A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that Henry Gifford’s class action suit against USGBC has resonated not only domestically, but across global real estate markets as well.

Consider the following: while visiting Melbourne to observe green Australian commercial office buildings, Roderic Bunn, the principal consultant at Britain’s Building Services Research and Information Association said that “[w]e are piling often unmanageable complexity into these buildings, so the consequence is unmanageable complexity. It’s the enemy of good performance.” Although Bunn stated that he was “not saying it [a lawsuit] will happen [in Australia] or in the UK,” he did affirm his belief that “Australian commercial and public sector buildings are suffering the same problems as those in Britain.”

Pointing specifically to Henry Gifford’s lawsuit against the USGBC currently pending in the Southern District of New York, Bunn went on to say that “[p]roperty organizations have accused the [USGBC] of selling green certification. Some people are waking up to the fact they believe they have been mis-sold a rating system that guarantees performance, and the construction industry hasn’t been quick to disabuse them of that notion.”

In addition to its referencing the Gifford litigation, I think the article is important to note because it highlights many of the same building performance issues that have plagued green buildings here in the U.S., as well as the operational issues that green lease provisions are designed to address. For example, Bunn observes that:

• “We have been seduced by the often false promises of new technologies. A building can be mounted with wind turbines and photovoltaics, but they don’t contribute nearly as much as designers think they do because they haven’t driven down the energy requirement to begin with. We tend to glue these things on to the outside of buildings before we actually have reduced the loads of the building as far as we can go. The mantra should be ‘half the loads, double the efficiencies. Halve the carbon in the fuel supply before we go anywhere near on-site renewables. They are often expensive, small, very complex, and maintenance hungry, and the maintainability of these things is rarely taken into account.”

• “The construction industry is very good at designing dreams but crafting nightmares – and it’s the managers who inherit the nightmares. We can’t afford to have a sustainable building not delivering what they are supposed to deliver.”

Bunn served for 16 years as editor of the Building Sciences Journal, which is the official journal of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, and has received numerous government grants to study building performance in the United Kingdom. Uniformly, according to Bunn, those studies found that “energy consumption was far too high, systems were not finished off properly, no one knew how to use them, and they were misfiring on a whole range of criteria.”

Some of the solutions which Bunn suggested to the Sydney Morning Herald include requiring the project team to remain engaged with the building for a period of time after construction is complete to get it “as close to the design targets as they can get. Finish it off properly, follow through. Builders should be appointed on the basis they will stay engaged for a significant period after occupation to fine tune and perform, monitor the energy use to optimum satisfaction.” Of course, in the U.S. construction industry, this rarely happens; the project team wants to get off the job as quickly as possible, and for the owner to keep it engaged for any additional period of time costs money.

Although addressing the gaps between green design, construction, and operations will continue to be a major challenge in 2011, I think it’s clear that the Gifford litigation is playing a major role in raising awareness about those gaps and increasing the level of conversation about the types of measures that can improve it. Indeed, Bunn also identified the new building performance reporting requirements in Australia for office buildings as potentially closing the gap between design and operations and allowing future green building projects to more meaningfully address it; as you may recall, as of November 1, Australia requires landlords to disclose the energy efficiency of their office buildings when they either sell or lease space that is larger than 21,530 square feet (2,000 square meters). (Ratings are based on the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (“NABERS”), which is on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, and Australia’s current median market performance stands at 2.5 stars). I think this is also important to note because, in the aftermath of the 2010 USGBC Legal Forum at Greenbuild, we pointed to building performance reporting requirements as a trend that will likely increase in 2011.

Finally, I thought Bunn’s remarks were also timely given the recent release of the International Green Construction Code for a second round of public comments in light of the types of green building practices that could soon become mandatory as part of building codes throughout the U.S. We’ll have more thoughts on the IGCC and what it means for the future of local-level green building programs in an upcoming article here at GRELJ.

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.

I was also surprised to note that only one of the deals was for space in an Energy Star-rated building; this could, of course, be purely a function of the market – timing, space requirements, etc. – but thought it was worth pointing out. The fact that an increasing number of commercial real estate transactions are taking place in buildings that have earned (or are pursuing) third-party certification emphasizes the import of many of the risk management issues that we continue to discuss here at GRELJ. Here’s the list, with other pertinent information of interest following where appropriate:

#5: 200 Park Avenue (Not pursuing any third-party certification but notable because the tenant originally intended to take space in Boston Properties’ LEED Gold-hopeful, credit crisis casualty 250 West 55th Street, which remains on hold).

Terms: 261,847 square feet
Tenant: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Landlord: Tishman Speyer
Broker: CBRE
Submarket: Columbus Circle

#12: 1633 Broadway (Registered under LEED-EB: OM on June 19, 2009; also received 2009 Energy Star label).

Terms: 202,495 square feet, 15 years
Tenant: Showtime Networks Inc.
Landlord: Paramount Group
Broker: CBRE
Submarket: Times Square

#15: 1 World Trade Center (Pursuing Gold under LEED for New Construction).

Terms: 190,810 square feet
Tenant: China Center (only private tenant thus far to sign for space at Freedom Tower; will create business and culture center across 64th through 69th floors)
Landlord: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Broker: Jones Lang LaSalle
Submarket: World Trade Center

#16: 731 Lexington Avenue (Registered under LEED-EB: O&M in September of 2007).

Terms: 176,000 square feet (renewal and expansion; sublease from Citigroup)
Tenant: Bloomberg L.P.
Landlord: Vornado Realty Trust
Brokers: CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield
Submarket: Plaza District

#17: 1251 Avenue of the Americas (Registered under LEED-EB 2.0 in May of 2008).

Terms: 169,200 square feet (renewal)
Tenant: Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd. (looked at space in LEED Gold-certified 7 World Trade Center and LEED Gold-hopeful 11 Times Square before renewing)
Landlord: Mitsui Fudosan America
Brokers: CBRE, Newmark Knight Frank
Submarket: Plaza District

#18: 1271 Avenue of the Americas (Registered under LEED-EB 2.0 in May of 2008).

Terms: 166,094 square feet
Tenant: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Landlord: Rockefeller Group Development Corp.
Brokers: CBRE, Studley
Submarket: Plaza District

• ‘Renewal’ Year’s Magic Word (NYO)

21 of  the available LEED-CI 2009 points are available under the Sustainable Sites Credit Category (40-49 total points earn a project LEED Certified status, 50-59 Silver, 60-79 Gold, and 80-110 Platinum); points available on account of base building features are as follows:

• SS Credit 1: Site Selection. 1 to 5 points are available. In addition to earning 5 points for leasing space in a LEED-certified building, tenants can also earn up to 5 points for leasing space in non-LEED-certified buildings if they satisfy one or more of 12 compliance Paths, including brownfield redevelopment, stormwater runoff management, and light pollution reduction. Tenants will want to incorporate pointed questions within their RFP (i.e., is the building developed on a site documented as contaminated by an ASTM E1903-97 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment or a local voluntary cleanup program?) that tracks the specific language set forth in each of SS-1′s 12 Paths if the prospective building is not LEED-certified. Moreover, they will also want to perform sufficient due diligence to ensure that landlords are not giving them lip service with respect to their building’s LEED certification status; as we have noted frequently here at GRELJ, these types of misrepresentations (whether innocent or not) remain a persistent problem across the real estate industry.

• SS Credit 2: Development Density and Community Connectivity. 6 points are available under two different options. Option 1, Development Density, requires the tenant to select space in a building located in an area with a minimum density of 60,000 square feet per acre net. Option 2, Community Connectivity, requires that the building is (i) located within 1/2-mile of a residential area or neighborhood with an average density of 10 units per acre net; ii within 1/2 mile of at least 10 basic services (as described within SS-2); and (iii) offers pedestrian access between the building and the services.

• SS Credit 3.1: Alternative Transportation – Public Transportation Access. Again, 6 points are available under two different options. Option 1, Rail Station Proximity, requires the building to be within a 1/2 mile walking distance of an existing (or planned or funded) commuter rail, light rail, or subway station. Option 2, Bus Stop Proximity, requires the building to be within 1/4-mile walking distance of 1 more stops for 2 or more public campus or private bus lines that the tenant’s employees or occupants can utilize.

• SS Credit 3.2: Alternative Transportation – Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms. 2 points are available. In order to earn these points, the base building must provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage within 200 yards of a main entrance for 5 percent or more of the tenant’s employees or occupants as measured at peak periods. In addition, the base building must also provide shower and changing facilities in the building or, again, within 200 yards of a main entrance, for 0.5 percent of occupants.

• SS Credit 3.3: Alternative Transportation – Parking Availability. 2 points are available. For projects with an area less than 75 percent of the total base building area, the parking spaces provided to the tenant must meet – but not exceed – the minimum number required by local legislation, and preferred parking must be provided for carpools or vanpools capable of serving 5 percent or more of tenant occupants. Alternatively, the base building must not provide or subsidize any parking for tenant occupants. (Note that the text of LEED-CI suggests tenants include “limited parking” provisions in their leases as a potential strategy for achieving SS-3.3). For projects with an area greater than 75 percent of the total building area, parking capacity must meet – but not exceed – the minimum required by local legislation and preferred parking must be provided for carpools or vanpools capable of serving 5 percent of the base building’s total occupants. Alternatively, no new parking can be added for rehabilitation projects and preferred parking must be provided for carpools or vanpools capable of serving 5 percent of the base building’s total occupants.

USGBC’s Green Office Guide suggests that these considerations, among others that relate more specifically to the prospective tenant space that the base building is offering, be built into a questionnaire which the tenant – or its broker – should forward to the building’s property manager or leasing agent in advance of – or as a part of – the RFP process. In addition, tenants should also request – to the extent the building will make the data available – information that will allow it to assess the base building’s ability to earn 5 points from the 12 Paths under SS-1 (i.e., does the building meet the 30 reduction in water use requirement for the entire building under Path 10 for 1 point, or does it employ on-site renewable energy systems under Path 11 for up to 2 points?)

The significant number of points available under the Sustainable Sites category that are purely a function of the base building make the RFP process – and working concurrently with knowledgeable brokers and counsel – an imperative for tenants who intend to seek Commercial Interiors certification under LEED 2009.

First, although Michael Brooks of REALpac (who participated in last month’s green leasing panel at the Urban Green Expo here in New York City) is quoted in one of the articles, it is not clear that Mr. Malbranck’s lease is derived from any of the forms which were discussed during that panel, including REALpac’s, the Model Green Lease, or the BOMA Green Lease Guide. As Mr. Brooks notes, “it’s impossible to say how many commercial buildings in Canada are using green leases because no one, including REALpac, tracks that at the moment.” It’s certainly a relatively small number, but as an increasing number of landlords attempt to implement green leasing practices, questions about the uniformity of green lease provisions could become an issue. I’m also intrigued about the idea of tracking green leases and whether any other organizations have attempted to do so (none have, to my knowledge).

In terms of other landlords applying similar blanket green lease requirements across available space in their buildings, I thought it was interesting to note that Mr. Malbranck admits that “a number of leasing agents and prospective tenants have inquired about the space, but backed off when they found out about the green leases. ‘They didn’t come right out and say it, but you got the sense it was an issue with them.’” However, the lone tenant that has signed up to date with Mr. Malbranck was attracted by the green lease concept; the owner of Lux for Sprouts, a children’s clothing and toy store, states that she specifically selected 4100 square feet of space on the first floor based on (1) the image that occupancy in a green building should create for her company; and (2) her belief that green buildings make it easier to attract and retain employees. Here, I would suggest again the importance for landlords to closely scrutinize broad, aspirational representations in green leases about green building benefits or performance, particularly if such representations are overstated or ultimately unrealized by tenants.

I was also reminded of Mr. Brooks’ remarks on our panel about enforcement of green lease provisions; although the articles reporting on 1735 Corydon Avenue did not get into this level of detail, I do think it’s worth repeating what Mr. Brooks noted about green leasing practices in Australia (where he had 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). If more landlords apply mandatory blanket green leases, it will be curious to see what types of specific enforcement mechanisms (if any) are included in those documents. Given that Mr. Malbranck has only signed up a single tenant, I would be surprised if he ultimately exercised any right to terminate based on the breach of any green lease provisions, but the fact that potential tenants have balked at his requirements may suggest that such enforcement mechanisms are included in the scope of his green lease.

Finally, I also think that 1735 Corydon Avenue suggests it’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that, eventually, the LEED system (or some other third-party green building rating system) will require owners to exclusively negotiate and execute green leases in order to earn certification, whether as an individual credit, for example, under LEED’s New Construction or Core and Shell rating systems, or perhaps even as a mandatory Minimum Program Requirement that serves as a prerequisite to formal LEED certification. For example, USGBC recently released its Green Office Guide: Integrating LEED Into Your Leasing Process and, although I have yet to review it, it’s clear that USGBC is beginning to pay closer attention to the intersection of green leasing and LEED.

We’ll try to flesh out more details about 1735 Corydon Avenue and follow up here at GRELJ as appropriate.

• Green Leases Give Building Manitoba First (Winnipeg Sun)
• Green Leases Seen as Wave of Future (Winnipeg Free Press)

Although the study concluded that these 19 green buildings were consuming (on average) 40 percent more energy than predicted, all of the buildings were consuming less than a building designed to Massachusetts baseline building codes. The disparity in predicted versus actual energy consumption is probably not surprising, but the study did identify a number of issues common across the buildings which resonate with many of the technical and operational provisions of documents like the Model Green Lease. I think it is therefore worthwhile to review the study both from a green leasing perspective, but also in terms of LEED, particularly because the Lowell study has not been referenced in many of the recent articles discussing the ongoing LEED performance gap.

Among other factors, the study identified the following as accounting for the disparity in predicted versus actual performance:

• The predictive energy models used during the design phase were created based on the incremental amounts of projected energy savings from each of the proposed systems and efficiency measures which, according to the energy modelers interviewed for the study, did not account for the building’s performance in its entirety once those systems were installed and operational;

• By nature, predictive energy modeling does not account for the behavior of building operators and occupants with respect to their use of plug loads, occupancy levels, and operating hours (but note the importance of green leasing practices in this context);

• Design and materials changes during the construction phase on account of budget constraints (which emphasizes the need for ongoing construction counsel); and

• Some of the buildings suffered from increased energy consumption during the initial months of occupancy due to incompletely installed or commissioned systems, which the study concluded stemmed from contractors who incorrectly set the systems initially, as well as occupants who did not understand how to use the systems.

In addition to suggesting that these specific design and construction factors may impact green building performance, I think it is also important to note that the authors identified a “frustration” in stakeholders over the observed energy performance gulf. The study suggests that the gap be bridged through “communicating uncertainties in design predictions” and “better training in the use of the technologies in the buildings;” the former is a marketing and construction contracts issue which we’ve frequently discussed in the context of LEED, while the latter can be addressed through the use of various types of green lease provisions.

Although the study itself is somewhat dated, I do think that it emphasizes two important points. First, LEED building performance has been a question mark for quite some time, and will likely remain a critical issue for the foreseeable future, particularly while industry stakeholders continue to grapple with addressing the foregoing building performance factors through risk management strategies, construction contracts, and green lease provisions. Second, it confirms the unpredictable nature of energy modeling and importance for project teams to manage their clients’ expectations when discussing the opportunities presented by green building and other sustainable construction practices.

• Barrientos, J., U. Bhattacharjee, T. Martinez, and J. Duffy, 2007, “Green Buildings in Massachusetts: Comparison between Actual and Predicted Energy Performance,” Proceedings Annual Meeting American Solar Energy Society

For example, at his presentation at last year’s Greenbuild in Boston, Alan Whitson proposed language whereby a landlord “shall 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.” As we’ve done previously here at GRELJ with respect to construction agreements, let’s assume for a moment that the Building- perhaps through no fault of the landlord- does not perform at the level suggested by this form language. Is the landlord at risk for a claim by the tenant that it breached this roadmap provision, which will likely sit in a very conspicuous location at the very front of the lease, by failing to “operate and maintain” the building as required by the lease? Perhaps. I think that the point here is, once again, that form language in green leases can be just as dangerous as form language in construction agreements, and both landlords and tenants should guide themselves in the green lease context accordingly. We’ll have much more to say on specific green lease provisions as we continue to move forward through our Green Leasing Series here at GRELJ.

Just as an interesting side note, the BOMA Model Green Lease does not include any similar environmental performance objective language in either the preamble to the lease or in the body of the lease itself.

First, in the MPR preamble, the LEED v3 program expressly provides GBCI with the ability to revoke LEED certification “upon gaining knowledge of non-compliance with any applicable MPRs.” It is thus crucial that project teams consider and comply with each MPR, particularly if the project seeks to take advantage of a state- or local-level LEED-driven incentive program that is keyed to the receipt of formal certification. While we have yet to see LEED-certified project have its certification revoked, an interesting question could arise here if a state or local government that had provided a project with an incentive upon certification sough to recoup those incentives if the project was de-certified by GBCI. Even thornier would be the scenario where a project that was required to earn certification under a legislative mandate loses certification. The corresponding liability-related issues would of course flow downstream and impact each member of the project team. MPR 1 actually obligates every LEED-hopeful project to “be designed to comply with all applicable USA federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations in place where the project is located and at the time of design and construction.” Comprehensive legislative surveys and strong contract language emphasizing regulatory compliance will thus be a priority for project teams under the LEED v3 regime.

From a legal perspective, MPR 7 is perhaps the most important to consider: “all certified projects must commit to allow USGBC to access all available actual whole-project energy and water usage data in the future for research purposes.” Moreover, “[t]his commitment must carry forward if the building changes ownership.” For attorneys, it will be an interesting challenge to draft such a covenant that will bind subsequent purchases of real property (or, in the context of LEED-CS and LEED-CI 2009 MPRs, subsequent tenants). For owners and project teams, it will be imperative to recognize that such language must be translated into purchase agreements or leasing documents such that GBCI cannot revoke a project’s LEED certification. More generally, it will be interesting to see if any private owners balk at granting USGBC access to such data, and whether there are any local legal obstacles (in terms of building codes, utility regulations, etc.) that may make it difficult for owners to provide the data as required by LEED v3.

Applicable MPRs are set forth below as printed in the text of the New Construction and Major Renovations rating system. Note that I have also set forth MPR 6 below, which lays out certain timeframes that project teams should remain aware of. I anticipate that there will be much more analysis of these and other provisions in LEED v3 as more project teams become familiar with the terms and scope of the program; please feel free to suggest any additional legal issues that we may have missed in the comments below.

Minimum Program Requirements (“MPRs”) – LEED 2009 – New Construction and Major Renovations

• LEED Version 3 (USGBC)