One topic we discuss with particular frequency here at GRELJ in the green lease context is the obligations within the lease – imposed upon either landlord or tenant – to operate the demised premises, or the base building and common areas as the case may be, in a sustainable manner. The roadmap for that operation is generally found in an environmental performance objective clause, or in other provisions that may not explicitly set forth green building requirements but are instead merely aspirational. One interesting legal question that could arise in this context is exactly how a court would construe such aspirational clauses in the event the parties dispute exactly how “aspirational” those clauses should be. For example, consider the following form clause from the Model Green Lease:

Environmental Performance Objective Clause: Landlord will “operate and maintain the Building and the Premises to minimize (i) direct and indirect energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) water consumption; (iii) the amount of material entering the waste stream; (iv) negative impacts upon the indoor air quality of the Building and the Premises.” Landlord will “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.”

In the event that – at some point in the future – litigation arose out of this type of clause’s aspirational requirements, how might a trier of fact construe the landlord’s “reasonable efforts” and obligation to “operate and maintain” the building in a sustainable manner? The same question exists if the landlord places those same aspirational requirements on its tenants. There are no decisions (which I have been able to identify through a Westlaw search) that directly address this topic. However, at least under New York law, use restrictions in commercial leases will be strictly construed, although courts will construe leases in their entirety in order to ascertain the intent of the parties as to the demised premises’ use. It is therefore arguable that an aspirational green lease clause could be – in the event of a dispute – considered to be a requirement rather than strictly aspirational. Landlords and tenants considering green lease implementation should therefore consider the law of the jurisdiction governing the lease in order to appropriately assess how other clauses throughout the document may impact a court’s construction of their respective obligations.

An illustrative New York case is Qwakazi, Ltd. v. 107 West 86th Street Owners Corp., 123 A.D.2d 253, 506 N.Y.S.2d 162 (1st Dep’t 1986). There, the Appellate Division held that a commercial lease’s restrictions on the tenant’s use for a particular purpose had to be strictly construed under New York law. The lease clause in question was that the “Tenant shall use and occupy demised premises for sale of comic books, toys, posters, books solely.” Nevertheless, the tenant proceeded to sell video cassettes. The Appellate Division noted that “[a] landlord has a legal right to control the uses to which his building may be put by appropriate lease provisions, which to be effective must be enforced.” The court also stated that the tenant “was aware of the growing video cassette industry when it negotiated its present lease but did not include the sale and rental of video cassettes in the agreement as a permitted use. [The tenant] should not now be permitted to engage in a use of which it was aware but failed to include in its agreement.”

The scenario I imagine is where a tenant – who may not share the same green goals as the landlord – or vice versa – moves into space and doesn’t follow the environmental performance objective clause with any real precision. In the event of a dispute, how would a court construe the parties’ obligations? I’m also struck by the Appellate Division’s language in Qwakazi; if a tenant knows that leases are beginning to incorporate green requirements but fails to expressly incorporate them into its lease, that failure could be the basis for the landlord to argue that such uses are simply not permitted – even if they are included within broad, aspirational language.

For example, this issue recently arose tangentially in my practice where a developer client – whose project is seeking LEED for Core and Shell certification – decided that it wanted to require potential tenants to sign some sort of green lease. One potential tenant resisted, and our client approached us asking whether that tenant might jeopardize the client’s ability to earn its desired level of LEED certification (compelled, incidentally, by a corporate commitment to building all of its facilities to a predetermined level of LEED certification). As we discussed with the client, while potential tenants will have little impact on a LEED-CS application, if the building were to ongoing certification under LEED-EB:OM, an uncooperative tenant might play a role in impacting the project’s application – which could have serious consequences if the project seeks tax incentives or must otherwise comply with other emerging regulatory requirements. For that reason, we suggested precise lease language that identified the tenant’s specific obligations rather than broad aspirational strokes that might eventually leave the landlord without remedy in the event that its goals for third-party certification went unrealized due to circumstances created by the tenant.

These concepts are still largely legal theory at this point, but until aspirational green lease clauses are interpreted by the courts or more fully analyzed by legal scholars, landlords and tenants alike may be treading in dangerous waters when it comes to lease provisions that fail to specifically allocate the parties’ rights and responsibilities. These dangers are more acute in situations where the parties have competing visions and objectives when it comes to sustainable goals for the demised premises.

One of the reasons why New York City’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, which our City Council passed earlier today, does not (as originally drafted) require owners to pay for capital improvement projects that boost energy efficiency is that, under most local leases, landlords who pay for those improvements can’t pass along associated costs to their tenants, who benefit from the resulting decrease in operating costs. USGBC’s Green Lease Guide, which was published earlier this fall, does much more than just discuss the split incentive that’s a major barrier to implementing a truly green lease; it provides tenants with a form environmental impact questionnaire designed to assist them in vetting potential properties, as well as eleven pages of sample green lease provisions (many of which we’ve written about here at GRELJ previously). The Guide is primarily written for commercial office tenants, but landlords will find its background information – which describes LEED’s accreditation and certification processes – useful as well. More specifically, here’s how the Guide breaks down:

Section 1 – Why Green the Leasing Process?

- How Buildings Affect the Environment and Tenants
- Primer on LEED

Section 2 – Greening the Leasing Process

- Environmental Strategies for the Leasing Process
- Implementing Environmental Strategies at Renewal and in New Space Searches
- Greening the Lease
- Best Practices for LEED for Commercial Interiors Project Management, Design, and Construction
- Implementing Environmental Strategies Under Existing Leases

Section 3 – Tools for Greening the Leasing Process

- LEED for Commercial Interiors Scorecard
- Basic Environmental Impact Questionnaire
- Sample Criteria for Qualifying Project Team Professionals
- Sample Green Building RFP Guidelines
- Building Questionnaire for Tenants Seeking LEED for Commercial Interiors Certification
- Sample Green Lease Provisions
- Sample Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy for Tenant Operations

Resources

Copies of the Green Lease Guide are available for purchase here; our thanks again to USGBC for providing us with a complimentary copy to give away here at GRELJ. We’ll have much more to say on various specifics of the Guide moving forward, particularly with respect to its discussion of aspirational green lease provisions and enforcement mechanisms. In the interim, if you have any questions or require assistance in connection with greening your leasing documents, the Arent Fox Green Building & Sustainability Practice Group would be happy to help you out.

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)