tax credit should be
responsible for determining what the equivalent requirements would be.

John Kortecamp said he felt it was wrong and probably unethical to
institutionalize a proprietary program. He said the State should list the standards
to meet but not list a particular proprietary program. Lee Peschau said as
Construction Administrator for DHCD, he felt the LEED process puts a financial
burden on a builder that is sometimes excessive and unnecessary. He
recommended keeping the recommendation open. Senator Britt said she tended to
agree but would like to hear more.

Erin Shaffer said from the Green Building Initiative’s perspective the market
should be driving the decision. She said that LEED and Green Globes are not
standards, but are instead rating systems to help achieve a standard. She said that
if the goal is to increase green building in Maryland that the State should look at
the range of tools that are available. She noted that Green Globes has gained
momentum because it has a web-based tool that provides immediate feedback and
allows more people to participate in green building efforts. She said Green Globes
does not exclude people who are not consultants or who are not accredited

Tom Liebel said the recommendation he is describing is tied to the Green
Building Tax Credit, so even though there might be additional costs for LEED
certification, the tax credit can be used to help pay for this. He said it would be
challenging to write out and help others understand a comprehensive description
of the standard required to gain eligibility for the tax credit. He also said using a
rating system provides for flexibility in what a builder could do to reach
eligibility, i.e., there could be a variety of combinations of standards that could be
met to gain eligibility.

John Kortecamp said the point is to not institutionalize a proprietary product,
whether Green Globes or LEED. He said the State should identify which blend or
which standard it wants to have and then indicate that this is the State-approved
standard for green buildings. Julia Craighill asked how the recommendation
should be reworded. John Kortecamp said the recommendation should be
product-neutral and that all of the particular standards that must be met to gain
points in the rating systems should be written out.

Tom Liebel said this would be a challenge especially when trying to allow for
optional actions that could be used to gain points. He said the amount of effort is
too high. John Kortecamp said someone should be charged with the task of
identifying what the standard should be, referencing existing programs, and then
to develop a State level of certification. Tom Liebel said that for the Task Force
recommendation, though, there is a need to point in a particular direction, so a
particular definition is required such as “loaded LEED Gold”.

Erin Shaffer disagreed saying this would result in LEED Gold becoming the de
facto standard and would exclude other rating systems. She said Green Globes
was credible and will be the only ANSI standard in 2008. Senator Britt said there
should be a way, without labeling, to reference a rating system or particular
standard as a footnote or an appendix that could be included in the final report.

Ely Jacobsohn said the original legislation creating the Green Building Tax Credit
references LEED and that there is a precedent to continue to list LEED. He said
ASHRAE and ANSI are proprietary as well but are cited in State and federal law.
He also said the State should not reinvent the wheel and did not have the
resources to write up a new standard. He noted that LEED could provide a point
of reference and would not be an endorsement. He did not believe listing rating
systems was a problem. He also said HERS and BPI are proprietary but are also
included in federal law and policy.

Martin Mitchell said the phrase “or equivalent” is the problem. He said the State
should take a leadership role and should define the equivalency. He said the State
not having time or resources should not be an excuse. He recommended setting a
time limit for determining how Green Globes applies as an equivalent standard
and at that time the State should then decide whether to approve or disapprove
Green Globes as an equivalent standard.

Ely Jacobsohn said the State could indicate that if other rating systems or
standards wish to be considered, then they should request approval from a
particular State agency to be included. Eric Schmitt said Recommendation #1a
includes language that says the State should “identify green building certification
programs that the State could endorse with a State “seal of approval.” He
suggested adding a second bullet that says “the Smart Growth Subcabinet should
decide what standards would be equivalent”.

Matt Power said that Vicki Worden (Green Building Initiative) was going to
provide a side-by-side comparison between LEED and Green Globes. Erin
Shaffer said this was available and that it also includes items that Green Globes
has that LEED does not have. She said Vicki Worden had already provided much
material to demonstrate the acceptance and endorsement of Green Globes by

Julia Craighill said there were other rating systems and standards besides Green
Globes. She encouraged listing one standard that everyone is familiar with and
then setting up a system for getting other programs (e.g., NAHB, Green Globes,
EarthCraft) accepted. She said the Task Force did not have the time to write out a
new specification. Erin Shaffer said Green Globes had much support including
use by two federal agencies and Fairfax County, and noted that the trend across
the country at the State level was to list both LEED and Green Globes and not just

Tom Liebel said the Green Building Tax Credit currently resides with MEA so
MEA would be the authority making the determination of what constitutes an
equivalent standard. He said he would be fine with mentioning Green Globes but
would like to see from the Green Building Initiative what would be the exact
equivalent given the above definition of “loaded LEED Gold”. John Kortecamp
said that once one program is listed that it puts other programs at a disadvantage
since there is a submission and recognition process to go through.

Jason Dubow suggested that until other programs get evaluated that the tax credit
should not be provided. Ely Jacobsohn said that by July, when the tax credit
would go into effect, Green Globes and other systems would need to submit
documentation showing equivalency to the “loaded LEED Gold” definition to
MEA. John Kortecamp said there are no residential standards completed and that
there are other green building standards that are not final yet. He said it would be
wrong to list any particular proprietary standard just because the standard is final
now. Erin Shaffer said that Green Globes has been around and has been used now
for sometime although it was not when the Maryland Green Building Tax Credit
was first established. She said she would rather see specifications listed out rather
than particular rating systems. Erin Shaffer noted that Green Globes relies on
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data for energy
benchmarking and that CBECS is better for benchmarking. She compared this to
LEED which uses ASHRAE.

Eric Schmitt said the best option would be to put the burden on the State for
defining what “equivalent” means and that MEA should be listed as the agency to
determine this by a particular date. Senator Britt called for a vote that MEA
should make the decision on the appropriate criteria for equivalency. The Task
Force did not provide sufficient votes. Tom Liebel made a motion that the
standard for the Green Building Tax Credit be “loaded LEED Gold” coupled with
the fact that MEA would need to by July 2008 determine equivalency. Martin

      Mitchell said there needed to be more input than just from MEA. Tom Liebel said
      MEA should set up a separate group with outside input to decide this issue. He
      said the motion should read that MEA should make the determination prior to the
      Green Building Tax Credit funding coming online, recognizing that Green Globes
      and other systems will need to be addressed. Erin Shaffer suggested the language
      read LEED, Green Globes, or equivalent.

      Stan Sersen asked Erin Shaffer if the equivalent to LEED Gold was 4 Green
      Globes. Erin Shaffer said the equivalent was 4 Green Globes. Stan Sersen
      recommended the language say “LEED Gold, 4 Green Globes, or equivalent, and
      any additional items, State-specific, as determined by MEA.” Lee Peschau
      encouraged designating the Smart Growth Subcabinet as the group to determine
      additional items rather than just MEA. Matt Power noted that MEA is not on the
      Smart Growth Subcabinet, and is only on the Smart Growth Coordinating
      Committee. Stan Sersen suggested “LEED Gold, 4 Green Globes, or other
      equivalency as determined by MEA in concert with the Smart Growth Subcabinet,
      by the implementation of Green Building Tax Credit.” Erin Shaffer said the Green
      Building Initiative had made a good faith effort to provide information on Green
      Globes to the Task Force. Ely Jacobsohn said he would feel more comfortable if
      the language said “the equivalent Green Globes system”. Stan Sersen pointed out
      that 4 Green Globes is the highest rating that can be provided. Nancy Erwin asked
      whether this was as high as LEED Gold. Senator Britt confirmed that the Task
      Force was in support of Stan Sersen’s suggested language. Jason Dubow
      confirmed that listing 4 Green Globes was supported.

12:20 Vote on the Consolidated Recommendations as Amended during the 12/10

      Senator Britt asked whether the consolidated recommendations could be voted on
      as a whole. Jason Dubow confirmed that this was the case. Senator Britt called for
      a vote. All were in favor. Senator Britt asked if there was opposition. Erin Shaffer
      requested that anywhere in the recommendations where LEED is listed alone that
      the Task Force use the same approach as used with Recommendation #2a. Jason
      Dubow said under Recommendation #4a the direction is for State buildings to
      meet LEED Silver. Erin Shaffer said this would equate to 2 Green Globes. Jason
      Dubow asked what the wording should be. The Task Force suggested “LEED
      Silver or the Green Globe equivalent”. Stan Sersen said he was concerned that
      this standard was lower than the standard for eligibility for the Green Building
      Tax Credit. Ely Jacobsohn and Stan Sersen suggested “LEED Silver with energy
      performance requirements to be determined by MEA in conformance with
      EmPOWER Maryland”.

      Stan Sersen asked whether a portion of the Task Force remain in existence to
      ensure implementation of its recommendations. Eric Schmitt said the
      recommendation was included to task the Smart Growth Subcabinet with
      oversight to ensure implementation. Jason Dubow noted that Smart Growth

     Action Teams would include both public and private groups and this is listed in
     the recommendations, so the Task Force does not need to be extended.

12:30 Adjourn


To top