We’ll start with the Lighting Upgrade Law, which amends Chapter 3 of title 28 of the New York City administrative code (i.e. the Building Code) and adds articles 310 – Required Upgrade of Lighting Systems – and 311 – Installation of Electrical Submeters in Tenant Spaces.

Article 310 of the Lighting Upgrade Law requires owners of all buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to upgrade the building’s lighting systems to energy efficient systems that comply with the standards for new lighting systems set forth in Section 805 of the New York City Energy Conservation Code (“NYCECC“) by January 1, 2025. Section 805 is actually part of the part of the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York, which sets standards for the energy performance of buildings throughout the State of New York. (NYCECC, which we will discuss in much more detail in a subsequent article here at GRELJ, incorporates the state energy code by reference). Section 805 covers lighting system controls, the connection of ballasts, the maximum lighting power for interior applications, and minimum acceptable lighting equipment for exterior applications, but specifically excludes lighting within residential buildings from its purview.

Required upgrades are accomplished pursuant to Article 310 by installing or modifying the lighting system to comply with NYCECC’s standards for new systems for the following lighting elements: (i) lighting controls (including interior lighting controls, light reduction controls, and automatic lighting shutoff); (ii) tandem wiring; (iii) exit signs; (iv) interior lighting power requirements; and (v) exterior lighting. Owners must file a report with the Department of Buildings prepared by either a registered design professional or licensed master or special electrician certifying that the upgrade has been completed and that the work is in compliance with the technical standards of the New York City electrical code.

Upgrades are not required for (i) an element of a lighting system that is already in compliance with NYCECC; (ii) lighting power densities in any space bounded by permanent floor-to-ceiling partitions and/or closable doors that are in compliance with NYCECC; (iii) lighting systems within low-rise residential units (R2 or R3) or spaces that serve such units, including, but not limited to, hallways, laundry rooms, or boiler rooms; and (iv) lighting systems within houses of worship.

In addition, Section 311 of the Lighting Upgrade Law requires that, by January 1, 2025, owners or lessors of commercial buildings that are larger than 50,000 square feet measure the electrical consumption of certain covered tenant spaces by installing submeters. “Covered tenant spaces” are (i) individual tenant spaces larger than 10,000 square feet on one or more floors; or (ii) a floor that is larger than 10,000 square feet which consists of individual tenant spaces that are let or sublet to 2 or more tenants. For the latter, each individual tenant space can have its own submeter, share a submeter with the other tenant spaces on the floor, or share one submeter that covers the entire floor.

From a green leasing perspective, although submeters must be installed as set forth in Section 311, the Lighting Upgrade Law does not require the landlord to apportion the cost of electricity among the building’s tenants or subtenants in any particular fashion. However, the landlord is required to provide each tenant or subtenant within a covered tenant space with a monthly statement showing the amount of electricity measured by the submeter for each tenant or subtenant during the month, and any amount charged to the tenant or subtenant for electricity. If the covered tenant space is a floor with multiple tenancies (as described above), and the tenant’s submeter covers other tenant spaces, the statement for that tenant must show the electrical consumption for the area covered by the submeter and the percentage of that area which is leased by the tenant. As Model Green Lease Task Force head Alan Whitson frequently observes, “what gets measured gets improved,” a mantra which is clearly the basis for this provision within Section 311.

Next we’ll take a look at NYECC and some interesting legal aspects of the legislation that are making some of Gotham’s building owners and facility managers nervous about what could be coming next from the City Council.

Unlike the BOMA Green Lease Guide (created by Jones Day partner Steve Teitelbaum, who also participated on the panel), the Model Green Lease is an extremely compact document, drafted from scratch, which is fundamentally based on the theory that, in order to make a more compelling business case for green buildings, leases must be crafted as gross (i.e., the landlord is responsible for building operating expenses, unlike in a net lease, where the tenant pays for its own share of those costs). The document, which also includes a corresponding reference guide, comprises just 17 pages plus exhibits and incorporates ten essential elements that aim to support a specific definition of a green building created by the Task Force for purposes of the project: “[a] building that is environmentally responsible, profitable and a healthy place to live or work.”

The ten essential elements of the Model Green Lease as developed and subsequently drafted by the Task Force are as follows:

• Environmental performance objective clauses (broad aspirational provisions that purport to provide context and clarity to the lease, which also recognize that the parties who draft the lease may not be the parties that ultimately operate the building);
• Gross lease rent structure (acknowledging that the landlord is in the best position to optimize building performance, provided it has the financial incentive to do so);
• A fixed per square foot energy allowance for tenants;
• Objective building performance standards;
• An annual building performance reporting requirement; and
• Provisions related to green cleaning and recycling, building rules and regulations, tenant fit-out guidelines, and a tenant manual and development guidelines.

With respect to the gross lease rent structure and addressing the split incentive, defining the scope of building operating expenses is a major green leasing challenge, particularly with respect to landlord-initiated capital improvements to the building’s infrastructure during the term of the lease. The Model Green Lease addresses this issue by including within its definition of building operating expenses the amortized cost of any capital expenditures that reduce those expenses, but only to the extent that they create actual savings for the tenant. One important related point which we did not delve into on the panel is whether the ongoing costs of certifying the building under a third-party green building rating system – such as LEED-EB: OM, Green Globes or Energy Star – should be included in the definition of building operating expenses; the Model Green Lease does not include these costs, the BOMA Green Lease does (within its Section 4.2 definition of building operating expenses).

One of the many interesting issues that were raised during the course of the panel discussion that followed the presentation of each leasing effort was a hypothetical proposed by one of our audience members. Suppose Tenant A leases space in a multi-tenant LEED-certified or Energy Star-rated building. Tenant A’s lease is green, Tenant B’s is not. In the course of conducting its business, Tenant B does something that jeopardizes either the building’s LEED rating (under LEED-EB: OM or with respect to one of the new Minimum Program Requirements under the LEED 2009 system) or pending Energy Star application (by using an increased amount of energy over what is contemplated by the lease). Now suppose that Tenant A is a public company with a shareholder mandate to occupy space in a LEED-certified building, or for similar reasons relied on the landlord’s representations regarding Energy Star. Could Tenant A sue the landlord for Tenant B’s actions based on violating certain provisions in its green lease?

As the panel pointed out in response, it’s rare that a lease would obligate either party to perform in a certain manner with respect to other third parties, but a broadly drafted environmental performance objective clause might provide the tenant’s attorney with, at a minimum, the ability to assert a claim that might either assist the tenant in renegotiating more favorable lease terms, or rescinding the lease outright. Nevertheless, as we noted previously here at GRELJ, the Model Green Lease puts the onus on the landlord in Section 5.02.3 to “use its reasonable efforts to cause other tenants of the Building to conduct their operations in the Building and their premises in conformity with the Environmental Performance Objective.” Accordingly, everyone on the panel stressed that form green leasing documents are tools and not designed for imminent signature; it’s clear that these types of issues will need to be discussed and vetted in detail as green leasing practices continue to disseminate.

I also thought that the discussion on enforcement of green lease provisions was particularly insightful; the panel discussed whether certain breaches might be more egregious than others from a sustainability perspective. The Model Green Lease, for example, provides tenants with an allowance for electricity. If the tenant exceeds that allowance, it is required to reimburse the landlord the extra per kilowatt hour cost; the landlord, however, is not given the right to terminate the lease. (Of course, a significant boost in energy consumption might be indicative of the tenant violating the lease’s use provision (Section 4.01 in the Model Green Lease), which would give the landlord the right to terminate). Little consensus was reached during this line of discussion.

However, one final thought about enforcement struck me as particularly noteworthy; Michael Brooks of REALpac explained that while studying green leasing practices in Australia, he met a landlord whose form lease included a variety of green provisions which- if breached- entitled it to terminate the lease and evict the offending tenant. Although this is a drastic remedy, and the panel agreed that most landlords would likely not want to create such a self-imposed gap in their building’s net operating income, it could suggest the direction in which green lease enforcement might head in a rapidly shifting domestic regulatory climate.

The legal issues associated with green leasing are fascinating, emerging, and present an opportunity for the real estate community to make a major contribution to the more efficient operation of commercial and industrial buildings. As energy efficiency continues to rank as a high priority, and retrofit work expands as the economy slowly turns around, the four green leasing tools presented at last week’s Urban Green Expo will become increasingly important for landlords and tenants alike to review, implement, and build upon. Simultaneously, the requirements of LEED 2009 and other third-party systems will need to be translated into or otherwise sufficiently addressed by such documents in order to safeguard the rights and remedies of the parties. We’re looking forward to continuing the discussion here at GRELJ about these critical issues, with particular continued emphasis on the legal implications of various green lease provisions.

• It’s Not Easy Leasing Green (GlobeSt.com)