Ebook - (Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology) Brenden Forester-Green Buildings in The U.S. and China - Development and Policy Comparisons-Nova Science Pub Inc (2015) PDF

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
GREEN BUILDINGS IN THE

U.S. AND CHINA
DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY
COMPARISONS
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the Series tab.
Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the e-book tab.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
GREEN BUILDINGS IN THE

U.S. AND CHINA
DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY
COMPARISONS
BRENDEN FORESTER
EDITOR
New York
Copyright © 2015 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape,
mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the
Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or
omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection
with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable
for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from
the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on
government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent
applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any
injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products,
instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard
to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the
Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought.
FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A
COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF
PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: (eBook)
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS
Preface vii
Chapter 1 Comparative Policy Study for Green Buildings
in U.S. and China 1
Nina Khanna, John Romankiewicz, Wei Feng,
Nan Zhou and Qing Ye
Chapter 2 China and the United States — A Comparison
of Green Energy Programs and Policies 93
Richard J. Campbell
Index 131
PREFACE
One of the most exciting new trends in water quality management today is
the movement by many cities, counties, states, and private-sector developers
toward the increased use of Low Impact Development (LID) to help protect
and restore water quality. LID comprises a set of approaches and practices that
are designed to reduce runoff of water and pollutants from the site at which
they are generated. By means of infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse of
rainwater, LID techniques manage water and water pollutants at the source and
thereby prevent or reduce the impact of development on rivers, streams, lakes,
coastal waters, and ground water. This book summarizes 17 case studies of
developments that include Low Impact Development (LID) practices and
concludes that applying LID techniques can reduce project costs and improve
environmental performance. This book also compares green energy programs
and policies in China and the United States.
Chapter 1 - Buildings are the largest energy end-use sector in the U.S. and
a rapidly growing energy end-use sector in China. Energy consumption in
residential and commercial buildings accounted for over 40% of primary
energy use in the U.S. in 2012 and over 25% in China in 2011. With the
growing emphasis that each country is placing on energy efficiency and
climate change, green building has moved into the spotlight and gained the
attention of architects, developers, and occupants in recent years. Much of the
green building sector activity has centered on labeling programs, such as the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the U.S. and the
Green Building Rating System in China.
In order to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and curb growth in
the sector’s total energy consumption, the U.S. and China have adopted a
multitude of policy instruments including building energy efficiency codes and
standards, building energy rating systems and labels, and financial incentives.
viii Brenden Forester
This report reviews and compares the development of green buildings in

the U.S. and China in terms of the specific green building evaluation systems
and their supporting technology standards, policy support, and future market
development prospects. The first section provides an overview of building
energy consumption and the role that green buildings can play in the U.S. and
China, including some historical context for how the green building industry
developed. The second section goes into detail on the U.S. LEED and China
Green Building Rating and Labeling Systems, how the certification processes
work, how credits and scores are assigned, and how the U.S. and China
systems differ in rating method and program administration. A third section
begins by providing an overview of the barriers to a growing green building
industry and some of the common policy mechanisms being used to overcome
those barriers, including codes and labeling plans, government-led targets and
demonstrations, education and awareness programs, fiscal policy (incentives
and tax policy), and integrated design promotion. Then, examples of each of
these efforts are described for both the U.S. and China followed by a brief
comparison. The report concludes by describing the green building market
development to date in the U.S. and China, with some highlights and statistics
from recent years to illustrate how the momentum of the industry is
accelerating.
Chapter 2 - China is the world’s most populous country with
approximately 1.4 billion people. It has experienced tremendous economic
growth over the last three decades with an average annual increase in gross
domestic product (GDP) of 9.8% during that period. This has led to an
increasing demand for energy, spurring China to more than double its electric
power generating capacity in each of the last three decades, growing from 66
GigaWatts (GW) installed in 1980 to 1,100 GW installed as of 2011. Coal
currently fuels about 66% of China’s electricity generation. However, the
reduction of air pollution (caused in part by the burning of coal for electric
power) has become a major public policy focus in China.
China has set ambitious targets for developing its renewable energy
resources with a major push of laws, policies, and incentives in the last few
years. The wind power sector is illustrative of China’s accomplishments, as
installed wind power capacity has gone from 0.567 GW in 2003 to 91 GW in
2013; China surpassed the United States in 2010 with over 41 GW of installed
wind power capacity. Notably, however, approximately 18% of that capacity
was not yet connected to the power grid in 2013. Plans already exist to grow
China’s wind power capacity to 200 GW by 2020. A similar goal exists for the
solar photovoltaic (PV) power sector. Installed solar PV capacity rose from
Preface ix
0.14 GW as of 2009 to over 19 GW in 2013, with goals reported for 50 GW of

solar PV capacity by 2020. Also, a hold on large- and medium-scale
hydropower project development has been lifted, with a virtual doubling of
hydropower capacity from approximately 200 GW of capacity to 380 GW
planned by 2020. The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) encompassing the years 2011
to 2015 has further formalized the link to green energy with specific
deployment goals and investment. China recognizes that developing its
domestic renewable energy industry and building its manufacturing capacity
will help it meet energy demands at home and potentially win advantages in
future export markets.
The key piece of legislation in recent years for advancing renewable
electricity in China is the Renewable Energy Law of 2005. The law was
designed to “promote the development and utilization of renewable energy,
improve the energy structure, diversify energy supplies, safeguard energy
security, protect the environment, and realize the sustainable development of
the economy and society.” Renewable energy is subsidized by a fee charged to
all electricity users in China of about 0.029 cents per kiloWatt-hour, and was
originally based on the incremental cost difference between coal and
renewable energy power generation. However, energy efficiency and
conservation are officially China’s top energy priority. These are considered
the “low-hanging fruit” in the quest to reduce energy use and cut demand.
Energy conservation investment projects have priority over energy
development projects under the Energy Conservation Law of 1997, with
government-financed projects being selected on “technological, economic and
environmental comparisons and validations of the projects.” China is the
world’s largest market for new construction, and new building standards have
been in development since 2005 with national energy design criteria for
residential buildings. In the power generation sector, many smaller, less
efficient coal-fired power plants have been closed. The 11th FYP targeted a
20% overall reduction in the energy intensity (i.e., energy consumption per
unit of GDP) of the economy. The 12th FYP builds upon this goal, aiming to
reduce energy intensity an additional 16% by 2015.
In contrast to China, some argue that the United States does not have a
comprehensive national policy in place for promotion of renewable energy
technologies, with some observers saying that the higher costs of renewable
electricity are not conducive to market adoption. However, for both countries,
the reasons for increasing the use of renewable energy are diverse, and include
energy security, energy independence, cleaner air, and more recently
anthropogenic climate change, sustainability, and economic development.
In: Green Buildings in the U.S. and China ISBN: 978-1-63463-641-4
Editor: Brenden Forester © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
COMPARATIVE POLICY STUDY FOR

GREEN BUILDINGS IN U.S. AND CHINA*
Nina Khanna, John Romankiewicz, Wei Feng,

Nan Zhou and Qing Ye
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Buildings are the largest energy end-use sector in the U.S. and a rapidly
growing energy end-use sector in China. Energy consumption in residential
and commercial buildings accounted for over 40% of primary energy use in
the U.S. in 2012 and over 25% in China in 2011. With the growing emphasis
that each country is placing on energy efficiency and climate change, green
building has moved into the spotlight and gained the attention of architects,
developers, and occupants in recent years. Much of the green building sector
activity has centered on labeling programs, such as the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) in the U.S. and the Green Building Rating
System in China.
LEED was established by the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-
governmental body. A separate entity, the Green Building Certification
Institute, was set up as a third party to handle all professional credentialing and
project certification for LEED. China’s programs, however, are administered
*
This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a report, LBNL-6609E, issued by the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, April 2014.
2 Nina Khanna, John Romankiewicz, Wei Feng et al.
by central and provincial government agencies, specifically the Ministry of

Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD)’s Building Energy
Efficiency and Technology Division. This key difference in the types of
participating stakeholders between the two green building labeling programs is
a key area of divergence.
The first version of LEED’s rating system LEED 1.0 was launched in
1998, followed by an updated 2.0 version with the LEED certified, silver,
gold, and platinum levels of rating in 2000. As of October 2013, 19,416
projects have received LEED certification globally, with 17,270 of those
projects based in the U.S. In China, the Green Building Evaluation Standard
was launched in 2006, followed by the Green Building Energy Label (GBEL)
in 2007. Given that it had a later start, only 494 projects have been certified
with GBEL as of August 2012. Updated versions of both LEED and GBEL are
expected in 2014.
LEED has nine rating systems, with new construction, existing building
operations, commercial interiors, and core & shell being the most commonly
used systems. The other rating systems distinguish between specific
commercial building types (e.g., hotels, schools, retail, healthcare), homes and
most recently, neighborhoods. LEED has four certification levels: certified,
silver, gold, and platinum. For existing buildings seeking the operation and
maintenance LEED certification, operating data and documentation for a
minimum of three months (longer time period needed for certain requirements)
are needed. The building must be recertified at least once every five years or
the operational and maintenance LEED certification will expire.
China has separate rating systems for residential and commercial
buildings, but does not have specific rating systems for different commercial
building types. The GBEL has separate labels for design and operations, which
are valid for two and three years, respectively. While operational energy
consumption data is not directly required for the operational label, the rating
accounts for quality control during construction among other considerations,
and the design certified green building has to have been in operation for at
least one year before it can apply for the first time. China’s rating system is
from 1 to 3 stars, with the 3 stars rating reserved for the best performing green
buildings.
Both LEED and GBEL have six categories of rating criteria, five of which
they share in common: land, energy, water, resource/material efficiency, and
indoor environmental quality. The sixth category in China is operational
management, whereas innovation & design as well as regional priority make
up the sixth category in the U.S. The weighting for the criteria is evenly spread
Comparative Policy Study for Green Buildings in U.S. and China 3
for GBEL, but more heavily weighted on land and energy for LEED, as shown
in Figure ES1. Another key difference between LEED and the GBEL is in how
a building’s specific rating level is determined. Under China’s GBEL, the final
rating is determined by meeting the minimum rating or credits within each
category, whereas a LEED rating is determined by the total points summed
over all categories.
In addition to differences in the rating systems used for green building, the
U.S. and China green building industries have different policy landscapes.
Before understanding some of the different policies that each country uses to
promote green building, it is important to have an overview of the barriers that
green building faces, including institutional, regulatory, financial,
informational, and risk barriers.
Prominent barriers facing the U.S. green building industry include the fact
that government bodies that supervise health, fire safety, land, and other public
operations are slow to revise codes to accommodate green building (regulatory
barrier). Green buildings generally cost more to design and build due to
greater system integration and the need for more building controls and
measurement points. This higher upfront cost is often a big financial and risk
barrier for architectural and design firms to do an integrated design for a new
green building. The building industry also has many established practices that
discourage various stakeholders from trying new or different approaches.
Subcontractors in the construction process often view green technology as
inherently risky and therefore worry about the liability of installing such
technologies in projects they are ultimately responsible for.
In China, the lack of a green building professional accreditation process
similar to the LEED AP process limits the green building workforce capacity
development (informational barrier). While there are a growing number of
institutes of building research around the country, good education on green
design is not yet widespread among university architecture and engineering
programs. Second, financial barriers are perhaps even more pronounced in
China than in the U.S. since the industry is in an earlier phase of development.
Developers cite higher incremental cost as one of the biggest barriers to
investment in green buildings. Lastly, more oversight is needed in the green
building industry in China to improve the quality of construction (such that it
follows design requirements) and building materials (such that they perform as
claimed).
Figure ES1. Comparison of China's Green Building and LEED Rating Criteria and
Weight Factors.
Table ES1. U.S. and China green building policy comparison
Policy U.S. China

Codes and Codes: States implement Codes: National level
labeling plan codes largely based off of building efficiency codes for
codes developed by residential and commercial
professional societies, buildings, compliance occurs
compliance levels vary at design stage
widely Labeling: GBEL system
Labeling: LEED system established in 2007 with
established in 2000 is popular uptake slow at first but now
and growing steadily, growing more rapidly,
requirements updated update for GBEL expected in
regularly (LEED v4 was 2014
released in Nov. 2013)
Government-led Municipal and federal level 12th Five Year Plans has
targets and LEED building mandates requirements that 80% of
demonstrations helped galvanize early LEED new large commercial
activity buildings will need to have
GBEL rating; many cities
have more aggressive targets
Education and LEED education and GBEL process is entirely
awareness professional development key government driven, with
programs to success; LEED committee missed opportunities to
leads come from industry and involve other stakeholders;
Policy U.S. China

professional societies workforce development and
improving quality, education is lacking
applicability, and popularity
of LEED standards
Fiscal policy Grants and tax credits Tiered incentives available
available at local level; for 2-star and 3-star GBEL
evidence of rent and sale buildings; higher upfront cost
price premiums for LEED of green buildings remains a
buildings barrier
Integrated Early promotion and None
design integrated design incentives
promotion available in California
The main policies highlighted in this report to tackle these barriers are 1)
comprehensive codes and labeling plan (informational, institutional), 2)
government-led targets and demonstrations (risk), 3) education and awareness
programs (informational), 4) fiscal policy that supports green building
investment (financial), and 5) integrated design promotion (institutional,
financial). Table ES1 summarizes the performance of U.S. and China in each
of these policy areas.
If a country updates its codes and labeling programs as technology costs
fall and practice adoption improves over time and if these programs have good
enforcement and compliance, then these policies will help “pull” more green
construction practices into the building industry. Both the U.S. and China have
comprehensive codes and labeling systems, with improvements to be made in
how the programs are enforced and potentially more integrated planning for
how the stringency of codes and labeling requirements can increase over time.
The recent green building action plan released in China encouraged regional
level implementation of codes that are stricter than national codes as well as
regular and scientifically reasonable increases in the stringency of existing
codes.
In the realm of government-led targets and demonstrations, this seems to
be an area where the U.S. and China share some common ground. In the U.S.,
federal and state government agencies were early adopters of LEED standards,
accounting for over 40% of LEED certifications in the early years of the
program. Gradually, their adoption led to a larger market transformation (more
experienced architects and builders, lower costs, fewer barriers) so that green
building practices could be adopted more widely. Now, there are 14 federal
agencies or departments, 30 state governments, and 400+ local governments
with LEED initiatives. And indeed, LEED has grown much faster in the past
four years than in the previous eight years. China is embarking on a similar
approach in its 12th Five Year Plan, requiring the GBEL for 80% of all new
commercial buildings, hoping that this government-led approach will stimulate
activity in the wide market.
Although their approaches to government-led targets are similar,
approaches to fiscal policy that supports green building investment differ
between U.S. and China. In the U.S., small grants and property tax credits are
used to spur LEED activity, while in China, incentives are offered on a per
square meter basis to get developers interested in designing and constructing
2-star and 3-star buildings. Yet, this difference in approach may be due to the
fact that first-cost premiums are much more of a barrier for the younger
Chinese industry, whereas in the U.S., although cost premiums exist, evidence
for higher rental and sale prices of LEED-certified buildings is accumulating
quickly. LEED certified buildings can get anywhere from 5-17% higher rents
and from 11-25% higher sales prices, according to one meta-analysis of
several studies (Watson, 2011).
Figure ES3. Percentage of commercial floorspace certified by LEED or GBEL, with

projection for China.
Education and awareness levels on green building practices also vary

between the U.S. and China. The USGBC’s larger programmatic efforts in
education and professional development for LEED were key to LEED’s
increasing popularity over the years. Additionally, committee leads for LEED
requirement development and revisions are largely from industry (developers,
building materials, professional societies), which keeps the LEED
requirements relevant and applicable to current best practices in the green
building industry. The GBEL rating development process in China is
government-driven, and perhaps, somewhat closed off from industry which
may be one reason for an initial slow uptake. More professional development
is needed to spur interest and abilities in using the GBEL rating system.
LEED 2.0 was launched in 2000, and about 13 years later, LEED-certified
space now accounts for 3% of commercial building space (Figure ES3). In
2013, there was more than 3.2 billion square feet (~293 million square meters)
of LEED certified floorspace globally, with 80% of that in the U.S. The 2
billion square feet mark was passed at some point in 2012, with the first one
billion of those square feet taking 9 years to accumulate, and the second billion
only taking 3 years to accumulate. Certainly, there was a phase change in the
U.S. green building industry growth rate once a critical mass of industry
experience had been accumulated.
In 2010, China is where the U.S. was in 2004, with only about 0.1% of
floorspace owning a GBEL rating, or 8 million square meters. It seems quite
ambitious that China aims to have 1 billion square meters of green building
floorspace by 2015. Figure ES3 projects what such growth would look like if
they were to meet that target. In 2010, only roughly 100 projects had been
certified and as of the end of 2012, more than 500 projects had been certified
so the industry is certainly gaining momentum. By 2013, 100 million square
meters have been certified with a GBEL rating. In addition to the ambitious
national target, Chongqing, Suzhou, Nanjing, Shenzhen, and other cities have
all set requirements for 2015 and 2020 to have GBEL ratings on anywhere
from 30-80% of new construction (varying by city). While China will have to
ride some of the industry learning curves even more quickly than the U.S,.
(and that would entail some policy improvements), China has the opportunity
to grow a green building industry even larger than that of the U.S.
1. INTRODUCTION
As the world’s two largest energy users and CO2 emitters, China and the
U.S. have placed increasing policy attention on energy efficiency. One focus
area has been the buildings sector, the largest energy end-user in the U.S. and
a rapidly growing end-user in China. The residential and commercial building
sectors consumed over 40% of total primary energy use in the U.S. in 2012,
while the residential and commercial building sectors consumed over 25% of
total primary energy use in China in 2011. Buildings in the U.S. consumed
63.3 Exajoules of total energy in 2011, with the residential sector accounting
for 55% of building sector energy use (EIA 2012). In China, the building
sector’s share of total energy consumption is expected to rise with recent
astounding growth in new building floorspace driven by urbanization and
sustained economic growth. Between 1990 and 2010, for example, more than
300 million new residents were added to Chinese cities while urban residential
floor space per capita has tripled from 9.6 square meters per person in 2000 to
20.3 square meters per person in 2008 (National Bureau of Statistics, 2009;
Tsinghua University Building Energy Research Center, 2011). At the same
time, building energy consumption in China increased sharply after 1990 with
total consumption more than doubling between 1980 and 2005. Buildings’
share of total energy consumption in China will likely continue to rise given
its relatively low share compared to other industrialized countries and its lower
average energy intensity compared to international levels.
In order to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and curb growth in
the sector’s total energy consumption, the U.S. and China have adopted a
multitude of policy instruments including building energy efficiency codes and
standards, building energy rating systems and labels, and financial incentives.
In the area of building energy efficiency codes, the U.S. does not have a
uniform national building energy code but the federal government has
developed national model energy codes and actively encouraged state
governments to adopt and implement codes at the local level. The national
model code forms a baseline by providing prescriptive requirements and/or
performance criteria for materials and equipment, while giving states the
flexibility to tailor the model codes to local conditions as long as it meets the
baseline requirements. The 2009 International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 serve as national model codes for
residential and commercial construction, respectively. In addition, the IECC
also provides compliance paths for commercial buildings outside of the
ASHRAE 90.1 standards. As of the end of 2011, 39 states had adopted

statewide residential and/or commercial building codes. China has three
residential building energy codes which cover four out of the five climate
zones. The residential building codes differ by climate zone and reflect the
initially iterative process of Chinese building code development, which
contrasts with the later centralized national code for commercial1 buildings.
All three design standards include a reduction target for heating energy
consumption relative to some baseline and apply to new residential
construction, residential building expansion or additions, and residential
building retrofit projects. China’s national building code for commercial
buildings went into effect in 2005 and covers lighting and HVAC energy use.
Building energy labeling and rating systems in the U.S. are characterized
by a diverse set of programs following a wide range of approaches, and
includes voluntary labels that have gained significant market share as well as
new labels introduced at the state or local level or in the pilot stage. The major
voluntary building labeling programs in the U.S. include the Home Energy
Rating System, ENERGY STAR for Homes and Department of Energy’s
Home Energy Score for residential buildings, and ENERGY STAR Buildings,
the Department of Energy’s Commercial Asset Score and ASHRAE Building
Energy Quotient programs for commercial buildings. The residential building
labeling or rating programs are primarily asset ratings based on the designed
building energy consumption, while the commercial building labeling
programs are based on actual operational energy consumption. In addition,
green building ratings and labels – with the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) developed and administered by the U.S. Green
Building Council as the mostly wide adopted system – have also had a
growing presence in the U.S. China has two relatively new whole building
energy labeling programs: the Green Building Evaluation and Labeling
(GBEL) Program and the Building Energy Efficiency Evaluation and Labeling
program, both of which were established by the Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) in 2008. The voluntary GBEL
program consists of a design and operational rating label, with ratings on a
scale of one to three stars based on energy efficiency, land use, water
efficiency, construction material resource efficiency, indoor environmental
quality, and operational management. The Building Energy Efficiency Label
(BEEL) evaluates buildings on a scale of one to five stars in terms of energy
efficiency, with a focus on HVAC system efficiency, compulsory standard
compliance, and optional building efficiency features. The two programs are
linked in that the BEEL is mandatory for buildings that apply for the GBEL
program.
Lastly, in support of both building codes and building energy labeling and
rating programs, both China and the U.S. have implemented a wide variety of
financial and tax incentives for improved building performance. In the U.S.,
important financial incentives have included equipment and building rating
incentives, homeowner discounts for ENERGY STAR homes, tax credits for
builders of highly efficient homes and homeowners for upgrading building
envelope components and equipment and tax deductions for new and existing
commercial building owners and tenants who reduce HVAC and interior light
use. In China, the Ministry of Finance and MOHURD have provided financial
incentives for: decreasing total energy consumption and retrofit and renewable
energy integration demonstration projects in existing government office and
large-scale commercial buildings, heating reform retrofits in Northern China
residential buildings, and high efficiency and renewable energy technologies
for all buildings.
Together, these three sets of policy tools have built a strong foundation for
improving the energy performance of new and existing buildings in China and
the U.S. Within this policy context, green buildings have emerged as an
important policy- and market-driven development in the building sector for
further pushing the limits of energy efficiency improvements, as well as
improving the broader environmental performance of buildings.
This report reviews and compares the development of green buildings in
the U.S. and China in terms of the specific green building evaluation systems
and their supporting technology standards, policy support, and future market
development prospects. Section 2 provides an overview of building energy
consumption and the role that green buildings can play in the U.S. and China,
including some historical context for how the green building industry
developed. Section 3 goes into detail on the U.S. LEED and China Green
Building Rating and Labeling Systems, how the certification processes work,
how credits and scores are assigned, and how the U.S. and China systems
differ in rating method and program administration. Section 4 begins by
providing an overview of the barriers to a growing green building industry and
some of the common policy mechanisms being used to overcome those
barriers, including codes and labeling plans, government-led targets and
demonstrations, education and awareness programs, fiscal policy (incentives
and tax policy), and integrated design promotion. Then, examples of each of
these efforts are described for both the U.S. and China followed by a brief
comparison. The report concludes with Section 5 which describes the green
building market development to date in the U.S. and China, with some
highlights and statistics from recent years to illustrate how the momentum of
the industry is accelerating.
2. OVERVIEW OF BUILDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

AND THE ROLE FOR GREEN BUILDINGS
In order to contextualize the development and future role of green

buildings in the U.S. and China, as well as the underlying factors for possible
differences in green building programs between the two countries, it is
important to understand each country’s building characteristics and energy
supply and consumption trends.
2.1. Building Characteristics and Energy Trends
2.1.1. U.S.
In the U.S. residential building sector, the vast majority of residential
building floorspace is located in urban areas (73%). In terms of climate, the
U.S. DOE divides the country into five main climate regions based on
temperature, precipitation and humidity: very cold/cold, mixed-humid, mixed-
dry/hot-dry, hot-humid, and marine. Almost two-thirds of households are
located in the very cold/cold (34%) and mixed-humid (31%) climate regions;
the remaining third is split between hot-humid (17%), mixed- dry/hot-dry
(12%), and marine (6%) climate regions. In all climate regions, at least 90% of
homes use space-heating equipment, and at least 75% of homes use air-
conditioning equipment except in the marine region where one-third of homes
use air conditioning. The main space heating fuel in U.S. households are
natural gas, which accounts for nearly half of all households, followed by
electricity with 34% of households, and fuel oil, propane/LPG and wood
accounting for the remaining 16% (EIA 2013a). As of 2009, the latest year for
which there is detailed national statistical data on residential buildings, about
63% of residents live in single-family detached houses, 25% in apartments,
6% in single-family attached houses, and 6% in mobile homes. In terms of
total residential floorspace, 80% are single-family detached houses, 11% are
apartments, 5% are single-family attached houses and 3% are mobile homes.
As a result of the large proportion of single-family houses, the majority of
residential floorspace are 1 or 2-story units, with only 3% of total residential

floorspace being located in units with 3 or more stories. Owner-occupied
homes account for 67% of housing units; the remaining 32% are rented. In
terms of building stock vintage, 40% of the total residential floorspace was
built before 1970, 27% was built between 1970 and 1989 and the remainder
33% built after 1990 (EIA 2013a).
In terms of residential energy consumption, residential space heating and
cooling together represented about 43% of residential primary energy use in
2010, with water heating accounting for 13% (EIA 2013b). Figure 1
summarizes residential energy consumption by end use. Natural gas is the
dominant fuel used for space heating (50%) and water heating (51%), followed
by electricity (34% and 41%, respectively), fuel oil (6% and 3%, respectively),
propane (5% and 4%, respectively), and wood (2% for space heating). In
recent decades, population growth has been greatest in the hot-humid, mixed-
humid, and mixed-dry/hot-dry regions, driving increased use of air
conditioning. The average delivered energy consumption per household is 108
GJ in 2010, with an average intensity of 701 MJ of delivered energy
consumption per square meter.
The total commercial building floorspace in the U.S. is more than 6.7
billion square meters, with an average commercial building size of
approximately 1,366 square meters in 2003, the latest year of reported national
statistical data on commercial buildings (EIA 2006). Nearly 73% of the 4.86
million commercial buildings in the U.S. are smaller than 929 square meters,
accounting for 20% of the overall commercial floorspace. Another 30% of
total commercial floorspace is made up of buildings of between 930 and 4645
square meters, followed by 40% of floorspace in buildings of between 4645
and 46,450 square meters. The largest buildings (46,450 square meters and
larger) account for over 10% of total commercial floorspace but less than 1%
of total number of commercial buildings. In terms of principal building
activity, office buildings (17%), retail (16%), education (14%) and warehouse
and storage facilities make up about half of total commercial floorspace. The
remaining half of commercial floorspace consists of hotels, service, religious,
healthcare, public space, restaurants and other commercial facilities. The
vintage of the commercial building stock is similar to the residential building,
with 37% built before 1970, 34% between 1970 and 1990, and 29% built after
1990 (EIA 2013b).
Source: EIA 2013b.
Figure 1. U.S. Residential Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.
The 2010 total primary energy consumption of the U.S. commercial sector
reached 19.3 exajoules (EIA 2013b). As seen in Figure 2 below, space heating,
cooling, and ventilation account for 32% of overall energy use followed by
lighting (17%), office equipment (8%), and refrigeration (7%). Other end uses
make up nearly one-third of commercial building energy use; most are
associated with business-specific activities that reflect different commercial-
sector end uses, including service station equipment, automated teller
machines, telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, pumps,
emergency generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings,
manufacturing performed in commercial buildings, and cooking. As with the
residential sector, natural gas is also the dominant fuel for space heating and
water heating in commercial buildings, but is second to electricity in terms of
the total delivered energy to commercial buildings. The average energy
intensity of commercial buildings in terms of total delivered energy is 1218
MJ per square meter, or 2549 MJ per square meter in terms of total energy
consumption including electricity-related losses (EIA 2013c).
2.1.2. China
In the absence of detailed national surveys of energy consumption in
residential and commercial buildings such as those conducted in the U.S., data
in China on both the characteristics of residential and commercial buildings
and their energy consumption data are very sparse and less detailed. Moreover,
because of China’s recent economic growth and urban housing reform that
only started in the 1980s, most of the Chinese residential and commercial
building stock is relatively new. From 1995 to 2005, the urban building stock
nearly tripled to 20 billion square meters, with residential building stock
accounting for 65% of the 2005 total. By the end of 2006, a majority – 65% -
of existing urban buildings were built within a span of 10 years (Liu et al.
2010). In terms of building structure, urban residential buildings are
predominantly multi-stories or high-rise buildings while rural residential
buildings tend to be smaller single-house units. Commercial buildings are also
multi-story, heavy-mass structures that are increasingly equipped with central
HVAC systems.
For energy, there is the likelihood that official statistics for Chinese
building energy consumption are underestimated because national energy
consumption statistics are recorded and reported for the sector in which the
consumption occurred, rather than by the purpose for which the energy was
used. For example, residential and commercial energy consumption by
buildings operated by enterprises is reported as industrial energy use, rather
than building energy use. As a result, the National Bureau of Statistics
reported primary energy consumption for buildings in 2008 was only 17% of
total energy consumption, with a more recent estimate of 20% of total primary
energy consumption by Tsinghua University and NBS (Shui and Li, 2012).
However, other sources have reported buildings’ share at 25% of total energy
consumption (~350 million tons of coal equivalent [Mtce2]) once sectoral
adjustments are made to capture the total energy consumption of all buildings
(National Bureau of Statistics, 2009; Zhou & Lin, 2008). Compared to the
shares of around 35% in industrialized countries, Chinese buildings’ share of
total energy consumption is still relatively low with more room to grow
(Kong, Lu, & Wu, 2011).
Source: EIA 2013b.
Figure 2. U.S. Commercial Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.

Source: Shui and Li, 2012.
Figure 3. 2008 Urban Residential Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.
In terms of energy consumption by end-use, the annual research report by

Tsinghua University’s Building Energy Efficiency Research Center reported
that over half of urban residential building energy consumption in 2008 was
used for heating and cooling, followed by cooking, hot water, lighting, and
appliances. Figure 3 shows the breakdown by end-use:
For commercial buildings, energy consumption differed significantly
between large-sized commercial buildings greater than 20,000 square meters
and common commercial buildings with less than 20,000 square meters, with
average energy intensities (excluding heating) of 90-200 kWh/m2 and 30-70
kWh/m2, respectively (Shui and Li, 2012).
2.2. Review of Green Buildings Development
2.2.1. U.S.
The development of green buildings in the U.S. can trace its roots back to
the oil crises of the 1970s, which stimulated a wave of new energy efficient
buildings. This was followed by the green design of office buildings for
environmental organizations including the Environmental Defense Fund and
National Resources Defense Council that considered a wider range of
environmental and resource benefits. The cooperation amongst different
building team members for the 1992 renovation of Audubon House for the
National Audubon Society later served as a working model for the national
green building process. In 1992, the establishment of the Committee on the
Environment by the American Institute of Architects also led to the creation of
a professional body on green building issues. Throughout the early 1990s,
green building efforts in the residential sector emerged across the country in
different cities including Austin, Texas; Baltimore, Maryland; Denver,
Colorado and the states of Washington and New Mexico.
The first highly publicized green building project in the U.S., and a
driving force for later federal green building efforts, was the “Greening of the
White House.” Architects, engineers, government officials and
environmentalists all participate in the renovation of a 600,000 square foot
historic office building across from the White House, which produced energy
cost savings of $300,000 per year and 845 tons of carbon emissions reductions
per year (Furr et al., 2009).
It was also during the 1990s that the major green building rating programs
were first introduced in the U.S., beginning with the founding of the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1993. Five years later, in 1998, the
USGBC launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) version 1.0 pilot program. The pilot version 1.0 of LEED was used by
the Federal Energy Management Program to evaluate 18 projects with total
floorspace of more than 1 million square feet (Furr et al., 2009). The USGBC
released a significantly improved LEED version 2.0 in 2000, including the
rating scale and four levels of building certification. Since 1994, LEED has
grown from one standard for new construction to nine interrelated rating
systems for new construction, existing buildings, core and shell, commercial
interiors, retail, homes, neighborhoods, schools and healthcare. LEED
committees, made up of architectural, engineering, design, and related
professionals, develop and update each LEED rating system using an open,
consensus-based process. The newest LEED rating system was introduced as
recent as November 2013, but is not considered in this report because details
were not released at the time of the report writing. As of October 2013, LEED
has certified 19,416 projects globally, including 17,270 projects in the U.S.
2.2.2. China
Similar to the U.S., China’s interest in green buildings also began in the
1990s with “research on Chinese green building system” listed as one of the
key funding areas of the National Science Foundation of China in the 9th Five-
Year Plan in 1996. The first attempt at developing a rating system was
“China’s Eco- house technical evaluation handbook” released in 2001 to help
improve the eco-efficiency of Chinese buildings. This set of guidelines applies

only to residential buildings and is based on site and residential environment,
energy and environment, indoor environmental quality, water environment,
and material and resource use (Geng et al. 2012). In 2002, a special Green
Building Assessment System for the Beijing Olympics was developed and
became China’s first local green building evaluation and certification system.
However, these early green building guidelines and assessment systems were
developed to target special building types and were not intended to serve as a
national rating system.
China’s national green building efforts began later than the U.S., starting
with the adoption of the voluntary Green Building Evaluation Standards
(GB/T 50378-2006) by MOHURD on June 1, 2006. The national Green
Building Evaluation Standard was established in 2006 with two different green
building evaluation standards for residential and commercial buildings. In
order to provide more specific guidance for the planning, design, construction
and management for green buildings, the Technical Code for Evaluating Green
Buildings was released in June 2007.This was followed by the issuance of the
“Administrative Rules for Green Building Evaluation Labeling” and
implementation guidelines in November 2007, which established the voluntary
Green Building Evaluation and Labeling Program. In addition to supporting
the national standard, the GBEL program is intended to accelerate the market
entry of environmentally sustainable green buildings from the top down and to
institutionalize green building evaluation as a common process in construction
project management.
In order to combine theoretical and engineering principles of green
buildings more effectively and to make the evaluation result more objective
and fair, the Supplementary Instruction of Technical Code for Evaluating
Green Buildings: Plan and Design and the Supplementary Instruction of
Technical Code for Evaluating Green Buildings: Operation and Management
were released in June 2008 and September 2009, respectively. From 2008 to
2011, the number of building projects certified and rated by the GBEL
program increased rapidly, from only 10 in 2008 to 20 in 2009, to 83 in 2010
and over 100 in 2011. The majority of projects were awarded the design label,
with slightly more awarded to commercial building projects than residential
building projects.
3. COMPARISON OF GREEN BUILDING

EVALUATION SYSTEMS
3.1. U.S. LEED
Development of the U.S. Leadership in Energy & Environment Design

(LEED) program of voluntary green building rating systems by the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) began as early as 1994, and was officially
launched in 2000 with the first rating system for new construction. Since then,
LEED has expanded into nine interrelated rating systems covering different
building types and has grown from a U.S. program into a program adopted
internationally by more than 140 countries and territories with the support of
partner Green Building Councils abroad.
3.1.1. Rating Systems

The nine LEED green building rating systems are (USGBC 2013a):
1. New Construction and Major Renovation: originally designed for

new commercial office buildings but is now applied to other building
types including libraries, churches, hotels and government buildings.
This rating system addresses design and construction activities
including HVAC improvements, significant envelope modifications
and major interior renovation, and also takes into consideration
sustainable operations and maintenance practices.
2. Existing Buildings: Operation & Maintenance: whole-building
rating system designed for single buildings of all building types,
including owner occupied and multitenant buildings. This rating
system addresses major aspects of building operations, including:
exterior building site maintenance programs, water and energy use,
environmentally preferred products and practices for cleaning and
alterations, sustainable purchasing policies, waste stream
management, and ongoing indoor environmental quality.
3. Core & Shell: designed to be complementary to Commercial Interiors
and Retail Commercial Interiors rating systems, the Core & Shell
rating system is intended for projects where developers can control
only the design and construction of the core and shell of the base
building and not the design construction of the tenant. Examples of
buildings covered by the Core & Shell rating system include medical
office buildings, retail centers, warehouses, and lab facilities.
4. Commercial Interiors: designed for tenants in commercial and
institutional buildings that lease their space or do not occupy the
entire building. This rating system is intended to be used by tenants
and designers that do not have control over whole building operation
but can control tenant improvements and interior renovations to
improve the indoor environment, and is complementary to the Core &
Shell rating system.
5. Schools: focuses on the design and construction of schools for
kindergarten through the 12th grade, but may be used by other
educational facilities such as universities, school athletic facilities.
This rating system is based on LEED for New Construction, but
focuses on aspects unique to schools including classroom acoustics,
master planning, mold prevention, and environmental site assessment.
6. Retail: New Construction & Major Renovation / Retail: Commercial
Interiors: designed to address unique characteristics of retail buildings
such as occupancy characteristics and hours of operation, parking and
transportation needs and different process water and energy
consumption. Two options of new construction & major renovation,
and commercial interiors are given to retail building projects under
this rating system.
7. Healthcare: designed to address the specific needs of inpatient and
outpatient medical care facilities and licensed long-term care
facilities, as well as medical offices, assisted living facilities, and
medical education and research centers. It modifies existing credits to
create new, healthcare-specific credits.
8. Homes: designed for single-family homes, low-rise multi-family (one
to three stories) and mid- rise multi-family (four to six stories)
buildings. This rating system is designed to certify homes via third-
party on-site performance testing and verification to reduce energy
and water consumption, maximize fresh air indoors and minimize
exposure to airborne toxins and pollutants.
9. Neighborhood Development: developed in collaboration with
Congress for the New Urbanism and Natural Resources Defense
Council, this rating system emphasizes principles of smart growth,
urbanism and green building for projects involving whole or portions
of neighborhoods and multiple neighborhoods. This rating system
promotes smart location and design of neighborhoods that reduce
vehicle miles traveled, and communities where jobs and services are
accessible by foot or public transit.
These nine LEED rating systems were developed in an open, consensus-

based process in three steps. First, volunteer committees, subcommittees and
working groups composed of USGBC members develop a rating system in
conjunction with USGBC staff. The draft rating system is then subject to
review and approval by the LEED Steering Committee and USGBC Board of
Directors. Lastly, the rating system has to be approved by a vote by the
USGBC membership. The current status of projects under each of these LEED
rating systems are shown in Table 1.
A total of more than 54,000 projects are currently participating in LEED
with a total of 10.1 billion square feet (938 million square meters) of
construction space. Of those, over 19,000 projects have been certified by
LEED at some level with a total of 3.2 billion square feet (293 million square
meters).
3.1.2. LEED Certification Process

The LEED certification process begins with the project participant
choosing a rating system to register for; in some cases, a project will need to
choose between multiple rating systems that the project may qualify for. The
next step is to register the project with the U.S. Green Building Certification
Institute (GBCI) online in the LEED Online website, allowing the project team
to access software tools and establish communication with the GBCI. The
GBCI administers the LEED certification program and is responsible for
performing independent, third-party technical reviews and verification of
LEED registered projects. Application materials can be uploaded online to the
LEED Online database. The project team must also pay the associated
registration fees, which are $1200 for non-members and $900 for LEED
members for most building types except homes.
Once the project has been registered in LEED Online, the next step is to
prepare the necessary documentation for the project application. In preparing
its application for certification, the project team must first identify LEED
credits to pursue and assign them to responsible team members. Each LEED
credit and prerequisite has specific documentation requirements that must be
met in the application process. The responsible team members will need to
collect information and perform calculations to demonstrate that the
prerequisites and the chosen credits have been met. All necessary
documentation will need to be uploaded to the LEED Online website and
submitted by the LEED Project Administrator as part of the application

submission process. Additional requirements to complete the application
submission include other general project information forms and the
certification review fees, which vary by rating system and review path. For
LEED New Construction & Major Renovation Rating system, the possible
review paths include a design application review only, a construction
application review only, or a combined review. Project teams that split their
reviews into a separate design review and a construction can help determine if
their project is on track to achieve the desired LEED certification. In the case
of LEED New Construction, the fee may be a fixed rate (e.g., $2250 for
USGBC members for buildings with less than 50,000 square feet applying for
the new building combined design and construction review) or per square
footage rate (e.g., $0.045 per square foot for USGBC members for buildings
with 50,000-500,000 square feet applying for the new building combined
design and construction review). For LEED for Existing Buildings, operating
data and documentation need to be submitted for a designated performance
period. For most prerequisites and credits, the performance period has to be a
minimum of 3 continuous months of operation. For the Energy and
Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1, a longer performance period of at
least 1 year is required. The LEED for Existing Buildings certification
application must also be submitted for review within 60 calendar days of the
end of the performance period.
Table 1. LEED Rating Systems and Projects to Date
Certified Registered
Date
LEED Rating System Projects to Projects to
Launched
date date
New Construction and Major 2000 9,200 18,800
Renovation
Existing Buildings: O&M 2004 2,500 6,400
Core & Shell 2006 1,300 4,500
Commercial Interiors 2004 3,800 4100
Schools 2007 600 1,400
Retail Nov. 2010 400 500
Healthcare 2011 2 200
Homes Feb. 2008 41,400 116,000
Neighborhoods April 2010 103
Source: USGBC 2013.
A formal application review is initiated once the completed application

has been received, with slightly different application review processes for each
rating system and review path. In general, a preliminary review is first
conducted in which all documentation are reviewed for completeness and
forms are designated as “approved” or “not approved” and each prerequisite
and credit is reviewed and designated as “anticipated,” “pending,” or “denied”
and accompanied with technical advice from the review team. Once the
preliminary review has been completed, the project team may either accept the
results of preliminary review as final or choose to submit a response to the
preliminary review with additional documentation for an optional final review
to be conducted. Once the final review process has concluded, the project team
can either accept or appeal the final decision within 25 days and with
additional appeal fees. If certified, the LEED certified project would receive a
formal certification of recognition, information on how to order additional
marketing material and have the option to have the project listed in the online
LEED project directory and the U.S. Department of Energy’s High
Performance Buildings Database. For the LEED for Existing Buildings
Operations and Maintenance rating, projects can apply for recertification as
frequent as every year but must be recertified at least once every five years.
3.1.3. Prerequisites and Credit System

The LEED certification and rating system is based on a scoring system of
up to 100 base points, with 10 additional bonus points possible for Innovation
in Design (or Operation) and Regional Priority credits.
The bonus points provide incentives for project teams to pursue innovative
strategies and/or address geographically specific environmental issues.
The different rating levels are defined as:
• Certified: 40-49 points

• Silver: 50 -59 points
• Gold: 60-79 points
• Platinum: 80 points and above
The number of points needed to achieve a specific LEED certification

rating is the same across rating systems, but the credit prerequisites and
categories for points vary by the rating system. The number of points awarded
for a specific credit (i.e., the credit weighting) is determined on the basis of the
relatively importance of the building-related environmental impact that a
specific credit addresses. In other words, credits with the greatest value are
those that most directly address the most important impacts to the building
category.
Two examples of credits for which building projects can receive a certain
number of points are given in Table 2 and Table 3 below. A summary of the
credit categories and possible points in each category is given for the current
LEED 2009 rating system for New Construction (effective April 1, 2013),
while a more detailed summary of each prerequisite and credit under the
current LEED 2009 rating system for Existing Building Operation and
Maintenance (effective July 1, 2013) is provided.
Table 2. Summary of LEED for New Construction Rating System

Credit Categories
Possible
Category Summary of Credits
Points
Sustainable 26 Construction activity pollution prevention
Sites (required)
Site selection, development density, brownfield
redevelopment, alternative transportation
Storm water, heat Island effect and light
pollution reduction
Water 10 Water-use reduction (required)
Efficiency Water-efficient landscaping
Innovative wastewater technologies
Energy and 35 Fundamental commissioning of building energy
Atmosphere systems (required)
Minimum energy performance (required)
Fundamental refrigerant management (required)
Optimized energy performance
On-site renewable energy and green power
Measurement and verification
Materials and 14 Storage and collection of recyclables (required)
Resources Building reuse
Construction waste management
Materials reuse and recycled content
Materials selection: regional, rapidly renewable,
certified wood
Indoor 15 Minimum indoor air quality performance
Environmental (required)
Quality Environmental tobacco smoke control (required)
Outdoor air delivery monitoring and increased
ventilation
Table 2. (Continued)
Possible
Category Summary of Credits
Points
Low-emitting materials and indoor chemical and
pollutant source control
Controllability of systems, thermal comfort, and
daylight and views
Innovation in 6 Innovation in design
Design LEED-accredited professional
Regional 4 Regional priority
Priority
Source: USGBC 2013b. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
Rating System. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.
Table 3. Detailed List of Credits for LEED for Existing Buildings

Operation and Maintenance Rating System
Credit Credit Points

Number Category Possible
Sustainable Cities Credits 26
1 LEED certified design & construction 4
2 Building exterior and hardscape management 1
plan
Integrated pest management, erosion control, and 1
3 landscape management plan
4 Alternative commuting transportation 3-15
5 Site development—protect or restore open 1
habitat
6 Stormwater quantity control 1
7.1 Heat island reduction - non-roof 1
7.2 Heat island reduction -– roof 1
8 Light pollution reduction 1
Water Efficiency Credits 14
Prerequisite Minimum indoor plumbing fixture and fitting Required
efficiency
1 Water performance measurement 1-2
2 Additional indoor plumbing fixture and fitting 1-5
efficiency
3 Water efficient landscaping 1-5
Credit Points
Credit Category
Number Possible
4.1 Cooling tower water management - chemical 1
management
4.2 Cooling tower water management - non-potable 1
water source use
Energy and Atmosphere Credits 35
Prerequisite 1 Energy efficiency best management practices - Required
planning, documentation, and opportunity
assessment
Prerequisite 2 Minimum energy efficiency performance Required
Prerequisite 3 Fundamental refrigerant management Required
1 Optimize energy efficiency performance 1-18
2.1 Existing building commissioning - investigation 2
and analysis
2.2 Existing building commissioning - 2
implementation
2.3 Existing building commissioning - ongoing 2
commissioning
3.1 Performance measurement - building automation 1
system
3.2 Performance measurement -system level 1-2
metering
4 On-site and off-site renewable energy 1-6
5 Enhanced refrigerant management 1
6 Emissions reduction reporting 1
Materials and Resources Credits 10
Prerequisite 1 Sustainable purchasing policy Required
Prerequisite 2 Solid waste management policy Required
1 Sustainable purchasing - ongoing consumables 1
2.1 Sustainable purchasing - electric-powered 1
equipment
2.2 Sustainable purchasing - furniture 1
3 Sustainable purchasing - facility alterations and 1
additions
4 Sustainable purchasing - reduced mercury in 1
lamps
5 Sustainable purchasing - food 1
6 Solid waste management - waste stream audit 1
Credit Points
Credit Category
Number Possible
7 Solid waste management - ongoing consumables 1
8 Solid waste management - durable goods 1
9 Solid waste management - facility alterations and 1
additions
Indoor Environmental Quality Credits 15
Prerequisite 1 Minimum indoor air quality performance Required
Prerequisite 2 Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control Required
Prerequisite 3 Green cleaning policy Required
1.1 Indoor air quality best management practices - 1
indoor air quality management program
outdoor air delivery monitoring
increased ventilation
reduced particulates in air distribution
indoor air quality management for facility
alterations and additions
2.1 Occupant comfort - occupant survey 1
2.2 Controllability of systems - lighting 1
2.3 Occupant comfort - thermal comfort monitoring 1
2.4 Daylight and views 1
3.1 Green cleaning - high performance cleaning 1
program
3.2 Green cleaning - custodial effectiveness 1
assessment
3.3 Green cleaning - purchase of sustainable cleaning 1
products and materials
3.4 Green cleaning - sustainable cleaning equipment 1
3.5 Green cleaning - indoor chemical and pollutant 1
source control
3.6 Green cleaning - indoor integrated pest 1
management
Innovation in Operations Credits 6
1 Innovation in operations 1-4
Credit Points
Credit Category
Number Possible
2 LEED accredited professional 1
3 Documenting sustainable building cost impacts 1
Regional Priority Credit 4
1 Regional priority 1-4
Source: USGBC 2013b. LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operations and
Maintenance Rating System. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.
For each credit, two or more options for fulfilling the credit requirements
are typically given in the rating system reference guide along with potential
technologies and strategies. As an example, for the LEED 2009 for New
Construction and Major Renovations Rating System, the options for earning
the alternative transportation – public transportation access credit are (USGBC
2013a):
• Option 1: Rail Station, Bus Rapid Transit Station & Ferry Terminal
Proximity: locate the project within ½ mile walking distance from one
of these terminals
• Option 2: Bus Stop Proximity: locate the project within ¼ mile
walking distance of 1 or more stops for 2 or more buses
• Option 3: Rideshare Proximity: projects outside of the U.S. may
locate it within ¼ mile walking distance of 1 or more stops for 2 or
more existing rideshare options
The potential technology and strategies for earning this credit would be to
conduct a transportation survey of future building occupants’ transportation
needs and to locate the project near mass transit.
3.1.4. U.S. LEED Building Case Studies
3.1.4.1. Betty Irene Moore Natural Sciences Building, Oakland,

California
The Betty Irene Moore Natural Sciences Building is an educational
building on the Mills College campus in Oakland, California with 26,000
square feet (2230 square meters) of total area. It was certified as a LEED
Platinum building under the LEED for New Construction version 2.1 rating
system in November 2007. Strategies that were incorporated into the
building’s design to achieve its LEED Platinum rating included solar
photovoltaic arrays, rainwater catchment and re-use, extensive daylighting,

under-floor air circulation, evaporative cooling and radiant floor heating. The
building’s energy efficient measures include indirect and direct evaporative
cooling systems for space cooling, low-energy displacement ventilation, a
metal roof with rigid continuous insulation and high-performance glazing.
Building energy use surpasses local building energy code Title 24
requirements by 43.3%, performs 89% better than a typical lab in the region in
terms of energy use, and has 61% overall water savings totaling 338,400
gallons per year (USGBC 2013d). The building achieved 53 out of the total 69
possible credits under the LEED for New Construction v2.1 rating system,
including:
• Sustainable Sites: 9 out of 14 points

• Water Efficiency: 4 out of 5 points
• Energy and Atmosphere: 15 out of 17 points
• Material and Resources: 6 out of 13 points
• Indoor Environmental Quality: 14 out of 15 points
• Innovation: 5 out of 5 points
3.1.4.2. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Chicago Regional

Headquarters, Chicago, Illinois
The FBI Chicago Field headquarters consists of three buildings (a 10-story
office building, a 2-level parking deck, and a connecting 1-story vehicular
annex facility) with total area of over 800,000 square feet (74,320 square
meters). In December 2008, it was awarded the first LEED Platinum
Certification under the LEED for Existing Buildings Operation and
Maintenance rating system. The building’s sustainability efforts include
exterior walls with 60% pre-cast concrete and high-performance, low-
emissive glass that provide a highly energy-efficient envelope and ample
exterior window areas for daylighting. Additional strategies used to earn
LEED credits include reduced site disturbance with 50% of the site area
landscaped with native and adapted sustainable plants without need for
fertilization, irrigation or maintenance, sub-metering of major energy systems
and continuous commissioning program, using sustainable products for 60%
of purchased products and a recycling program resulting in over 70% of waste
being diverted from the landfill. The facility also improved its ENERGY
STAR rating for energy consumption from 78 to 95, and reduced water use by
43%. Of the 91 credits offered in the earlier version of the LEED for Existing
Buildings Operation and Maintenance rating system, the FBI Field Office
campus achieved 74 credits, including (USGBC 2013e):
• Sustainable Sites: 8 out of 12 points

• Water Efficiency: 7 out of 10 points
• Energy and Atmosphere: 25 out of 30 points
• Material and Resources: 10 out of 14 points
• Indoor Environmental Quality: 17 out of 19 points
• Innovation: 7 out of 6 points
3.2. China’s Green Building Rating Standard
China’s voluntary Green Building Evaluation and Labeling program was

established in late 2007 following the development of the Green Building
Evaluation Standards (GB/T 50378-2006) by MOHURD and subsequent
management methods and technical guidelines (MOHURD, 2006; 2007;
2008). The national Green Building Evaluation Standard was established in
2006 with two different green building evaluation standards for residential and
commercial buildings. In addition to supporting the national standard, the
GBEL program is intended to accelerate the market entry of environmentally
sustainable green buildings from the top down and to institutionalize green
building evaluation as a common process in construction project. The
voluntary GBEL program consists of a Green Building Design Label (GBDL)
and the operational Green Building Label (GBL). Both labels utilize a three-
star rating system, with three- stars awarded to the highest rated green
buildings and one-star awarded to the lowest rated green buildings. There is an
initial application fee of 1000 yuan ($140) for the GBDL, with estimated
evaluation fees of 40,000 to 50,000 yuan ($5,700 to $7,100) (Mo, 2009).
3.2.1. Rating and Labeling Systems

The GBDL helps pre-certify a green building and rates the building design
according to the Green Building Evaluation Standard. The GBDL is valid for
two years and uses a rating system of one to three stars, with three stars being
the highest level for green buildings. The green building design evaluation
system is composed of three types of criteria for each of the six categories
being evaluated: mandatory elements that must be included in the building,
general elements, and preferred elements where one point is awarded for each
item that is included in the building design. For example, mandatory energy-
efficiency items for residential buildings include meeting energy-savings

standard requirements for heating and HVAC design and installing built-in
temperature controls and heat metering in buildings that have central heating
or air conditioning. General energy-efficiency items include the use of highly
efficient equipment, lighting, energy recovery units, and renewable energy
technologies such as solar water heaters, solar photovoltaics (PV), and ground-
source heat pump systems. Preferred items include more efficient heating and
air conditioning and greater renewable energy integration (MOHURD, 2007;
2008). This evaluation system is similar to LEED in that the mandatory
elements are essentially prerequisites, the general elements are the same as the
LEED non-prerequisite credit categories, and the preferred elements are
similar to LEED bonus credits that can be pursued to achieve a higher Two- or
Three-star rating. The preferred elements are also used in determining
qualification for the National Green Building Innovation Award, an award
presented to sustainable building projects, materials and products.
Figure 4 shows the key components of a GBDL certificate.
Figure 4. China Green Building Design Label.

The label star rating is determined by the minimum score for each of the
six components, not the total score; therefore, a building must meet a
minimum number of requirements in all six categories to qualify for a specific
rating (Mo, 2009). For example, as shown in Table 4, for a residential building
to achieve a Two-Star rating, it must meet all 27 of the mandatory
requirements, 5 of 8 of the performance items in the Land Use & Outdoor
Environment category, 3 out of 6 of the performance items in the Energy
Efficiency category, 4 out of 6 of the performance items in the Water
Efficiency category, 4 out of 7 of the performance items in the Resource
Efficiency category, 3 out of 6 of the performance items in the Indoor
Environment category, 5 out of 7 of the performance items in the Operational
Management category and 3 out of 9 of the Preferred Items. This arrangement
gives equal weight to all six categories and does not allow better performance
in one to offset poor performance in another. In essence, a Three-Star-rated
green building must excel in all six of the evaluation components, including
the preferred items. Table 4 and Table 5 show the minimum requirements and
rating evaluation systems for residential and commercial buildings,
respectively.
The operational GBL is a more comprehensive evaluation of pre-certified
Green Buildings than the GBDL as it also considers quality control during the
construction process. The GBL can only be awarded after a minimum of one
year of building operation and is valid for three years (Song, 2008). The GBL
assessment process also requires an on-site visit; documentation of
construction materials and their sources; property management plans for water,
energy, and material conservation; and itemized financial documents such as
bills of quantities (Zhang, 2011). However, reporting of actual operational
energy consumption is not required because the GBL focuses primarily on
building design and successful implementation of the design in the
construction process.
3.2.2. Program Management and Application Process

Within MOHURD, the GBEL program is administered by the Building
Energy Efficiency and Technology Division. Management responsibilities are
divided between offices within two primary institutions, the Office of Green
Building Label Management within the Center for Science and Technology of
Construction and the Green Building Research Development Center within the
Chinese Society for Urban Studies (Figure 5). The Office of Green Building
Label Management is authorized by the national government and has the
administrative authority to implement the GBEL program. It works closely
with the Green Building Development Research Center, which specializes and
provides technical support in researching and developing green building
standards and providing green building. The Green Building Development
Research Center may also provide technical consulting services to building
developers and owners who are interested in applying for the GBEL program.
Only these two national offices are authorized to approve Three-Star Building
Label rating applications while 21 local MOHURD offices are authorized to
approve One-Star and Two-Star Rating applications (Li, 2011). Figure 5
illustrates the Green Labeling Program management structure.
Table 4. Criteria for Green Building Design Label Rating Evaluation for
Residential Buildings
General Items
Mandatory Items
Preferred
Environmen
Environmen
Managemen
Land Use &
Operational
Included (27)
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Resource
Items
Outdoor
Energy
Indoor
Water
Rating
t
t
Level
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:

8 6 6 7 6 7 9
★ Yes 4 2 3 3 2 4 0
★★ Yes 5 3 4 4 3 5 3
★★★ Yes 6 4 5 5 4 6 5
Source: MOHURD 2007
Table 5. Criteria for Green Building Design Label Rating Evaluation for
Commercial Buildings
General Items
Mandatory Items
Environment
Environment
Management
Preferred
Land Use &
Operational
Included (27)
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Resource
Items
Outdoor
Energy
Indoor
Water
Rating
Level
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:

6 10 6 8 6 7 14
★ Yes 3 4 3 5 3 4 0
★★ Yes 4 6 4 6 4 5 6
★★★ Yes 5 8 5 7 5 6 10
Source: MOHURD 2007
Figure 5. Institutional Organization of Green Building Evaluation and Labeling

Program Management.
Source: Personal communication (Li, 2011).
Figure 6. Green Building Evaluation and Label Review Process.

Figure 6 shows the key steps in the green building labeling application
review process, which is managed by local MOHBURD offices for one- and
two-star building applications, and MOHURD Office of Green Building Label
Management for three-star applications. The review process begins with the
acceptance of an application and an initial review by the accepting agency (i.e.
local or national MOHURD offices) to determine whether the application
material and supporting documentation are adequate and complete. After this
initial review, the application material is forwarded to appointed experts or
qualifying office staff for a professional review of the details of the supporting
documentation. If the application passes both rounds of review, the Office of
Green Building Label Management will organize a meeting where experts
selected from a database of more than 400 individuals will review and evaluate
the application to determine the star rating (Li, 2011). The rating is then
reported to MOHURD, and the building is officially certified after a 30-day
public review process (Ye 2013). MOHURD will take into account any
objections raised during the public review process and make a final judgment
on whether to issue a GBL certification.
Although it is a national rating system, China’s GBEL offers some
provincial flexibility because local assessment and certification authorities
have the discretion to eliminate certain items in the standard that may not be
compatible with local geographic or climate conditions. For example,
Shenyang municipality requires all commercial buildings seeking the green
building certification to consider using a ground-source heat pump for heating
and provide justification if a ground-source heat pump cannot be used for a
particular project, but this requirement is not available or appropriate for other
regions (Geng et al. 2012). The rigidity in measurement may also differ from
province to province for One- and Two- Star building projects that are
reviewed at the sub-national MOHURD offices.
3.2.3. China Green Building Label Case Studies
3.2.3.1. Shenzhen Institute of Building Research Headquarters

The Shenzhen Institute of Building Research (IBR) headquarters building
was completed in March 2008 and has been recognized as one of the most
energy efficient new buildings in China. This large office building has total
floorspace of 180,000 square meters and was self-designed by the Shenzhen
IBR. The IBR headquarters building has received several awards for its high
energy efficiency and green features, including being certified as the highest
rated China Three Star Green Building as well as the most efficient Five-Star
building under the China Building Energy Efficiency Labeling program (SIBR
2011). The IBR building’s energy performance is impressive in that it has
achieved overall energy savings of 65.9% relative to comparable office
buildings in the same geographic area that consume on average 109 kWh/m2-
year (SIBR 2009). More specifically, after months of operational energy data
collection following building occupancy, specific energy savings were
quantified. In terms of total electricity consumption, the IBR building
consumed only 52.9 kWh/m2-year, which is 40% lower than the total
consumed by local government office buildings in Shenzhen and 45% lower
than local non-government office buildings (SIBR 2010). In terms of lighting
energy, the IBR building was able to achieve savings on the order of 73% to
82% when compared to typical office buildings in the same region, with an
average of only 12 kWh/m2-year. For air conditioning energy use, the IBR
building achieved energy savings of 60% compared to typical office buildings
in the same region. In addition to energy, the building has also achieved 53%
savings in water consumption relative to comparable local office buildings. As
a result of the significant energy and water savings, the IBR building is able to
reduce annual electricity costs by RMB 15 million and water costs by RMB
54,000 (Malone 2010). The building is thus considered very cost-effective, as
IBR reported that total investment actually decreased by about 1/3 compared
to other offices with total construction cost maintained at RMB 4000 per
square meter, or estimated total cost of RMB 720 million (Malone 2010; SIBR
2011).
3.2.3.2. 2010 Shanghai World Expo Center

The Shanghai World Expo Center served as the central exhibition and
convention venue of China’s 2010 Shanghai World Expo and now serves as an
international convention center. The building has seven floors and a total
building area of 142,000 square meters. In designing the Shanghai World
Expo Center, the three design principles of reduce, reuse and recycle and
sustainable development practices helped the building achieve a three-star
rating on the China Green Building Design Label. Technologies that were
incorporated into the Expo Center’s design included a series of solar water
heating systems, storage, control and rainwater utilization, once-through
cooling water systems, programmable green micro-irrigation systems, and
central energy monitoring and management systems. The building achieved an
energy savings rate (compared to inefficient 1980s buildings) of 62.8%, with
52% of the hot water supplied by the solar hot water system and 61.3% of
water resources provided by non- conventional water resource utilization

(MOHURD Green Building Label Management Office 2013a).
3.2.3.3. Shandong Jiaotong University Library

The Shandong Jiaotong University library, located in Jinan, Shandong
Province, is a five-story building with a total gross floor area of 16,000 square
meters. As one of the projects for the initial national green technology
campaign, the university library building achieved a two-star rating under the
China GBEL program. The building incorporated various energy saving and
high efficiency technologies including natural shading, daylighting, natural
ventilation, high-performance building envelope insulation and a wind tunnel.
As a result, the building achieved 40% lower heating and air conditioning
energy consumption when compared to similar buildings with annual power
consumption of only 14 kWh/m2- year and heating coal consumption of 7.8
kgce/m2-year. In addition, the building also features natural water collection,
the use of natural water reservoirs for cooling and 80% local materials for
building materials and 10.7% recyclable material utilization.
3.3. Rating System Comparison
3.3.1. Program Administration

Although both the U.S. and Chinese green building rating programs are
voluntary programs, the U.S. LEED program is administered by the USGBC, a
non-governmental body, whereas the China Green Building Evaluation and
Labeling program is administered entirely by central and provincial
government agencies. In particular, the LEED rating systems are developed
and updated in a consensus-based process through a committee of GBC
members from a diverse array of professional backgrounds, including
architects, real estate agents, building owners, lawyers, environmentalists, and
industry representatives. LEED project registration and certification is then
administered by the Green Building Certification Institute, a third-party
organization established with the support of the USGBC to provide
independent oversight of professional credentialing and project certification.
The development of the China GBEL evaluation standards as well as the
labeling application and certification process, in contrast, are all administered
by government organizations within MOHURD’s Building Energy Efficiency
and Technology Division. This key difference in the types of participating
stakeholders between the two green building labeling programs is a key area of
divergence.
In terms of the scope of the rating systems, the China GBEL program
differentiates between residential and commercial buildings, but does not
include rating systems unique to specific building types as LEED does. Both
programs have different rating programs for design and construction versus
operation, although the reporting requirements for the operational rating are
different. LEED requires a performance period of only 3 months for most
LEED Existing Building Operations and Maintenance credits, but China’s
operation GBL requires 1 year of occupancy and performance for all credits.
However, reporting of actual operational energy consumption is not required
in the application for the Chinese green building operational rating. For both
programs, the application costs are borne by the project developer.
3.3.2. Rating System

In terms of the specific rating systems, LEED has similarities and
differences with China’s GBEL program. A key similarity between the two
programs include the use of credit-based systems with some flexibility for
what credits or measures building developers want to pursue, along with
mandatory requirements that must be met for certification. For rating new
construction, both LEED and GBEL also use similar rating criteria focusing on
land, energy, water, resource/material efficiency, and indoor environmental
quality. A comparison of the relative weighting of each evaluation criteria
category is shown in Figure 7.
The figure shows that China’s GBEL has more equal weight distribution
in terms of the total points possible across the six categories of options,
although energy efficiency and resource and material efficiency are given
slightly higher share of total available options than the other four categories.
LEED also gives energy and atmosphere category the highest share in terms of
total point allocation, but the sustainable site category has the second greatest
weighting before resource and material efficiency. Within each category of
credits or options, the emphasis of available credits or options also differ
between the two rating systems due to different national conditions. In the area
of water efficiency, LEED credits promote water conservation planning,
wastewater recycling and water resource conservation whereas the GBEL
options focus on consumption of rainwater, reclaimed wastewater and
reclaimed sea water (Geng et al. 2012). In addition, the Chinese rating also has
a unique requirement of reduction in the total land used for building
construction because of high population density, whereas the Sustainable Sites
credits in LEED focuses on other environmental considerations such as

alternative transportation, heat island effects and site development. For credits
or options related to energy, the Chinese GBEL rating clearly prioritizes
energy efficiency with the bulk of options dedicated to efficient equipment and
energy conservation measures and design. In contrast, LEED for New
Construction emphasizes energy performance but places almost equal
emphasis on other non-efficiency related items such as renewable energy and
green power, refrigerant management and measurement and verification.
Another key difference between LEED and the GBEL is in how a
building’s specific rating level is determined. Under China’s GBEL, the final
rating is determined by meeting the minimum rating or credits within each
category, whereas a LEED rating is determined by the total points summed
over all categories. Thus, a Three Star-rated building under the GBEL will
have to meet the minimum requirements in all categories, whereas a similarly
rated LEED building has more flexibility in receiving the highest Platinum
rating by possibly excelling in several areas but performing poorly in one or
two areas. For example, a Three Star-rated commercial building must meet 8
out of the 10 available options for the energy efficiency category under the
Chinese GBEL program whereas a commercial building could theoretically be
certified as LEED Platinum if it achieved all or nearly all of the points in all
categories except the Energy and Atmosphere category but achieved very few
points in the Energy and Atmosphere category.
Note: China Three-Star Green Building rating based on point allocation for
commercial buildings and do not include preferential items, which are not
designated to one of the six categories. LEED rating based on 2009 LEED for
New Construction rating system.
Figure 7. Comparison of China's Green Building and LEED Rating Criteria and
Weight Factors.
4. COMPARISON OF POLICY SUPPORT FOR

GREEN BUILDINGS
Transforming the built environment to more sustainable energy and
resource use requires a wide array of policy support due to a number of
economic, informational, and institutional barriers that exist in the buildings
industry. Policy support for green building practices has been rising in the U.S.
and China over the past through different mechanisms that will be described in
this section. First, a brief overview of barriers faced by the green building
industry will be provided. The second section will describe five policy
mechanisms either commonly used by energy efficiency policy makers or
frequently cited by green building literature as crucial to the green building
industry’s success. The third and fourth sections will outline use of these
policy mechanisms in the U.S. and China, respectively, at the local and
national levels. The fifth section will offer a relative comparison of the U.S.
and China green building policy landscapes.
4.1. Barriers to a Growing Green Building Industry
A recent survey of 140 green buildings (in ten different countries) carried
out by Good Energies found that green buildings have an average cost
premium of only 2.5% over conventional buildings (Kats, 2008). The energy
savings of these buildings alone would be enough to make the green building
cost effective, not to mention the water savings, productivity gains, health
improvements, and other related benefits produced by the green building.
Specifically, the net present value of 20 years of energy savings was estimated
to range from $7 per square foot for LEED certified buildings to $14 per
square foot for LEED platinum buildings, which was more than the cost
premium of $3-8 per square foot (certified) to $14 per square foot (platinum),
more than the average cost premium of $3 to $8 per square foot (Kats, 2008).
Moreover, research is beginning to show that LEED certified buildings
command a rent and sales price premium, which also make the investments
financially worthwhile. One study showed a rental premium of 6% or LEED
and Energy Star certified buildings, and a 35% sale price premium (127 price
observations) and 31% sale price premium for LEED certified buildings and
Energy Star certified buildings, respectively (Fuerst and McAllister).
A summary of other studies presenting similar evidence is discussed later

in section 5.
So the question is: if building green makes good fiscal sense, then why is
the green building industry not growing more rapidly? What are the barriers to
growing a green building industry that can save money and resources, reduce
carbon emissions, and improve health and productivity? In fact, many studies
have been carried out on the barriers to energy efficient and green building,
but understanding of these barriers is still evolving. The design of policies that
will help break down these barriers and create a more rapidly growing green
building industry is also a subject of a growing and evolving body of
knowledge and experience.
The types of barriers that the green building industry faces include
institutional, regulatory, financial, informational, and risk barriers. The
following paragraphs will provide examples of each of these types of barriers.
Institutional barriers help describe the number of parties involved in any
given building and their associated communication and collaboration, or lack
thereof. This passage describes the expansiveness of the design and
construction processes:
“However, the creation of a building typically involves hundreds of

people, each of whom can individually or collectively influence the
outcome or “sustainability” of both design and construction processes, as
well as the final product. These roles include architects (building and
landscape), contractors, engineers, energy consultants, daylighting
consultants, sub-contractors (e.g. plumbing, electrical, or heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)), product manufacturers,
product distributors, code inspectors, government officials (local, state,
and federal), non-profit organizations, industry trade organizations, and
more.” (Hoffman & Henn, 2008)
Figure 8 offers another commonly offered perspective that not only are
their many organizations and stakeholders involved, but there is also a division
of responsibilities and building processes that leads to “operational islands”
and inhibits collaboration. This is especially harmful to the green building
industry, where collaboration and communication are needed to ensure that a
holistic, sustainable design can be created and that the design can be fully
constructed and commissioned as intended. Figure 9 offers additional context
from Amory Lovins on the vocabulary that different professionals use to
describe whether they have met their objective or not. No one is using the
same measures for success.
Source: WBCSD, 2009.
Figure 8. The operational islands of the building industry.
Source: Lovins, 1995.
Figure 9. The Tower of Babel, Technical Specialization and Disparate Vocabularies.

In the U.S., the consensus-based approach of the USGBC to the

development and revisions of LEED rating systems and the involvement of
multi-stakeholders in a transparent LEED certification process has helped
address some of these institutional barriers. For instance, institutions such as
the body of LEED Accredited Professionals help developers apply for the
LEED certification while the GBCI, an independent third-party organization,
bring together experts from across the green building industry to evaluate and
rate the project seeking LEED accreditation. Additionally, many of the
professional accreditation programs that LEED runs emphasize integrated
design principles in their teachings.
Regulatory barriers could be categorized as a specific extension of
institutional barriers. Government bodies that supervise health, fire safety,
land, and other public operations are slow to revise codes to accommodate
green building. In the meantime, green buildings are in violation of many basic
codes simply because of new practices they employ that are unconventional.
“If you really want to build a green building today in any city in the U.S.,
you’ll find yourself in violation of, maybe, two dozen codes,” said Denis
Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, which recently finished
construction one of the greenest buildings (water and energy self-sufficient) in
the U.S. in Seattle, WA as part of the Living Building Challenge. Codes and
standards for energy efficiency in the built environment need proper
enforcement in order to be effective, but the bodies that oversee this
enforcement often lack capacity and funding. One other commonly seen
regulatory barrier is when a new policy prescribes a specific approach in green
building, while unintentionally inhibiting approaches that would be even
greener, more energy-saving, etc. For example, one building energy efficiency
code prescribed smaller area windows in order to control heat intake and
associated HVAC loads. This prescription led to large HVAC systems and
energy usage, when an integrated approach would have introduced larger,
well-insulated windows with some sort of active or passive shading to bring a
much higher levels of energy savings (Lee, Selkowitz and DiBartolomeo,
2009).
Financial barriers typically include issues related to the cost of a green
building, established investment norms, and fiscal “carrots” that can
incentivize better decisions. First-cost barrier, short-term investment horizons,
and split incentives are terms often mentioned in the literature. While the cost
premium for a holistically designed green building should not be significantly
high, new and innovative technologies can often be cost prohibitive. Green
buildings generally cost more to design and build due to greater system
integration and the need for more building controls and measurement points.
For architectural and design firms to do an integrated design for a new green
building, it often takes more time and money to do so than a design for a
conventional building. If the firm is just one party in a bid for a project, they
are often not willing to spend as much time and money on the design in order
to defray the risk in the case that they do not win the bid. This risk to spend
more time on an integrated design ends up also being a large barrier in the
industry. Split incentives refer to the situation where the financial benefits
from investments made in a building will often be received by the owner or
user of the building as opposed to the original investor. However, split
incentives are more common for retrofits than for new buildings (WBCSD,
2009).
Informational barriers include a basic lack of awareness and
understanding of energy efficiency among building professionals. Even if a
green building is designed and commissioned well, there is a question as to
whether the operations staff and occupants of the building are informed to
make decisions in line with the short and long-term sustainability goals of the
building. According to Lovins, “Buildings are normally designed with no
customer feedback.” (Lovins, 1995) Only in the modern age of smart meters
and thermostats are owners and occupants beginning to make wise energy
decisions, albeit at a very slow rate of uptake. Behavior and decision-making
constitute an entire subset of energy efficiency literature.
Risk barriers are characterized by established practices in the industry
that discourage various stakeholders from trying new or different approaches.
Subcontractors in the construction process often view new technology as
inherently risky and therefore worry about the liability of installing such
technologies in projects they are ultimately responsible for. To justify this risk
they are taking, they often charge higher fees; other times, they will simply
refuse to work with the new technology or practice (Hoffman & Henn, 2008).
In Lovins’s 1995 study on energy efficient buildings, he highlighted the risk
barriers with the following succinct statements:
“Nobody ever got fired for making a mechanical system too

big…Engineering fees reward oversizing … Designers’ concerns about
liability are most easily met by oversizing equipment.” (Lovins, 1995)
In addition to perceived and avoided risk of new technologies, many

architects and engineers lack the tools needed to simulate the performance of a
new technology and its interaction with other systems, even if they desire to
employ these technologies.
Due to established business practices and risk perception, the overall
decision to design and build a green building may be the largest barrier. This
decision making process encompasses many of the institutional, risk, and
information barriers outlined previously. Additional regulatory and financial
barriers will become more pronounced once the decision to build green has
been made, and the financing, design, and construction processes actually
begin.
Barriers in China
The above section on barriers is written largely from a U.S. perspective,
but many of those barriers exist in China as well. First off, the lack of a green
building professional accreditation process similar to the LEED AP process
limits the green building workforce capacity development. In China, where the
emphasis on building energy efficiency and development of green buildings is
relatively new, informational barriers resulting from limited capacity and
knowledge of green building design are more pronounced. While there are a
growing number of institutes of building research around the country, good
education on green design is not yet widespread among university architecture
and engineering programs. The lack of public information and transparent
database of existing green building projects also make it more difficult for the
Chinese building industry to recognize and realize the potential for green
buildings development. Additionally the GBEL program is administered
entirely by government entities and the evaluation and rating process is a
closed process based entirely on expert review, in contrast to the LEED
process which is more open, transparent, and participatory.
Second, financial barriers are perhaps even more pronounced in China
than in the U.S. since the industry is in an earlier phase of development.
Developers cite higher incremental cost as one of the biggest barriers to
investment in green buildings. While some government subsidy programs for
green buildings have been introduced to address this barrier, operational
challenges with implementing and paying the subsidies have limited the
subsidy’s effectiveness.
Lastly, more oversight is needed in the green building industry in China to
improve the quality of what is being built and what materials are being used.
Not only does the supply of green building materials need to grow quickly to
meet demand, but there is also a need for higher quality materials and a better
certification process for ensuring materials meet their claimed performance
(insulation properties for windows, for example). Additionally, many

buildings that are awarded the GBEL are certified at the design stage and then
built such that the construction does not meet the design standard.
4.2. Common Green Building Policy Mechanisms
The previous section has provided a broad overview of the types of

barriers faced in the building industry. On the one hand, some barriers may be
easily targeted by short-term policy mechanisms. On the other hand, some
barriers may not be overcome without larger cultural, social, and institutional
changes. Policy mechanisms may be able to assist in making those changes,
but the changes will likely happen over longer time scales (decades, as
opposed to years). This section will focus on the shorter term policies that
governments frequently implement.
The following five policy categories were selected to encompass both
strategies for success frequently highlighted in the literature as well as
common strategies for promoting green building employed in the U.S. and
China.
1. Codes and labeling plan

2. Government-led targets and demonstrations
3. Education and awareness programs
4. Fiscal policy that supports green building investment
5. Integrated design promotion
The following subsections provide an explanation and simple examples

within each policy category. The sections following this introductory section
will discuss how these types of policies have been implemented in the U.S.
and China.
4.2.1. Codes and Labeling Plan

Codes and labeling have been key components of improvement in the
efficiency of the built environment to date and should therefore be an
important component of any larger policy framework that seeks to encourage
green building. While a subsidy policy may “push” new green building
technologies into the marketplace, codes and labeling help “pull” these
technologies into the market so that they become more commonly used. Codes
help to ensure that every building, residential and commercial, has a basic
level of energy efficiency that has been proven to be cost effective and
achievable. Voluntary labeling programs for green buildings, such as the
USGBC’s LEED program and China’s Three Star labeling program,
encourage public education and awareness and reward first-movers with
recognition. One way of thinking of the difference between codes and labeling
is that a code tells you “what to do” while a label or rating system tells you
“how you did” (Sigmon, 2012).
As the state of green building technology and design is constantly
improving, there is a need to provide regular revisions and upgrades to codes
and labeling programs. Also, many requirements for green building labels are
linked directly to standards (this topic is addressed in more depth in the
Appendix), so it is important that there is a strong integrity in both the
standards and labeling programs. Additionally, strong codes and labeling
programs need transparent approaches, consistent funding, and enforcement
and compliance strategies in order to be as successful as possible in promoting
energy efficient and green building. Countries that have voluntary labeling
programs may also consider mandatory labeling and energy disclosure policies
for all buildings, which can help promote awareness and action among more
stakeholders.
4.2.2. Government-Led Targets and Demonstrations

Targets and demonstrations are typical policy mechanisms used to initiate
larger green building initiatives. These targets and demonstrations are often
spearheaded by local or national government bodies. For instance, the national
government of a country may declare that 10% of all new commercial
buildings need to be LEED certified by 2020, but that all new government-
owned buildings need to be LEED certified going forward. Since government
bodies often have longer investment time horizons as well as more money to
invest, they will create more aggressive targets for themselves as a way to
galvanize early market activity so that the cumulative body of experience in
green building can grow among various stakeholders, including architects,
contractors, engineers, and manufacturers. Additionally, green-building
technologies that are currently expensive may decrease in price as the number
of installations grows. The targets that local or national governments typically
set can come in a variety of forms: mandatory or voluntary; for new
construction only or for existing buildings as well; for commercial buildings
only or for residential buildings as well. Demonstrations are also a popular
mechanism for showcasing new technologies as well as measuring and
verifying their performance, as an avenue for defraying risk or perception of
risk for these new technologies from the perspective of architects and builders.
In addition to targets and demonstrations, governments may develop action
plans or strategic plans that consist of a number of policy mechanisms (codes,
targets, incentives, education) meant to drive innovation in and adoption of
green building technology.
4.2.3. Education and Awareness Programs

Since there are so many stakeholders involved in the design, construction,
operations, and use of any given building, education and awareness programs
are key components of a successful green building campaign. Often, builders
say they do not build green because their clients do not demand green
buildings. In fact, it is the duty of building professionals – architects,
engineers, and contractors – to educate their clients about why they should
build green. Education about green building also needs to spread beyond just
the professional community and extend to realtors, developers, lenders, and
others involved throughout the building supply chain (Lovins, 1995).
Education and awareness programs focus on a range of topics including,
integrated design, energy savings measurement and verification,
commissioning and retro-commissioning, and finance for green buildings.
Training programs for construction workers are also important as the
installation of green building technologies can often be more complex than
that of conventional technologies. When a green building is commissioned, its
users (the occupants) need to also be engaged to learn how to interact with the
building and engage in its energy and water saving activities day to day.
Having the numerous stakeholders engage with each other in order to
break down the “operational islands” mentioned in the section on institutional
barriers will aid in establishing best practices in green building. Professional
societies, such as the U.S. Green Building Council, offer opportunities for
continuous education and are often a proponent of growing education and
awareness about green building.
4.2.4. Fiscal Policy That Supports Green Building Investment

There is a truly wide array of fiscal policy that could help increase green
building investment, but each building market is unique in building types,
geography and climate, and other factors. Therefore, the fiscal policy that is
implemented should match the market in terms of these needs. It is also
important to ask for how long each policy should be implemented and what its
delivery mechanism should be (Levine, et al., 2012). Typically, fiscal policies
that support green building investment fall into three categories: tax policy,
incentives (subsidies and grants), and preferred financing.
Within tax policy, certain efficiency or green building investments may be
granted certain tax exemptions to increase the attractiveness of those
investments. Carbon and energy taxes have been discussed as important fiscal
instruments for inducing higher levels of investment across the energy
efficiency and renewable energy field.
Within incentives, performance or investment based subsidies and grants
are commonly used for new and existing construction. Performance based
subsidies are ex-post awards generally used for whole building retrofits or new
build. They are often granted on a dollar per kWh of energy saved basis to
incentivize technologies that have proven savings as well as whole building
approaches as opposed to measure specific. Investment-based grants are
offered for a specific system within a green building (a solar PV array or an
active shading system for a façade, for instance) where the first cost barrier is
inhibiting investment.
Finally, there is the question of access to capital for green building
projects. Generally, some investors view green building projects as inherently
more risky than conventional buildings due to new technologies or less
common building practices. Loan-loss reserve programs set up by the
government can help defray some of this risk (Levine, et al., 2012). In general,
though, as green buildings prove they can get higher rents from their
occupants than from those of a conventional building, investors are taking
more interest purely from the perspective of profits. For green building
retrofits, energy service companies (ESCOs) are assuming all of the technical
and performance risk in investing in the necessary upgrades and are then paid
with a portion of the money gained from energy savings throughout the life of
the retrofit. These companies solve the problems of building owners having
short investment time horizons due to their lack of cash and access to
financing.
4.2.5. Integrated Design Promotion

The aforementioned policy mechanisms are all crucial to the success of
the industry, but integrated design is perhaps the most important window of
opportunity for deep energy savings in the built environment. As shown in
Figure 10, the potential for cost-effective energy savings falls steadily as you
step away from the early design stages and into the construction phases.
Mechanical engineers are rarely consulted at the design phase, when the
opportunity for savings in heating and cooling systems is greatest (Lovins,

1995).
While not every green building will need incentives or financing, every
green building certainly does need integrated design. A number of
jurisdictions around the world that are advanced in their promotion of green
building have recognized the importance of integrated design and created
programs to support it. Strategies include forming partnerships with industry
and universities to promote education about integrated design, developing
tools that enable the deployment of integrated design, and ensuring that normal
building standards are advanced at a level that begins to incorporate integrated
design (CPUC, 2011).
Figure 10. Energy savings opportunities and the design sequence (Lovins, 1995).
In the end, integrated design must be applied to each building

individually. The Bullitt Foundation, which constructed the Bullitt Center in
Seattle – an energy and water self-sufficient building, outlines the following
building-level design steps for getting the most out of integrated design: 1) set
aggressive goals; 2) analyze site and climate; 3) reduce energy use; 4) use
efficient equipment; 5) use renewable energy; and 6) verify performance
(Bullitt Foundation, 2013).
Each of these five policy mechanisms plays an important role in an overall
green building policy package. Codes and labeling ensure that best practices
will become common practices over time. Government-led targets and
demonstrations will galvanize industry progress so that green building
materials and technologies lower in price and green building practices will
become increasingly familiar. Education and awareness campaigns will bring
the various segments of built environment stakeholders together to learn and
cooperate. Incentives and other fiscal policy will help reduce barriers to
investment in new construction and retrofits. Finally, integrated design will
ensure that each building is reaching its full technical and economic potential
as a green building. The following sections will describe to what extent these
policy mechanisms have been exercised to date in the U.S. and China.
4.3. Green Building Policy Support in the U.S.

In the U.S., there is federal legislation that requires states to initiate energy
efficiency codes for new buildings. Additionally, under the recent American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Congress mandated that
any state receiving ARRA funds pledge to adopt energy efficiency codes of
certain stringency and to achieve and measure 90% compliance with those
codes by 2017.
As of Fall 2011, 29 states had adopted residential and commercial
building codes that met ARRA requirements. Yet, 11 states still do not have
any codes, and even in states that have codes, compliance levels remain low
(Building Energy Codes Program, 2010). Generally speaking, the most
commonly used codes in the U.S. are the International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC) for residential buildings (ICC, 2012) and American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard
90.1 for commercial buildings (ASHRAE, 2013).
Source: Building Energy Codes Program, 2010; Note: percent savings shown relative
to previous versions of standard 90.1.
Figure 11. History of commercial construction code revisions from 1975 to 2010.
Figure 11 shows how ASHRAE codes have been updated very regularly
over time. Commercial buildings constructed according to the latest update of
the ASHRAE standard in 2010 would be around 60% more efficient (energy
use index falls from 100 to around 40) than that same building built according
to the standard in 1975. Although not all states have adopted codes and
compliance levels can be very low, at the very least, the professional societies
that support code development are very active and ambitious in promoting an
increase in the basic energy efficiency levels over time.
More recently, ASHRAE has released a high performance green building
standard -- ASHRAE 189.1. ASHRAE 189.1 is not a rating scheme like
LEED, but rather a green building standard using prescriptive and
performance based evaluation. Focusing on new construction, ASHRAE 189.1
integrates site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor
environmental quality, building’s impact on atmosphere, materials and
resources, and construction. The standard has mandatory criteria in all topical
areas, and it offers a choice of prescriptive and performance options to achieve
compliance. To some extent, ASHRAE 189.1 integrates ASHRAE 90.1 for
energy efficiency, ASHRAE 62.1 for ventilation and indoor air quality,
ASHRAE 55 for indoor thermal comfort, and ASHRAE 180 for HVAC
system inspection. However, ASHRAE 189.1 does not simply adopt the other
ASHRAE standards, but rather provides more stringent requirements. For

instance, ASHRAE 189.1, for the first time, requires buildings to have on-site
renewable energy sources that produce per roof area generation of more than 6
kBtu/hr-ft2 for single story buildings, and 10 kBtu/hr-ft2 for buildings with
more than one story.
In addition to ASHRAE’s development of their green building standard,
the International Code Council (responsible for the administration of the
International Energy Conservation Code mentioned previously) has also
developed the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). IGCC builds
off of the International Energy Conservation Code and other standards as well
as offering ASHRAE Standard 189.1 as an alternate path to compliance. IGCC
was developed using a governmental consensus process over an eight month
period by a 29-member committee with input from over 100 working group
members across several areas of expertise including government, business,
code development and enforcement, architecture, building science,
engineering, and environmental health.
Related to this code development are the voluntary ENERGY STAR
labeling programs run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). The first iteration of an ENERGY STAR for homes specification was
launched in 1995, and it is now onto its third version. Qualified homes surpass
2009 IECC standards by at least 15%. This type of labeling development
supports the ideas presented in Figure 13 on page 39, whereby labeling
programs can help push the building industry to go beyond code and gradually
bring greener building practices into the mainstream.
The U.S. EPA has also developed an ENERGY STAR label for
commercial buildings, where buildings get scored on energy and water
consumption using the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool on a scale
from 1 (worst) to 100 (best) and any building with a score above 75 can
receive the label. The difference between the ENERGY STAR labeling
programs for homes and for commercial buildings is that the former involves a
checklist of design and construction specifications while the latter requires an
operational rating that is based on a given building’s measured energy
performance.
In addition to voluntary labeling programs, mandatory building labeling is
beginning to gain traction in a number of state and local jurisdictions around
the U.S. Currently, two states (California and Washington) and five large cities
(Austin, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC) require
benchmarking and disclosure of building energy ratings, covering an estimated
60,600 buildings and more than 371 million m2 of space (Burr, Keicher, &
Leipziger, 2011).
The State of California, which has ambitious goals for net-zero energy
buildings, has its own building efficiency and green building codes that it
plans on ramping up over time to help the construction industry remain on
track for reaching those goals. Established in 2010, the CALGREEN code
defines mandatory minimum green building requirements for energy and
environmental performance for all new buildings constructed in California,
with separate codes for residential and non-residential construction. There are
mandatory minimum requirements as well as voluntary tier 1 and tier 2 criteria
of higher stringency. Tier 2 criteria will likely be in line with net-zero energy
requirements, and voluntary adoption will be encouraged at the local level (for
cities with more ambitious climate goals, for example). California’s mandatory
building efficiency codes (known as Title 24) will also become more stringent
over time. The end goal is that all new non-residential construction will be net
zero energy in 2030 (2020 for new residential construction) (CEC, 2011).
Source: CEC, 2011.
Figure 12. California potential plan for energy efficiency and green building code
updates leading to net zero energy goals.
Figure 13 shows one scenario for how existing LEED labeling codes may
increase over time until gold and platinum ratings reach the level of zero-
impact buildings. Additionally, traditional building codes will become more
stringent over time, eventually incorporating green-building practices directly.
Green building codes would help fill in the functional gap between traditional
building codes and green building rating systems such as LEED, which is
precisely the role that CALGREEN and ASHRAE 189.1 are now playing. This
figure really helps put green building labeling programs into the perspective of
the broader built environment and the eventual goal of having net-zero energy
buildings (along with other zero impact metrics, such as net-zero water and
net-zero waste).
Overall, the U.S. has code development that is strengthening over time
and a number of voluntary and mandatory labeling programs which are
contributing to the overall health of the green building industry. So long as
compliance rates and compliance thresholds for these codes and labeling
programs continue to increase, then these policies will help “pull” more green
construction practices into the building industry.
Source: Sigmon, 2012.
Figure 13. Evolution of LEED codes over time toward net-zero impact buildings.

Federal, state, and local government agencies have been very active in
leading green building developments through demonstrative, legislative, and
innovative program efforts. They were early adopters of LEED standards, and
in fact the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was an early funder of the
USGBC when it was first developing LEED standards. As of the end of 2004,
only 84 buildings had completed LEED certification processes, and 42% of
those were for federal, state, or local government buildings (Payne & Harris,
2004).
In the area of legislation, 16 federal government agencies joined in 2006
to sign a memorandum of understanding, “Federal Leadership in High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings MOU”, which established early
commitments to energy and water efficiency in federal buildings. For instance,
new construction at the time was to be 30% more efficient than ASHRAE
90.1-2004. Later, the foundations that this MOU laid were formalized into
Executive Order 13423, signed by President Barack Obama. This order
accounted for activities beyond buildings into transportation, acquisition, and
other areas. Relevant to green buildings, the following requirements were laid
out:
“(i) beginning in 2020 and thereafter, ensuring that all new Federal
buildings that enter the planning process are designed to achieve zero-net-
energy by 2030;
(ii) ensuring that all new construction, major renovation, or repair
and alteration of Federal buildings complies with the Guiding Principles
for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings,
(Guiding Principles);
(iii) ensuring that at least 15 percent of the agency's existing
buildings (above 5,000 gross square feet) and building leases (above
5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles by fiscal year 2015
and that the agency makes annual progress toward 100- percent
conformance with the Guiding Principles for its building inventory;
(iv) pursuing cost-effective, innovative strategies, such as highly
reflective and vegetated roofs, to minimize consumption of energy, water,
and materials;
(v) managing existing building systems to reduce the consumption of
energy, water, and materials, and identifying alternatives to renovation
that reduce existing assets' deferred maintenance costs;
(vi) when adding assets to the agency's real property inventory,
identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing assets,
optimize the performance of the agency's real-property portfolio, and
reduce associated environmental impacts; and
(vii) ensuring that rehabilitation of federally owned historic buildings

utilizes best practices and technologies in retrofitting to promote long-
term viability of the buildings;” (Obama, 2009)
The most significant targets are the 15% target for 2015 (iii) and the net-
zero energy target for 2030 (i). The order has significant teeth as well; the
Office of Management and Budget now annually evaluates progress towards
these goals for every federal agency.
The federal government’s General Services Administration (GSA) has
been a leader in LEED adoption and general sustainable building practices.
Their Public Buildings Service acquires space on behalf of the federal
government through new construction contracts as well as leases and as such
manages over 370 million square feet of workspace. The GSA has
implemented an innovative new program called the Green Proving Ground
(GPG) whereby it uses this huge amount of floor space as a laboratory for new
green building technologies and practices. The GSA selected 16 technologies
to be a part of the GPG program: high R-value windows, smart windows,
occupant responsive lighting solutions, integrated daylighting systems, plug
load reduction, on-site renewable technologies, solar photovoltaics (PV), PV
with solar water heating, various HVAC technologies (chilled beams,
condensing boilers, variable-speed chiller plant controls, magnetic bearing
compressors, variable refrigerant flow, commercial ground- source heat
pumps, wireless mesh sensor network), and non-chemical water treatment
(Kandt & Lowell, 2012). The program is a good example of federal money
and resources coming together to produce two things: 1) technology validation
with measurement and verification of in-field technology testing and 2)
successful demonstration case studies. This program directly addresses major
informational barriers in the field of green building technologies. Soon, there
will be a myriad of performance data, which can hopefully lower the
perception of risk for these technologies common amongst architects and
contractors.
In addition to legislative and programmatic efforts by federal agencies, a
number of state and city governments are taking aggressive action. California
is leading the way with its net zero energy building goals. The California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) created a strategic plan calling for,
among other energy-efficiency goals, net-zero-energy commercial buildings
by 2030 and net-zero-energy residential construction by 2020 (CPUC, 2011).
Meanwhile, the City of Austin, Texas has perhaps the most aggressive goal in
the country: All new residential construction will need to be net zero energy
capable by 2015. A home is zero-energy capable when it is energy-efficient

enough to achieve net-zero energy consumption over the course of the year
with the addition of on-site renewables. The City of Austin defines a net-zero
capable home as a single-family home that is 65% more energy-efficient than
a typical home built to the Austin Energy Code in 2006. San Francisco also
has aggressive green building goals. Their 2008 Green Building Ordinance
requires new commercial construction and major renovations over 5,000
square feet to have basic LEED certification. In 2010, similar new
construction will have to reach LEED Silver certification levels, and in 2012
they will have to reach LEED Gold. A study done in 2004 noted that 17
municipal governments (other than the ones already mentioned) had LEED
requirements that largely mandated that all new construction should be LEED
certified (Payne & Harris, 2004). Data from the USGBC show that
government buildings accounted for a significant amount of LEED-certified
floor space in the early years of the program (Figure 14). In the early years of
the program (2002-2004), 40% or more of newly LEED certified floorspace in
any given year was in government buildings at the federal, state, or local
levels. According to the USGBC, there are 14 federal agencies or departments,
30 state governments, and 400+ local governments with LEED initiatives
(USGBC, 2013).
Figure 14. Proportion of U.S. LEED certified floor space that is in government
buildings.
Another local government policy to stimulate green building has been the
offer of expedited permitting for buildings going for a LEED certification. The
State of Hawaii recently required priority processing for all construction or
development permits for projects that achieve LEED Silver or similar
requirements (DOE, 2012). Other localities that have similar requirements

include Dallas, Gainesville, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco (LEED
Gold), Santa Monica, and Washington, DC.
Across the U.S., government-led targets and demonstrations galvanized
significant levels of green building activity. Early adoption of LEED standards
helped establish a pattern of leadership in many federal agencies, which later
led to a significant Executive Order. For federal agencies and municipalities,
which often have long investment time horizons and own the properties they
use, green building is making smart financial sense as well. Gradually, their
adoption should lead to a larger market transformation (more experienced
architects and builders, lower costs, fewer barriers) so that green- building
practices can be adopted more widely.

The USGBC has 77 chapters across the U.S., comprised of 30,000
professionals, students, and volunteers (USGBC, 2013). These chapters offer
continuing education on green building, fostering information and best
practice sharing. They also provide support to the LEED professional
accreditation program, which has been important in growing knowledge and
training surrounding green building while creating an avenue for hiring
managers in the buildings industry to identify who has this knowledge and
training. Accreditation can be received for the following area: Building Design
and Construction, Operations and Maintenance, Interior Design and
Construction, Homes, and Neighborhood Development.
Specialized workforce development for construction workers and
contractors is crucial to the overall success of the green building industry, as
most of the professional workforce is unfamiliar with the relatively new
practices of green building in comparison to conventional building practices
that are part of standard education packages at professional institutes,
community colleges, and universities. A study in 2010 noted that progress was
being made in this area, with training programs for the building industry on
target to train over 12,000 residential contractors per year in green and
performance buildings by 2012. Additionally, $500 million in ARRA funding
was granted to the Department of Labor in 2010 for green workforce
development. Furthermore, $64 million of ARRA funds used by state energy
programs specifically went to support energy efficiency training programs. A
2010 study found that most of the energy efficiency service sector suffers from
a shortage of trained and knowledgeable workers, and that more college and
university-base curriculums are needed to fill in this knowledge gap (Peters, et

al., 2010).

Cash grants and tax credits are the two most commonly used fiscal
instruments used in the U.S. to promote green building at the state and local
level. Within grants, one example is the State of Pennsylvania’s grant program
for public schools that are seeking LEED certification. The grant will help
cover costs related to the certification process itself, including “building
energy simulations and daylight modeling, green coaches and specialty
consultant fees, design fees for additional services beyond those
conventionally covered, and help with LEED for Schools certification costs”
(State of Pennsylvania, 2013). El Paso, Texas came up with a grant program
that targeted high performance new construction (LEED platinum) with a
maximum $200,000 grant. Larger grants up to $400,000 were offered for
“multistory existing buildings” that are mixed use and have high vacancy
rates, showing how the city believed promotion of LEED could spur new
economic development where growth had been stagnant.
In the realm of tax credits, various jurisdictions typically offer tax credits
for income or property taxes. The State of New York offers a Green Building
Tax Credit Program, provides an income tax incentive to commercial
developments incorporating specific green strategies informed by LEED. In
Baltimore County, Maryland, the county council passed a bill stating that new
residential construction projects would earn 40%, 60%, and 100% property tax
credits for Silver, Gold, and Platinum buildings respectively, effective for
either three years or up to $1 million in total tax credits per project. New
commercial construction projects would earn 50%, 60%, and 80% tax credits
for Silver, Gold, and Platinum buildings for five consecutive years. For
existing commercial buildings getting an Existing Building rating from LEED,
10%, 25%, and 50% tax credits were offered for up to three years (DOE,
2012).
4.3.5. Integrated Design Promotion

The State of California recognized early on its planning stages for net-zero
energy building goals that integrated design would play a very important role
in achieving very high levels of energy efficiency. CA integrated design plan.
It its 2011 strategic plan for energy efficiency, it outlined the following three
strategies to help stimulate activity in the area of integrated design:
“Strategy 1: Form partnerships with industry and architectural/

engineering schools and colleges to promote the education and practice of
Integrated Building Design and Operations.
Strategy 2: Develop an RD&D roadmap and identify/develop tools
and protocols for building commissioning, retro-commissioning, and
measurement and verification (M&V) to enable the deployment of
Integrated Design and Operations.
Strategy 3: Promote Integrated Design development by advancing
California Building Standards (Title 24) and market activities.” (CPUC,
2011)
As noted in the education and awareness section, more training and

education is needed, especially in the field of integrated building design and
operations. California also plans to advance its Title 24 building codes to
“pull” more green building activity into the market. As for other market
activities, Savings by Design is one statewide program that California is
running to encourage high performance commercial building design and
construction. It is sponsored by California’s four investor-owned utilities and
offers building owners, investors, and design teams the following basic
services:
• Design assistance: provide analysis and information

• Owner incentives: assist owners with any higher upfront investment
costs for energy efficient building technologies
• Design team incentives: rewards for design teams that meet assigned
energy efficiency targets
• Energy design resources: toolbox and resources to help facilitate
integrated design of net-zero energy buildings
Design team incentives help teams to explore levels of energy efficiency

that go beyond code, while compensating for the extra time needed for this
exploration. This extra time and money is a major barrier for why integrated is
not practiced more commonly, especially in the U.S. market where
architecture and design firms often bid for projects against many other bidders.
Since they have a low rate of success in bidding, they shy away from spending
too much time on any one design. The design incentives work as shown in
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Design team incentives under California’s Savings by Design program.
The program has a model that calculates the energy savings of the
building design as compared to California’s Title 24 codes. If the design saves
at least 10% beyond the codes, then they qualify for incentives beginning at
$0.033 per annualized kWh and ramping up to $0.10 per kWh for electricity
savings and $0.333 per therm for gas savings. The maximum incentive per
project is $50,000 (CPUC, 2013). This innovative program is quite unique.
Although strategic planning, education, and incentives will all continue to play
growing roles in the field of integrated building design and operations,
widespread application of these ideas has yet to be seen.
4.4. Green Building Policy Support in China
As opposed to the U.S., where this is a mixture of policy support from

federal agencies, local governments, and professional organizations, green
building policy in China is mostly dictated by the national government and
then implemented at a local level. However, there is an increasing level of
activity by local city governments that goes beyond national requirements,
especially as interest grows in low-carbon cities and eco-cities. The following
tables contain information about China’s policies in building energy efficiency
and green building. Table 6 outlines targets for the 11th Five Year Plan (2006-
2010) and achieved progress, while Table 7 outlines targets for the 12th Five
Year Plan (2011-2015). Table 7 delineates two different types of targets in
China’s 12th Five Year Plan – binding and expected. Binding targets have
some enforcement mechanism backing them (often related to the promotion or
demotion of officials whose localities fail to reach a target or compliance
level). Expected targets are aspirational goals that the country hopes to reach
but for which there are punitive ramifications is the goal is not met.
Table 6. Building efficiency goals in China’s 11th Five Year Plan
Area Target Progress

Energy efficiency – Implementation of 95.4%
new construction building codes at
construction stage
greater than 95%
Low-carbon, green 30 zones 217 green building
building demonstrations of which 113
demonstration buildings received the green
zones building label
Metering and EE 150 million square 182 million square meters
retrofits for meters
heating residential
building systems in
northern region
Large commercial Implement Collected energy use statistics for
building energy building energy 33,000 buildings, energy audits
management and monitoring for 4,850 buildings, commercial
retrofits systems for energy labels for nearly 6,000
government office buildings, dynamic energy
buildings and large monitoring in 1,500 buildings
commercial with comprehensive dynamic
buildings energy monitoring platforms for
nine provinces or provincial level
cities, implementing energy
efficient building pilots on 72
campuses
Demonstration of 200 371 renewable energy
renewable energy demonstrations demonstration projects, 210
in buildings building integrated solar
photovoltaic demonstration
projects, 47 renewable energy
building city, 98 demonstration
counties
Source: MOHURD, 2012
Table 7. Building energy efficiency targets in China’s 12th Five Year Plan
Type of
Area Target
target
New EE of new urban construction no lower than Binding
construction 65% of “energy efficient” level, 95% of new
construction meets mandatory EE standards
Existing North region Metering and EE retrofits for Binding
residential heating residential building
building systems in northern region for
retrofits 400 million square meters
Transition 50 million square meters of Binding
and south residential building retrofits
region
Large public Monitoring Increase energy use statistics, Expected
building system audits, public display of energy
energy use, energy efficiency quota
management system
and retrofits Monitoring Comprehensive dynamic Binding
platform energy monitoring platforms
for twenty provinces, dynamic
energy monitoring for 5,000
buildings, energy efficient
building pilots on 200
campuses
EE 10 city pilots for major Binding
operations commercial building EE
and retrofits retrofit programs, with total
retrofits to reach 60 million
square meters, 50 retrofitted
university campuses
Commercial buildings reduce energy Expected
consumption per unit area by 10%, and 15% for
medium to large commercial buildings
Renewable 250 million square meters of new construction Expected
energy with renewable energy applications, achieving
application 30 mtce in energy savings
in buildings
Large scale Promote Implementation of 100 green Expected
promotion green building demonstration cities
of green building
building
Type of
Area Target
target
Government 80% of government-invested Binding
investment in new construction at schools,
commercial hospitals, and other commercial
buildings buildings and 70% of
affordable housing projects to
enforce green building
standards
Real estate >20% of new construction Binding
sector should be green in the
following jurisdictions:
Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin,
Chongqing, Shenzhen, Dalian,
Xiamen, Jiangsu, Zhejiang,
Fujian, Guangdong, and
Hainan
Promotion Energy saving building material to account for Binding
of EE >60% of total building material production,
building >70% of total construction materials
materials
Source: MOHURD, 2012

China has comprehensive energy efficiency codes for both residential and
commercial buildings that include provisions tailored to China’s wide range of
climate zones. Although there are questions about the data, MOHURD
declared that 95.4% of new construction had achieved compliance at the
construction stage in its review of the 11th Five Year Plan targets.
For residential buildings, China has three residential building energy-
efficiency design standards, which cover four out of the five climate zones and
apply to new residential construction, expansions, or retrofits. Each design
standard has its own reduction target for heating energy consumption relative
to a baseline. For commercial buildings, China has a national design standard
that took effect in 2005 (JGJ 50189-2005) and covers new construction,
expansions, and retrofits. The standard looks at building envelope and HVAC
systems and sets a goal of reducing lighting and HVAC energy use by 50%
compared with a baseline of buildings from the 1980s (Levine, et al., 2012). A
revision of this standard is expected to be released in early 2014. The recent
green building action plan released by MOHURD encouraged regional level

implementation of codes that are stricter than these national codes as well as
regular and scientifically reasonable increases in the stringency of existing
codes.
As detailed in Table 6 and Table 7, the central government has begun
promoting building energy end- use data monitoring platforms through various
pilots in large commercial buildings, which could be seen as a primitive form
of mandatory labeling. Incentives are also provided in some cases. Universities
are eligible for subsidies in the amount of CNY 5 million (USD 0.8 million3)
to establish an energy end-use monitoring platform if it results in a 15%
reduction in measured energy consumption. Cities are also eligible for
subsidies of CNY 15 million (USD 2.5 million) per city to establish energy
end-use monitoring platforms (Wu, 2012). The government is also supportive
of opening this data up to the public through public information systems and
displays.

Table 6 and Table 7 list energy efficiency retrofit, green building, and
building integrated renewable energy targets for the 11th and 12th Five Year
Plans. Green building targets in the 12th Five Year Plan, specifically, are
“government-led” in that they are mandating that the large majority of
government- invested commercial building will need to be efficient enough to
receive a rating under China’s Green Building Rating System.
In the 11th Five Year Plan, China completed 217 green building
demonstration projects, 113 of which ended up receiving a rating under
China’s Green Building Rating System. Targets for building integrated
renewable energy (such as geothermal heating and cooling, solar hot water
heating, and solar photovoltaics) have gone from a targeted number of
demonstrations in the 11th Five Year Plan to a total floor space target of 250
million square meters in the 12th Five Year Plan, which is expected to achieve
30 Mtce in energy savings.
In 2013, the State Council and Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural
Development (MOHURD) issued the “green building action plan”, which
increased some of the targets seen in 12th Five Year Plan. During the 12th
FYP, there is a cumulative target to build 1 billion square meters of green
building floorspace. By 2015, 20% of new urban construction should meet at
least the basic level of China’s Green Building Rating System. While the 12th
Five Year Plan stated that 80% of government-invested new construction at
schools, hospitals, and other commercial buildings should achieve a green
building rating, the action plan does not mention this percentage and says such
a green building rating is required for all government-invested construction of
such types.
While 113 projects had received a rating by the end of 2010, nearly 500
projects had a received a GBEL as of the end of August 2012. Out of 494
projects, 60% were found in one of ten cities: Shanghai, Suzhou, Shenzhen,
Tianjin, Beijing, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Wuhan, and Chengdu
(Figure 16).
Many of these cities have specific local policies that are providing an extra
impetus for green building development, going beyond national policies. For
instance, the Shenzhen Development and Reform Commission, in its medium
to long-term plan for low carbon development, announced a target that 40%
and 80% of new construction should have GBEL rating by 2015 and 2020,
respectively (Shenzhen Development and Reform Commission, 2012). In
Suzhou, 30% of new construction should have GBEL rating by 2020, while in
Nanjing, 40% of new construction should have GBEL rating by 2015. At the
end of 2013, Chongqing, which only had 5 GBEL projects as of 2012,
announced its own green building action plan, requiring that all new
commercial construction within its main district would have to be at least of a
1-star GBEL rating. By 2015, all new residential construction within its main
district would also have to meet the same requirement. Lastly, by 2020, all
new construction within the entire area of Chongqing would have to be of at
least a 1-star GBEL rating (Chongqing Municipal Government, 2013).
Municipal governments are clearly taking steps to hasten the development of
the green building industry. In addition, the Shenzhen Institute of Building
Research and Shanghai branch of the Chinese Academy of Building Research
are also taking active steps to promote green building, as evidenced by the
high number of green building projects in those cities.

Because building energy efficiency - and green buildings even more so –
are relatively new areas for the Chinese building industry, there are virtually
no education and awareness programs designed to either promote the concept
of green buildings or strengthen the workforce capacity needed to support
green building development. At present, training efforts are still focused on
bolstering the capacity for implementing building energy codes and have not
expanded to the broader scope of green buildings. In meeting building energy
efficiency codes – which have existed since the 1980s – significant challenges
and capacity limitations have been identified for both the design and
construction workforces. These include lack of knowledge about new building

materials and technologies in building design companies; and lack of
knowledge in identifying the quality of building materials, incremental cost
barriers for better building materials and lack of knowledge of building
techniques in construction companies (Shui et al. 2011). These challenges
show that in addition to continuously strengthening the abilities of design and
construction companies to meet building energy codes, more targeted
educational, training and awareness programs are needed to help accelerate the
Chinese green buildings industry.

In the 11th Five Year Plan, China implemented a number of financial
incentive programs focused on efficient lighting, whole building retrofits, and
rooftop or building integrated rooftop solar PV systems. New financial
incentive programs are also under way for the 12th Five-year Plan period, and
a couple programs are specifically related to green building as opposed to
energy efficiency retrofits. MOF and MOHURD have announced additional
financial incentives in support of the development and expansion of green
buildings over the coming decade. For 2012, financial incentives of CNY 45
(USD 7) per square meter are offered for qualifying Two-Star rated green
buildings under the Green Building Energy Label program and CNY 80 (USD
13) per square meter offered for Three-Star rated green buildings (People's
Daily, 2012). In addition, the central government is also supporting the
construction of green eco-cities and eco-districts with total funding allocation
of CNY 50 million (USD 8 million). These new financial incentives are
intended to help China meet its targets of constructing 1 billion m2 of
additional green buildings by 2015 and green building share of 20% of total
new construction by 2015 (People's Daily, 2012).
4.5. U.S.-China Green Building Policy Comparison
Table 8 summarizes the previous policy sections for U.S. and China
across the five major areas of policy support. Within codes and labeling,
neither the U.S. nor China has a plan by which they have explicitly scheduled
improvements in building codes and labeling programs over time that will lead
to a high penetration of increasingly efficient and green buildings over time.
Yet, both countries have comprehensive codes and labeling systems, with
frequency of updates for these systems varying between the two countries. In
the U.S., it is up to individual states to implement building efficiency codes,

which are largely based off of codes developed and frequently updated by
professional societies (such as ASHRAE and IECC). In China, national level
building efficiency codes are established by government committees. The
codes are not updated as frequently as in the U.S., but a major update is
expected for commercial building codes soon.
The involvement of professional societies and industry in the development
of green building labeling systems also varies between the U.S. and China.
The USGBC’s larger programmatic efforts in education and professional
development for LEED were key to LEED’s increasing popularity over the
years. Additionally, committee leads for LEED requirement development and
revisions are largely from industry (developers, building materials,
professional societies), which keeps the LEED requirements relevant and
applicable to current best practices in the green building industry. The GBEL
rating development process in China is government-driven, and perhaps,
somewhat closed off from industry which may be one reason for an initial
slow uptake. More professional development may be needed to spur interest
and abilities in using the GBEL rating system.
Figure 16. Top ten cities by number of GBEL approved projects, as of Aug. 2012.
Table 8. U.S. and China green building policy comparison
Policy U.S. China

Codes and Codes: States implement Codes: National level
labeling plan codes largely based off of building efficiency codes
codes developed by for residential and
professional societies, commercial buildings,
compliance levels vary compliance occurs at
widely design stage
Labeling: LEED system Labeling: GBEL system
established in 2000 is established in 2007 with
popular and growing uptake slow at first but now
steadily, requirements growing more rapidly,
updated regularly (LEED v4 update for GBEL expected
was released in late 2013)
Government- Municipal and federal level 12th Five Year Plans has
led targets and LEED building mandates requirements that 80% of
demonstrations helped galvanize early new large commercial
LEED activity buildings will need to have
GBEL rating; many cities
have more aggressive
targets
Education and LEED education and GBEL process is entirely
awareness professional development government driven, with
programs key to success; LEED missed opportunities to
committee leads come from involve other stakeholders;
industry and professional workforce development and
societies improving quality, education is lacking
applicability, and popularity
of LEED standards
Fiscal policy Grants and tax credits Tiered incentives available
available at local level; for 2-star and 3-star GBEL
evidence of rent and sale buildings; higher upfront
price premiums for LEED cost of green buildings
buildings remains a barrier
Integrated Integrated design incentives None
design available in California and
promotion some other states
In the realm of government-led targets and demonstrations, this seems to

be an area where the U.S. and China share some common ground.
Government-led mandates at the federal and municipal level to build to LEED
standards helped galvanize green building activity in the U.S. in the early
2000’s. China is embarking on a similar approach in its 12th Five Year Plan,
requiring GBEL for 80% of all new commercial buildings. Although these
approaches are similar, approaches to fiscal policy that supports green building
investment differ between U.S. and China. In the U.S., small grants and tax
credits are used to spur LEED activity, while in China, incentives are offered
on a per square meter basis to get developers interested in designing and
constructing 2-star and 3-star buildings.
These different approaches may be due to a difference in barriers in each
country. In China, the upfront costs to green building may be more of a barrier
in the U.S. where research has shown that green buildings only have higher
costs by a couple percent and command significantly higher rental rates.
Therefore, direct cash incentives in China are offered to help defray those
initial upfront costs. As seen in Table 9, the increased capital costs for one-star
buildings in China is relatively low, and as such no incentives are offered for
that building type in the 12th Five Year Plan.
5. GREEN BUILDING MARKET DEVELOPMENT

IN THE U.S. AND CHINA
In a 2011 report by Rob Watson, the so-called “father of LEED”, data and
projections on LEED certified floor space were presented. While registrations
for LEED have grown around 40% per year on average for the past 12 years,
certifications have begun to slow in recent years, with 2010, 2011, and 2012
annual certified floorspace growth rates of 79%, 41%, and 23% respectively.
In 2013, there was more than 3.2 billion square feet (~293 million square
meters) of LEED certified floorspace globally, with 80% of that in the U.S.
The 2 billion square feet mark was passed at some point in 2012, with the first
one billion of those square feet taking 9 years to accumulate, and the second
billion only taking 3 years to accumulate (USGBC, 2013). So the LEED
certification market is definitely growing exponentially, and LEED certified
buildings accounted for roughly 20% of new floorspace in 2011. Watson’s
projections are more than 10 billion square feet (~1 billion square meters) of
LEED certified floorspace in 2020 and more than 28 billion square feet (~2.6
billion square meters) in 2030 (Watson, 2011). Official data from the USGBC
on the growth in LEED-certified floorspace is shown in Figure 17, where a
clear increase in the rate of uptake can be seen after 2008.
Table 9. Increased capital costs for green buildings in China based on

government reports
Average
Average incremental
incremental capital Payback
capital cost in
Rating cost in residential period
commercial buildings
buildings CNY/m2 (years)
CNY/m2 [USD/m2]
[USD/m2]
One star 60 [10] 30 [5] 1-3
Two star 120 [20] 230 [38] 3-8
Three star 300 [50] 370 [61] 7-11
Source: (MOHURD, 2012)
Table 10. Data and projections for LEED-certified floorspace globally
Square feet of Square meters of

Timeline
certified floorspace certified floorspace
2013 cumulative (Oct.) 3,158,000,000 293,371,000
2020 projection 10,517,000,000 977,061,000
2030 projection 28,313,000,000 2,630,364,000
Source: (2013 cumulative: USGBC, 2013; Projections: Watson, 2011).
Figure 17. LEED certified floor space in the U.S. by certification level (2000-2013).
Watson’s report also goes into detail on a number of studies that have
looked at the rental and sales price premiums that LEED-certified buildings
are able to get in comparison to conventional buildings. LEED certified
buildings can get anywhere from 5-17% higher rents and from 11-25% higher
sales prices as shown in Table 11 (Watson, 2011).
Table 11. Summary of US Green Office Value Studies
Study Rental Premium Sales Premium

Fuerst & McAllister Energy Star 4% Energy Star 26%
(2011) LEED 5% LEED 25%
Eichholtz et al (AER) Energy Star 3.3% Energy Star 19%
LEED 5.2% LEED 11%
Eichholtz et al (RICS) Energy Star 2.1% Energy Star 13%
LEED 5.8% LEED 11%
Pivo & Fisher 2.7% 8.5%
Wiley et al (2010) Energy Star 7-9% Not addressed
LEED 15-17% LEED 16-18%
Miller et al (2008) 9% None
Source: (Watson, 2011) and (Australian Property Institute, 2011)
Figure 18. LEED-certified floorspace in U.S. and China (million square meters).
In China, only 113 projects had received a rating under China’s Green
Building Energy Label by the end of the 11th Five Year Plan (2010). While
initial uptake in the use of GBEL was slow in the 11th Five Year Plan, usage
should increase much more rapidly in the next couple of years. Initial slow
uptake may be due to a preference for LEED or perception that GBEL rating is
harder to achieve than LEED. Figure 18 shows that China had about 8 million
square meters of LEED-certified floorspace in 2010 (USGBC data), while
there were 7 million square meters of GBEL-rated floorspace in 2010.
As of August 2012, the number of GBEL projects had grown to 494, with
a lot of that growth due to the city-specific targets mentioned in section 4.4.2.
Figure 19 below shows the number of GBEL certified projects by province. In
general, activity is greater in the coastal provinces, especially since a number
of cities in those provinces have their own city-level targets for green building,
including Shenzhen, Suzhou, and Nanjing.
Figure 19. Number of GBEL certified projects by province as of August 2012,

floorspace figures unavailable.
Note: U.S. LEED percentage based on USGBC data divided by commercial floor
space numbers from EIA. China 2010 and 2013 percentages based on government
data for GBEL floorspace and CEG commercial floorspace estimates and
assumptions. Projections from 2011 to 2015 based on assumption that China will
hit 1 billion square meter target in 2015, with half of that floorspace in the
commercial building sector
Figure 20. Percentage of commercial floorspace certified by LEED or GBEL, with

projection for China.
China has much more ambitious goals for the 12th Five Year Plan,
including a 1 billion square meters of green building floorspace target by the
end of 2015. If we make the assumption that 60% of that floorspace will be
residential and 40% will be commercial,4 then around 3% of China’s
commercial floorspace will be GBEL-rated according to China Energy Group
projections (400 million square meters out of 13.5 billion total square meters).
If the other 600 million square meters is residential floorspace, then the
proportion of GBEL-rated floorspace in 2015 for the residential sector would
be about 1%. Certainly, the incentives being offered are making developers
reconsider a GBEL rating as opposed to a LEED rating or no rating. Figure 20
shows some simple projections for the growth in commercial floor space that
is certified green. According to USGBC data (and U.S. government data for
total floorspace), LEED-certified buildings accounted for roughly 2.5% of
commercial building space at the end of 2012. In China, at the end of 2010,
only 0.04% of commercial floor space was GBEL rated, according to our
calculations. But by the end of 2013, 100 million square meters of total
floorspace had been certified –45% of which was commercial (about 0.3% of
total commercial floorspace was therefore GBEL certified).Yet, if China is to
hit its 2015 target, growth will have to be exponential. Indeed, growth in
LEED certified floor space in the U.S. has been roughly exponential, with a
sharp increase in uptake seen in 2008. Indeed, the two curves have a similar
shape in the early years of each respective program, with China’s curve
delayed by five to six years due to a difference in the formal beginning of the
LEED and GBEL rating programs. It remains to be seen, however, whether
LEED certified space will continue on a similar growth trajectory and whether
or not China will be able to hit its ambitious targets for GBEL.
CONCLUSION
With growing global and national emphasis on energy efficiency and
climate change, the market for green buildings is growing in both U.S. and
China, albeit at different speeds and supported by rating systems with similar
goals but different approaches. The U.S. LEED program was developed 10
years earlier by the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-governmental body, in
a consensus-based process with industry stakeholders. Since 2008, an
independent, third-party organization (Green Building Certification Institute)
has been responsible for administering all LEED registration and certification
as well as LEED professional accreditation. In contrast, the China GBEL
program is developed and administered entirely by central and local
government offices of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development.
These differences in program administration have affected the level of
awareness and acceptance of the two labeling programs in their respective
countries, with informational, institutional, and capacity limitations still major
barriers for the GBEL program.
The U.S. LEED and Chinese GBEL rating systems share many common
characteristics including the use of separate rating systems for new design
versus operational, residential versus commercial buildings, and mandatory
versus credit-based score items. There are some differences in the scope of
rating systems, with LEED having more specific rating systems differentiated
by building types than the GBEL program. More importantly, China GBEL
offers less flexibility for developers to achieve a specific rating since a project
must meet minimum requirements across all credit categories instead of only a
total score, as is the case for LEED. These differences can be traced back to
differences between the two countries’ building sectors, but also have
important policy and market development implications. Although
certifications for green buildings are important, a U.S. China green building
comparison will also need to compare actual building performance. A
performance-based evaluation study is to be written in 2014, as a continuation
of this study.
On the green building policy front, government-led green building
mandates at the federal and municipal level helped galvanize green building
activity in the U.S. in the early 2000’s. The sector continues to grow rapidly
off the back of a wide network of LEED-accredited professionals, positive
local policies, and an increasing body of evidence that green buildings can
command higher rent and sale prices. Now, LEED-certified buildings are
estimated to account for roughly 3% of commercial building space in the U.S.
China’s green building industry is about to enter a critical growth period.
In addition to an ambitious 1 billion square meter green building target for
2015 and a mandate that 80% of all new government- invested commercial
buildings be GBEL-certified, many cities are establishing their own targets,
requiring anywhere from 30% to 80% of new construction to be GBEL-
certified. Developers are still slow to take interest in green building, deterred
by the cost premium for building green while there have been problems with
the implementation of cash incentives offered by the national government. It
remains to be seen, whether China can hit its target for green building, but if it
does, it will easily become the world’s largest green building market.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are very grateful to the Shenzhen Institute of Building Research for
making this work possible and for their insightful contributions to the latest
development of green buildings in China. We also wish to express our
gratitude to Zhao Jing for her insights and input to this report and to Rick
Diamond, Adam Hinge, and Mark Levine for their review and feedback on
this report.
APPENDIX. SUPPORTING STANDARDS RELATED TO

LEED AND GBEL
LEED standards use a variety of other standards to evaluate different
aspects of green buildings. LEED- NC, for example, cites a couple of
ASHRAE standards. ASHRAE 90.1 is used to evaluate building energy
performance and quantify energy savings. The calculated savings will be
compared with LEED to quantify the credits a project can receive. Similarly,
ASHRAE standard 62.1 is used to evaluate green building ventilation and
indoor air quality. LEED certified buildings need to demonstrate higher
ventilation rate than required by ASHRAE 62.1. ASHRAE standard 52.2 is
used to evaluate air filtration media performance in green building.
Table 12. Select ASHRAE codes relevant to LEED-NC
ASHRAE Evaluation Compliance

Description of compliance
standard type option
ASHRAE Energy EA 1 Demonstrate a percentage
90.1/title performance, option1 energy savings from a baseline
24 simulation building. Baseline should
follow ASHRAE 90.1-2007.
Energy EA 1 Prescriptive measures of the
performance, option2 ASHRAE Advanced Energy
AEDG Design Guide
Energy EA 1 Comply with the prescriptive
performance, option3 measures identified in the
Advanced Advanced Buildings Core
Buildings™ performance
Core
Performance™
ASHRAE IEQ/IAQ IEQ P1 C1 Mechanical ventilation systems
62.1-2007 Option1 must be designed using the
ventilation rate procedure as
defined by ASHRAE 62.1-
2007. ASHRAE 62.1-2007 user
manual
IEQ P1 C2 Naturally ventilated buildings
must comply with ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-2007, Paragraph
5.1

ASHRAE IEQ/IAQ, IEQ 2 C1 Increase breathing zone
62.1-2007 Increased Option1 outdoor air ventilation rates to
ventilation all occupied spaces by at least
30% above the minimum rates
required by ASHRAE Standard
62.1-2007. Use CIBSE
Applications Manual 10: 2005,
or CIBSE AM 13:2000, Mixed
Mode Ventilation.
IEQ 2 C2 Determine that natural
Option1 ventilation is an effective
strategy for the project by
following the flow diagram
process shown in Figure 2.8 of
the CIBSE Applications
Manual 10: 2005
IEQ 2 C2 Use a macroscopic, multi-zone,
Option2 analytic model to predict that
room-by-room airflows will
effectively naturally ventilate,
defined as providing the
minimum ventilation rates
required by ASHRAE 62.1-
2007 section 6, for at least 90%
of occupied spaces.
ASHRAE IEQ/IAQ, IAQ IEQ 3.1 When developing and
52.2-1999 management, implementing an IAQ
Filtration management plan. Filtration
media media with a Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value
(MERV) of 8 as determined by
ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999
ASHRAE IEQ/IAQ, IEQ 5 Filtration media is rated a
52.2-1999 Indoor minimum efficiency reporting
pollutant value (MERV) of 13 or higher
source control in accordance with ASHRAE
Standard 52.2-1999

ASHRAE IEQ, Thermal IEQ 6.2 Provide individual comfort
62.1-2007 comfort controls for 50% (minimum) of
the building occupants to
enable adjustments to meet
individual needs and
preferences. Operable windows
may be used in lieu of controls
for occupants located 20 feet (6
meters) inside and 10 feet (3
meters) to either side of the
operable part of a window. The
areas of operable window must
meet the requirements of
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007
paragraph 5.1 Natural
Ventilation
ASHRAE IEQ, Thermal IEQ 6.2 ASHRAE Standard 55-2004
55-2004 comfort identifies the factors of thermal
comfort and a process for
developing comfort criteria for
building spaces that suit the
needs of the occupants
involved in their daily activities
ASHRAE IEQ, Thermal IEQ 7.1 Meet the requirements of
55-2004 comfort design option1 ASHRAE Standard 55- 2004,
Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human
Occupancy. Demonstrate
design compliance in
accordance with the Section
6.1.1 documentation
ASHRAE IEQ, Thermal IEQ 7.2 Agree to conduct a thermal
55-2004 comfort comfort survey of building
verification occupants within 6 to 18
months after occupancy.
ASHRAE 55-2004 provides
guidance for establishing
thermal comfort criteria and
documenting and validating
building performance to the
criteria
In China, labeling requirements for green buildings also often refer to the
national standard. The Green Building Evaluation Standards (GB/T 50378-
2006), which is the main guideline for the green building label and evaluation,
cites other national building codes as the concrete guidance for evaluation.
Table 13 shows some of the GBEL evaluation categories that refer to national
building codes.
Table 13. National codes relevant to Green Building Evaluation Standards
GBEL evaluation category Related national building code

4.1.4 Daylighting standards of Code of Urban Residential Areas Planning &
residential buildings Design (GB50180-93, 2002) 5.0.2.1
4.1.6 Greening rate, per capita Code of Urban Residential Areas Planning &
public green areas Design (GB50180-93, 2002) 7.0.2.3, 7.0.5
4.1.8 Noise, wastewater Noise Limits for Construction Site
(GB12523-2011) 2.1 Integrated Wastewater
Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996) 4.2.2.1,
4.2.2.2
4.1.9 Public Service Facility Code of Urban Residential Areas Planning &
Design (GB50180-93, 2002) 6.0.1-6.0.5
4.1.11 Environmental noise Environmental quality standard for noise
(GB3096-2008) 5.1
4.2.1 Building thermal Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
performance design, HVAC Residential Buildings in Severe Cold and
system design Cold Zones (JGJ26-2010) 4-5 Design
Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential
Buildings in Hot Summer and Cold Winter
Zone (JGJ134- 2010) 4-6
Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
Residential Buildings in Hot Summer and
Warm Winter zone (JGJ75- 2003) 4-6
4.2.2 Central HVAC system Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
design Public Buildings (GB50189) 5.4.5, 5.4.8
4.2.3 Heat metering design for Technical Specification for Heat Metering of
Central heating system District Heating System (JGJ173-2009)
4.2.5 Energy efficiency ratio Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
of pumps and fans Public Buildings (GB50189) 5.2.8, 5.3.26,
5.3.2, 5.4.3
The Minimum Allowable Values of the
Energy Efficiency and Energy Efficiency
Grades for Unitary Air Conditioners
(GB19576-2004) 5.1, 5.2

4.2.6 Energy efficiency ratio Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
of water chillers and unitary Public Buildings (GB50189) 5.4.5, 5.4.8
air conditioners The Minimum Allowable Values of the
(GB19576-2004) 4
Grades for water chillers (GB19577-2004) 4
4.3.1 Water for city residential Water Quantity Standard for city residential
use use (GB/T50331-2002) 3.0.1
4.3.3 Water devices Domestic Water Saving Devices (CJ164-
2002) 4
Technical Conditions For Water Saving
Products and General Regulation For
Management (GB/T 18870-2011) 6
4.3.5 Nontraditional water Code for Design of Waste Water Reclamation
source And Reuse (GB/T 50335-2002) 4, 5, 6
Code of Design for Building Reclaimed
Water System (GB/T 50336-2002) 3, 4, 5, 6
4.4.1 Harmful matter content Limited Releasing Value of Formaldehyde in
in building materials Artificial Board and Its Product from Interior
Decoration Furnishing Materials (GB 18580-
2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wood
Coatings with Solvent Type from Interior
2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Interior
Wall Coating Material from Interior
2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Cementing
Compound from Interior Decoration
Furnishing Materials (GB 18583- 2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wooden
Furniture from Interior Decoration Furnishing
Materials (GB 18584-2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wallpaper
from Interior Decoration Furnishing Materials
(GB 18585-2001)

Limited Harmful Matter Value of PVC floor
with Coiled material from Interior Decoration
Furnishing Materials (GB 18586-2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Carpet,
Carpet Lining and Cementing Compound for
Carpet from Interior Decoration
Limits of Ammonia Emitted from the
Concrete Admixtures (GB 18588-2001)
Limits of Radionuclides in Building Materials
(GB 6566- 2001)
4.5.1 Day lighting standards Code of Urban Residential Areas Planning &
of living space Design (GB50180-93, 2002) 5.0.2.1
4.5.2 Daylight factor Standard for Daylighting Design of Buildings
(GB50033- 2013) 3.0.3.
4.5.3 Sound insulation and Code for Design of Sound Insulation of Civil
noise reduction of building Buildings (GB 50118-2010) 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2
envelope
4.5.5 Air pollution Code for Indoor Environmental Pollution
concentration Control of Civil Buildings Engineering (GB
50325-2010) 3
4.5.7 Internal surface of Thermal Design Code for Civil Building
building envelope (GB50176-93) 4.3.1- 4.3.5
4.5.8 Highest temperature Thermal Design Code for Civil Building
design for internal surface of (GB50176-93) 5.1.1
roof and western and eastern
exterior wall on condition of
nature ventilation
5.1.5 Noise, wastewater Noise Limits for Construction Site
(GB12523-2011) 2.1 Integrated Wastewater
Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996) 4.2.2.1,
4.2.2.2
5.1.6 Site environment noise Environmental quality standard for noise
(GB3096-2008) 5.1
5.2.1 Thermal performance Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
indices of building envelope Public Buildings (GB50189) 4.2.2, 4.3
5.2.2 Energy Efficiency Ratio Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
of heating and cooling unit Public Buildings (GB50189) 5.4.3, 5.4.5,
5.4.8,5.4.9

(GB19576-2004) 4
Grades for water chillers (GB19577-2004) 4
5.2.4 Lighting Power Density Standard for Lighting Design of Buildings
(GB50034-2004) 6.1.2~6.1.4
5.2.8 Air permeability Graduations and Test Methods of Air
performance of building Permeability Water tightness Wind Load
external windows Resistance Performance for Building External
Windows and Doors (GB7106-2008) 4.1
5.2.13 Energy efficiency Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
equipment and system Public Building (GB50189) 5.3.26, 5.3.27
5.2.19 Lighting Power Standard for Lighting Design of Buildings
Density (GB50034-2004)
5.3.2 Building water supply Code for Design of Building Water Supply
and drainage and Drainage (GB50015-2003, 2009) 3, 4
5.3.4 Water devices Domestic Water Saving Devices (CJ164-
2002) 4 Technical Conditions For Water
Saving Products And General Regulation For
Management (GB/T 18870-2011) 6
5.3.5 Nontraditional water Code For Design Of Waste Water
source Reclamation And Reuse (GB/T 50335-2002)
4, 5, 6
Code Of Design For Building Reclaimed
Water System (GB/T 50336-2002) 3, 4, 5, 6
5.4.1 Harmful matter content Limited Releasing Value of Formaldehyde in
in building materials Artificial Board and Its Product from Interior
2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wood
Coatings with Solvent Type from Interior
2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Interior
Wall Coating Material from Interior
2001)

Limited Harmful Matter Value of Cementing
Compound from Interior Decoration
Furnishing Materials (GB 18583- 2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wooden
Furniture from Interior Decoration Furnishing
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Wallpaper
from Interior Decoration Furnishing Materials
(GB 18585-2001)
Limited Harmful Matter Value of PVC floor
with Coiled material from Interior Decoration
Limited Harmful Matter Value of Carpet,
Carpet Lining and Cementing Compound for
Carpet from Interior Decoration Furnishing
Limits of Ammonia Emitted from the
Concrete Admixtures (GB 18588-2001)
Limits of Radionuclides in Building Materials
(GB 6566- 2001)
5.5.1 Room design parameters Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
Public Buildings (GB50189) 3.0.1
5.5.3 Fresh air volume Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of
Public Buildings (GB50189) 3.0.2
5.5.4 Air pollution Code for Indoor Environmental Pollution
concentration Control of Civil Buildings Engineering (GB
50325-2010) 3
5.5.5 Indoor background noise Code for Design of Sound Insulation of Civil
Buildings (GB 50118-2010) 7.2, 8.2
Hygienic Standard for Commercial Buildings
and Bookstores (GB9670-1996) 2.1.
5.5.6 Indoor lighting indices Standard for Lighting Design of Buildings
(GB50034-2004) 5.2.
5.5.11 Daylight factor Standard for Daylighting Design of Buildings
(GB50033- 2013) 3.2.2-3.2.7.
5.6.7 Checking and cleaning Cleaning Code for Air Duct System in
AC systems Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning
Systems (GB19210-2003) 4, 6
REFERENCES
Amecke H., Deason, J., Hobbs, A., Novikova, A., Yang, X. & Zhang, S.
(2013). “Buildings Energy Efficiency in China, Germany and the United
States.” Climate Policy Initiative Report.
ASHRAE. (2013). “ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 -- Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.”
https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/standard-90-1
Australian Property Institute. (2011). Building Better Returns. Australian
Property Institute, Property Funds Association.
Bradsher, K. (2011 15-June). China Takes a New Interest in Energy
Efficiency. From New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/
business/energy-environment/16green.html?pagewanted=all
Building Energy Codes Program. (2010). Measuring State Energy Code
Compliance. PNNL-19281. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies
Program. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Bullitt Foundation. (2013). Main floor exhibit at the Bullitt Center. Seattle,
Washington: Bullitt Foundation.
Burr, A., Keicher, C. & Leipziger, D. (2011, July). Building Energy
Transparency: A Framework for Implementing U.S. Commercial Energy
Rating and Disclosure Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Market
Transformation. Retrieved from www.buildingrating.org/sites/default/
files/documents/IMT-Building_Energy_Transparency_Report.pdf
CEC. (2011). Revised Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Definition. IEPR Workshop.
Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
CEE. (2010, December). CEE 2010 State of the Efficiency Program Industry.
Boston, MA: Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Retrieved from http://
www.cee1.org/files/2010 State of the Efficiency Program Industry.pdf
Chongqing Municipal Government. (2013) Chongqing Green Building Action
and Implementation Plan (2013-2020). 23 December 2013. http://www.
cq.gov.cn/publicinfo/web/views/Show!detail.action?sid=3741525.
CPUC. (2011). California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan: Research and
Technology Action Plan 2012-2015. San Francisco, CA: California Public
Utilities Commission.
CPUC. (2013). Design Team Incentives. Retrieved from Savings by Design:
http://www.savingsbydesign.com/design-team 59
DOE. (2012, October). Database of State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency. Retrieved from Baltimore County - Property Tax Credit for
High Performance Buildings and Homes: http://www.dsireusa.org/

incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MD62F
DOE. (2012, December 12). Priority Permit Processing for Green Buildings.
Retrieved from Database for State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_
Code= HI25F
Fuerst, F. & McAllister, P. (2009). "New Evidence on the Green Building
Rent and Price Premium." Annual Meeting of the American Real Estate
Society. Monterey, CA, 2009.
Furr, J. E., Kibert, N. C., Mayer, J. T. & Sentman, S. D. (Ed.) (2009). “Green
Building and Sustainable Development: the Practical Legal Guide.”
Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.
Geng Y., Dong, H., Xue, B. & Fu, J. (2012). “An Overview of Chinese Green
Building Standards.” Sustainable Development, 20, 211-221.
Han, W. (2009). Practice and Experience of Promoting Efficient Lighting in
China. Presentation at the International Conference on Green Industry in
Asia (September 11, 2009), Manila.
Hoffman, A., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the Social and Psychological
Barriers to Green Building. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Ross
School of Business.
International Code Council (ICC). (2012). “2012 International Energy
Conservation Code.” http://shop.iccsafe.org/codes/2012-international-
codes/2012-international-energy-conservation-code/2012-international-
energy-conservation-code-soft-cover.html
Kandt, A. & Lowell, M. (2012). WREF 2012: GSA's Green Proving Ground:
Identifying, testing, and evaluating innovative technologies. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kats, G. (2008). Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits.
Washington, DC: Good Energies.
Kong , X., Lu, S. & Wu, Y. (2011). A Review of Building Energy Efficiency
in China During the Eleventh Five Year Plan Period. Energy Policy, 41,
624-635.
Lee, E. S., et al. (2009) High Performance Building Façade Solutions: PIER
Final Project Report. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 2009. 60
Levine, M. D., Price, L., Zhou, N., Fridley, D., Aden, N., Lu, H., et al. (2010).
Assessment of China’s Energy-Saving and Emission Reduction
Accomplishments and Opportunities During the 11th Five Year Plan.
Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: LBNL-3385E.
Levine, M., De La Rue de Can, S., Zheng, N., Williams, C., Amann, J. &
Staniaszek. (2012). Building Energy Efficiency Best Practice Policies and
Policy Packages. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Li, H. (2011, October 19). Office of Green Building Label Management at
Center of Science and Technology of Construction, MOHURD. (Y. Yuan,
Interviewer)
Liu F., Meyer A. & Hogan, J. (2010). “Mainstreaming Building Energy
Efficiency Codes in Developing Countries: Global Experiences and
Lessons from Early Adopters.” World Bank Working Paper No. 204.
Lovins, A. (1995). Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and
Opportunities. Boulder, CO: E Source.
Malone, A. (2010). “IBR Headquarters: Best Green Project.” Architectural
Record Case study. http://archrecord.construction.com/ar_china/
China_Awards/2010/ibr/default.asp
Ministry of Finance (MOF). (2007). Strengthening the Implementation of
Energy Conservation Management of Government Office Buildings and
Large-scale Public Buildings. MOF: No. 245 [2007].
MOF (2009). Interim Management Methods on Financial Subsidy for
Application of Solar Building Integrated Photovoltaic. MOF No. 129
[129].
MOF. (2011a). Further Notice on Public Buildings’ Energy Efficiency Efforts.
MOF No. 207.
MOF. (2011b). Fiscal Policy for Energy Efficient and Emission Reduction
Demonstration Provinces and Cities. MOF No. 383 [2007].
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD). (2006).
GB/T 50378-2006 Green Building Evaluation Standards (in Chinese).
Beijing: MOHURD.
MOHURD. (2007). Technical Code for Evaluating Green Buildings (in
Chinese). Beijing: MOHURD.
MOHURD. (2008). Management Methods for Green Building Evaluation and
Certification (in Chinese). Beijing: MOHURD.
MOHURD. (2012, January 30). 12th FYP Building Energy Conservation
Special Plan (Draft for Public Review). Beijing, China. 61
MOHURD Green Building Label Management Office. (2013a). “Chinese
Green Building Evaluation Label Case Studies: China 2010 Shanghai
World Expo Center.” Retrieved 12 September 2013. http://www.cngb.org.
cn/showzx.aspx?id=26&cid=128
MOHURD Green Building Label Management Office. (2013b). “Chinese
Green Building Evaluation Label Case Studies: Shandong Jiaotong
University Library.” Retrieved 12 September 2013. http://www.cngb.org.

cn/showzx.aspx?id=68&cid=128
Mo, K. (2009). China Launches National Green Building Label Campaign.
Retrieved from Natural Resources and Defense Council Switchboard:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kmo/china_launches_national_green.ht
ml
NBS. (2009). China Statistical Yearbook 2008. Beijing: National Statistics
Press.
Obama, B. (2009). Executive Order 13514 — Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Washington, DC:
United States Government Printing Office.
Payne, C. & Harris, J. (2004). DOE Leadership in Energy and Water
Efficiency for Sustainable Federal Buildings. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL Report #55255.
People's Daily. (2012, May 7). One Billion Square Meters of Green Buildings
to be Added During 12th Five-Year Plan Period. Retrieved from
http://www.chinagb.net/news/waynews/20120507/86083.shtml
Peters, J., Albers, N., Goldman, C., Stuart, E. & Fuller, M. (2010). Energy
Efficiency Services Sector: Workforce Education and Training Needs.
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Summer Study.
Pacific Grove, CA: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
REEEP. (2009). Using Financial and Market-based Mechanisms to Improve
Building Energy Efficiency in China. Vienna: Renewable Energy &
Energy Efficiency Partnership.
Shenzhen Development and Reform Commission. (2012). The announcement
of Shenzhen's medium to long-term plan for low carbon development
(2011-2020). 14 May 2012.
Shenzhen Institute of Building Research. (2009). Sharing Design, 2nd edition
(in Chinese). Beijing: China Construction Industry Press.
SIBR. (2010). Sharing Operation & Maintenance (in Chinese). Beijing: China
Construction Industry Press.
SIBR. (2011). “The Server for Green City Development: Shenzhen Institute of
Building Research.” Shenzhen: Shenzhen Institute of Building Research.
62
Shui, B., Lin, H., Song, B., Halverson, M., Evans, M. & Zhu, X. (2011).
Feedback from Focus Group Meeting on Training and Implementation of
Building Energy Codes in China. Retrieved from http://www.pnl.gov/
main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17909.pdf
Shui, B. & Li, J. (2012). Building Energy Efficiency Policies in China. Global
Building Performance Network Technical Report. Retrieved from
http://www.gbpn.org/reports/building-energy-efficiency-policies-china-
status-report-0
Sigmon, J. (2012). Code Creep: How Green Is Making Its Way into Codes and
What It Means for the Future of Codes and Incentive Programs. 2012
National Symposium on Market Transformation. Washington, DC:
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Song, L. (2008). Chinese Green Building Label. Presentation by Song Ling,
Green Building Label Management Office, Beijing. Retrieved from
http://chinagreenbuildings.blogspot.com/
State of Pennsylvania. (2013). High Performance Green School Planning
Grant. Retrieved from Pennsylvania Governor's Green Government
Council: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&obj
ID=588218&mode=2
Tsinghua University Building Energy Research Center. (2011). China
Building Energy Efficiency Development and Research Annual Report
2011. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2013a). Residential Energy
Consumption Survey 2009. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/data/2009/#fueluses
U.S. EIA. (2013b). Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2003.
Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_
tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html
U.S. EIA. (2013c). Annual Energy Outlook 2012. Retrieved from
http://ww.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_01232012.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). Best Practices for
Program Design and Implementation. Retrieved October 2011, from
ENERGY STAR New Homes: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?
c=bldrs_lenders_raters.nh_benefits_utilities_2
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (2013a). “LEED Rating Systems.”
Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems
USGBC. (2013b). LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
Rating System. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved
from http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-new-construction-v2009-
current-version 63
USGBC. (2013c). LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operations and
Maintenance Rating System. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building
Council. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-existing-

buildings-v2009-current-version
USGBC. (2013d). “Project Directory: New Construction v2.1: Betty Irene
Moore Natural Sciences Building” Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/
projects/betty-irene-moore-natural-sciences-building?view=stories
USGBC. (2013e). “Project Directory: Existing Buildings v2008: FBI Regional
Headquarters Scorecard.” Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/
projects/fbi-regional-headquarters?view=scorecard
USGBC. (2013e, July 19). LEED Monthly Update. Retrieved from U.S. Green
Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/usgbc-monthly-update
Watson, R. (2011). Green Building Market and Impact Report 2011. Oakland,
CA: GreenBiz Group.
WBCSD. (2009). Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Transforming the Market.
Washington, DC: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wu, Y. (2012, January 12). Staff of MOHURD. (N. Zhou, Interviewer)
Yin, S., Liu, Y. & Zeng, D. (2011). China Renewable Energy Architecture
Development Forecast in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan. 2011 International
Conference on Economics and Finance Research 4. Singapore: IACSIT
Press.
Zhang, X. (2011). Policy Recommendations for China’s Three Star Green
Building Rating and Labeling Program. Berkeley, CA: University of
California at Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy.
Zhou, N. & Lin, J. (2008). The Reality and Future Scenarios of Commercial
Building Energy Consumption in China. Retrieved from
http://china.lbl.gov/publications/reality-and-future-scenarios-commercial-
building-energy-consumption-china
Zhou, N., McNeil, M. & Levine, M. (2010). Assessment of Building Energy-
Saving Policies and Programs in China During the 11th Five Year Plan.
The 2010 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Paris.
End Notes
1
In China, non-residential buildings are officially referred to as “public buildings” and include
both government- owned and operated and private commercial buildings. In this report, the
commonly accepted terminology of “commercial buildings” is used instead of “public
buildings” to refer to non-residential buildings in China.
2
Mtce or million tons of coal equivalent is the standard unit for energy in China and is equal to
29.27 x 1015 Joules (i.e., million GJ).
3
USD equivalent is based on approximate conversion using 2010 average currency exchange rate
of 6.05 Yuan per USD.
4
This is one par with current development which has been 55% residential and 45% commercial
to date, according to China’s latest Annual Climate Change “Green Book”.
In: Green Buildings in the U.S. and China ISBN: 978-1-63463-641-4
Editor: Brenden Forester © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 2
CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES —

A COMPARISON OF GREEN ENERGY
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES*
Richard J. Campbell
SUMMARY
China is the world’s most populous country with approximately 1.4
billion people. It has experienced tremendous economic growth over the
last three decades with an average annual increase in gross domestic
product (GDP) of 9.8% during that period. This has led to an increasing
demand for energy, spurring China to more than double its electric power
generating capacity in each of the last three decades, growing from 66
GigaWatts (GW) installed in 1980 to 1,100 GW installed as of 2011.
Coal currently fuels about 66% of China’s electricity generation.
However, the reduction of air pollution (caused in part by the burning of
coal for electric power) has become a major public policy focus in China.
China has set ambitious targets for developing its renewable energy
resources with a major push of laws, policies, and incentives in the last
few years. The wind power sector is illustrative of China’s
accomplishments, as installed wind power capacity has gone from 0.567
GW in 2003 to 91 GW in 2013; China surpassed the United States in
2010 with over 41 GW of installed wind power capacity. Notably,
*
This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a Congressional Research Service
publication, No. R41748, dated April 30, 2014.
94 Richard J. Campbell
however, approximately 18% of that capacity was not yet connected to

the power grid in 2013. Plans already exist to grow China’s wind power
capacity to 200 GW by 2020. A similar goal exists for the solar
photovoltaic (PV) power sector. Installed solar PV capacity rose from
0.14 GW as of 2009 to over 19 GW in 2013, with goals reported for 50
GW of solar PV capacity by 2020. Also, a hold on large- and medium-
scale hydropower project development has been lifted, with a virtual
doubling of hydropower capacity from approximately 200 GW of
capacity to 380 GW planned by 2020. The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP)
encompassing the years 2011 to 2015 has further formalized the link to
green energy with specific deployment goals and investment. China
recognizes that developing its domestic renewable energy industry and
building its manufacturing capacity will help it meet energy demands at
home and potentially win advantages in future export markets.
The key piece of legislation in recent years for advancing renewable
electricity in China is the Renewable Energy Law of 2005. The law was
designed to “promote the development and utilization of renewable
energy, improve the energy structure, diversify energy supplies,
safeguard energy security, protect the environment, and realize the
sustainable development of the economy and society.” Renewable energy
is subsidized by a fee charged to all electricity users in China of about
0.029 cents per kiloWatt-hour, and was originally based on the
incremental cost difference between coal and renewable energy power
generation.
However, energy efficiency and conservation are officially China’s
top energy priority. These are considered the “low-hanging fruit” in the
quest to reduce energy use and cut demand. Energy conservation
investment projects have priority over energy development projects under
the Energy Conservation Law of 1997, with government-financed
projects being selected on “technological, economic and environmental
comparisons and validations of the projects.” China is the world’s largest
market for new construction, and new building standards have been in
development since 2005 with national energy design criteria for
residential buildings. In the power generation sector, many smaller, less
efficient coal-fired power plants have been closed. The 11th FYP targeted
a 20% overall reduction in the energy intensity (i.e., energy consumption
per unit of GDP) of the economy. The 12th FYP builds upon this goal,
aiming to reduce energy intensity an additional 16% by 2015.
In contrast to China, some argue that the United States does not have
a comprehensive national policy in place for promotion of renewable
energy technologies, with some observers saying that the higher costs of
renewable electricity are not conducive to market adoption. However, for
both countries, the reasons for increasing the use of renewable energy are
diverse, and include energy security, energy independence, cleaner air,
China and the United States … 95
and more recently anthropogenic climate change, sustainability, and

economic development.
INTRODUCTION
China is the world’s most populous country with approximately 1.4 billion
people. It has experienced tremendous economic growth over the last three
decades with an average annual increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of
9.8% during that period.1 This rapid economic growth has led to an increasing
demand for energy, spurring China to more than double its electric power
generating capacity in each of the last three decades, growing from 66
GigaWatts (GW) installed in 1980 to 1,100 GW installed as of 2011.2
China is also the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal.3
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal
currently fuels about 66% of China’s electricity generation.4 However, the
reduction of air pollution caused in part by the burning of coal for electric
power has become a major public policy focus in China.5 While many of
China’s new coal plants are among the most technically advanced in the
world,6 burning coal results in sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and
particulate emissions which contribute to air pollution, and greenhouse gas7
emissions linked to global climate change.8 The current and potential future
environmental consequences of burning coal are a major reason China has
been decreasing the use of coal,9 and actively seeking to increase its renewable
energy10 capabilities. When current rates of use are considered, limited
domestic reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil provide another impetus for
change. However, China’s announced intent to rely on domestic, sustainable
solutions for its growing energy needs has led to a focus on developing
“green” or renewable energy resources.11
China has ambitious targets for developing both its hydropower and non-
hydropower renewable energy resources with a major push of laws,
regulations and incentives in the last few years. Development of large- and
medium-sized hydropower projects had previously been at a standstill with
environmental impact and population displacement issues presenting major
obstacles.12 The wind power sector is illustrative of China’s accomplishments,
as installed wind power capacity has gone from 567 MegaWatts (MW) in 2003
to 75,000 MW in 2012.13 Developing its domestic renewable energy resources
also provides a growth opportunity for China’s domestic renewable energy
technology industries, and serves to increase its domestic manufacturing

capabilities.
Source: http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/china-provinces-map-855.jpg.
Figure 1. Map of China; Administrative Regions and Provinces.
This report will look at the laws, programs, and policies encouraging
development of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass power in the China and
the United States as the major renewable electricity technologies common to
both countries.
EXISTING LAWS, PROGRAMS, AND INCENTIVES

Government incentives in the United States and China for renewable
energy projects encompass a set of tools which generally depend on where a
particular project is on a product development cycle, and will be the focus of
this report. For example, direct subsidies are more often applied earlier in the
timeline of research and development (R&D) projects, while tax incentives are
generally made available later in a cycle to aid manufacturing ventures or to
encourage consumers to adopt the technologies and help to build demand.
China14
Most of the large industries in China (such as steel and petrochemicals)

are comprised of state-owned enterprises which are essentially run by the
national government. The five large power generation companies in China are
also government entities: Huaneng, Guodian, Datang, Huadian, Zhongdiantou.
Two utility grid companies exist – the State Grid Corporation covering the 22
provinces in northern and western China, and the Southern Power Grid in the
five provinces in southern China (see Figure 1). For many years, the National
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) was the regulatory body in
China with control over energy prices and project approval, and control over
China’s renewable energy development. As a result of recent reforms, energy
policy strategy in China is now guided at the highest levels by the National
Energy Commission (NEC). 15
Large scale investment in clean energy technologies is a relatively recent
undertaking for China, with air pollution concerns prompting the first forays
into clean energy development. More recent attention to mitigating the
perceived effects of global climate change has provided additional
momentum.16 Policies for encouraging renewable energy in China are largely
driven by the central government, and enacted through national and provincial
and local government programs.
China led global investment in 2013 with $61.3 billion in clean energy
funding, but that amount was down 4% from the $63.8 billion invested in
2012. This represented the first decline in China’s clean energy spending in
over a decade.17
Clean Energy Research and Development Programs18

A series of programs promoting research and development of renewable
energy technologies were established by China in the last quarter of the past
century under the Ministry of Science and Technology. These included the
following:
Key Technology R&D Program: Initiated in 1982 to address major

science and technology issues in economic and social development, this
was China’s first national R&D program supporting innovation for
environmental pollution control and efficient resource utilization for
energy and water. Almost $1 billion was invested between 2001 and
2005.19
863 Program: Known more formally as the “National High-Tech
Development Plan,” the 863 Program was created in March 1986 to
develop a wide range of technology fields. The program focuses on
boosting innovation in strategic high technology sectors so that China can
gain a foothold in world markets. Its initial objective was to make China
independent of financial obligations for foreign technologies, and to
diversify research efforts away from purely military themes to civilian
and dual-use technologies such as satellites, computers, robotics,
biotechnology, energy and space exploration. The program invested $3
billion in research from 2001 to 2005, and another $585 million was
approved in 2008 jointly for the 863 and 973 R&D programs.20
973 Program: The National Basic Research Program focuses on
fundamental, basic research and thus complements the 863 Program.
Energy and sustainable development have been key features of the 973
Program since its founding at the third meeting of the National Science
and Technology Committee in 1997. The program funded 382 projects
between 1998 and 2008, with a total investment of $1.3 billion.21
Five-Year Plans: The Five-Year Plans (FYP) are the guide to
China’s economic growth. The 10th FYP (for 2001 to 2005) budgeted
$2.4 billion for the implementation of 12 “mega-projects” based on the
863 and National Key Technologies Programs aimed at achieving
significant technological breakthroughs for China’s industries. The 11th
FYP (for 2006 to 2010) identifies energy technologies as a focus of the
863 Program, with hydrogen, fuel cells, energy efficiency, clean coal and
renewable energy a focus of $172 million in funds. The 11th FYP has also
made utility-scale renewable energy and new energy development the
973 Program’s main focus. 22 Renewable energy was increasingly being
linked to China’s future wellbeing—both economically and
environmentally.
The 12th FYP will encompass the period from 2011 to 2015, and was
formally announced in March, 2011. Energy efficiency and renewable energy
continue as a focus of China’s government as part of seven new “Strategic
Emerging Industries.”23 China will likely follow the plan with specific
investment goals (through preferential tax, fiscal and procurement tools) in
biotechnology, new energy (i.e., nuclear, solar, wind power, biomass), High-
end Equipment Manufacturing, Energy Conservation and Environmental
Protection (i.e., energy efficiency, advanced environmental protection,
recycling), Clean-Energy Vehicles, New Materials, and Next-Generation
Information Technology. These industries are expected to become the
“backbone of China’s economy” in the near future, offering inroads to global
markets.24
Key Legislation Promoting Renewable Energy

Renewable energy had been encouraged by a number of early laws in
China, but these were intended more for rural development in distributed
generation schemes. Many laws governing renewable energy do not have a lot
of details prescribing how the legislation should be implemented. The laws
generally state goals or what has to be accomplished, and lay out a framework.
The details on how goals will be achieved are determined later, usually by the
NDRC.
The main law governing China’s power industry is the Electricity Law of
1995.25 It was the first law to place legislative controls on the utility industry,
centralizing control of existing regulatory agencies and restructuring state-
owned electricity companies. The law was designed to promote the safe
development of the electricity industry, and identified renewable energy as a
means to develop electrification especially in rural areas.26
The Energy Conservation Law of 1997 was enacted by the Standing
Committee of the National People’s Congress to guide the use of energy
resources, promote energy-saving technologies, and protect the environment.
The General Provisions state that “Energy conservation is a long-term strategy
for national economic development,” and the “state shall encourage and
support research and popularization in the science and technology of energy
conservation.” While energy development and conservation are both being
pursued, energy conservation investment projects are given priority over
energy development projects under Article 10, with projects under the central
government being selected on “technological, economic and environmental
comparisons and validations of the projects.” Article 11 then directs the State
Council and provincial governments to “allocate energy conservation funds
from both capital construction and technological restructuring investment

funds to support rational energy utilization and development of new and
renewable sources of energy.” Article 38 of the Law requires government “at
all levels” to use renewable energy resources sustainably, especially for rural
areas. Article 39 focuses on improving energy efficiency in a variety of
applications:
The State encourages the development of the following universal

energy conservation technologies: (1) promote the wide use of
cogeneration of heat and power and district heating, increase the
utilization rate of heat and power units, develop heat-cascading
technology, combined heat, power and cooling technology and combined
heat, power and coal gas technology, and increase the efficiency of
thermal energy application in an all-round way; (2) gradually achieve
more-efficient operation of electric motors, fans, pumping equipment and
systems; develop adjustable speed motor drives for energy conservation
and electric-electronic power saving technology; develop, produce and
disseminate the use of high-quality and low-cost energy-efficient
appliances and equipment; and increase the efficiency of electric power;
(3) develop and disseminate the use of clean coal technologies, including
fluidized bed combustion, smokeless combustion, and gasification and
liquefaction, that are suited to domestic coals in order to increase coal
utilization efficiency; and (4) develop and disseminate other universal
energy-efficient technologies that are proved mature and yield remarkable
benefits.
Article 40 directs all trades and professions to seek and disseminate

energy-efficient technologies or solutions, and to replace outdated
technologies and equipment. 27
The Energy Conservation Law is generally written to consider
sustainability while feeding the growth of the economy. Conservation and
energy efficiency measures are seen as ways to lower the financial and
environmental costs of funding China’s growing economy. Demand-side
management is also a key feature of China’s 2007 Climate Change Program in
reducing the energy intensity28 of the economy through:
the development of specific energy conservation plans, the adoption

and implementation of technology, economic, fiscal and management
policies in favor of energy conservation, the development and application
of energy efficiency standards and labeling, the encouragement of R&D,
demonstration and diffusion of energy-saving technologies, the importing
and absorbing of advanced energy-saving technologies, the creation and
employment of new energy conservation mechanisms, and the promotion

of key energy conservation projects.29
China’s Law for Prevention and Control of Air Pollution of 2000 also
looks to renewable energy as a means of preventing atmospheric air pollution.
The law encourages the support and development of clean energy technologies
for “solar energy, wind energy and water energy.”30
However, the key piece of legislation in recent years for moving
renewable energy deployment forward is the Renewable Energy Law of
2005.31 The law was based on goals to “promote the development and
utilization of renewable energy, improve the energy structure, diversify energy
supplies, safeguard energy security, protect the environment, and realize the
sustainable development of the economy and society.” The law has several key
elements. It:
• Allows for middle and long-term national targets to be set for the total
volume of renewable energy development (Article 7);
• Mandates connection with the grid and the purchase of electricity
from licensed renewable energy generators (Article 14); and
• Makes available preferential loans with subsidized interest rates
(Article 25), and granted tax benefits (Article 26) for renewable
energy projects.
While under the provisions of the law, the “energy authorities of the State
Council” are to implement its provisions both locally and nationally, the
NDRC developed a Medium and Long-Term Development Plan for
Renewable Energy32 (MLTPRE) in 2007 to implement the law. The
MLTPRE established national deployment goals by technology to reach
renewable energy. The “Guiding Principles” of the MLTPRE state that it
focused on hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass energy development and
deployment, coordinating renewable energy development with economic,
social, and environmental objectives. Overall, the MLTPRE aimed at raising
the share of renewable energy to 10% of total primary energy consumption by
the end of 2010, and 15% by 2020. The cost of renewable energy development
and deployment in excess of conventional power (e.g., coal) is to be socialized
by passing the expense to all customers as a surcharge to the retail price of
power.
Mandates for market share under the MLTPRE require areas of China
covered by large scale power grids to have non-hydropower renewable energy
account for 1% of total power generation by 2010, and at least 3% by 2020.

Power generators with installed capacities over 5 GW are required to have
non-hydropower renewable energy of 3% of total capacity as of the end of
2010, and at least 8% by 2020.33 The national government recently added an
incentive for the grid companies to connect to renewable energy projects. The
Renewable Energy Law was amended in 2009 to require electricity grid
companies to buy all the electricity produced by renewable energy generators.
Power companies refusing to comply are to be fined an amount up to twice the
“economic loss” of the renewable energy producer.34 China’s pledge for 15%
of total energy consumption to come from nonfossil fuel sources by the year
2020 made ahead of the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen35 was reiterated by
the National Energy Administration36 at a Beijing national work conference in
January 2011.37 The 11th FYP targeted a 20% overall reduction in the energy
intensity38 of the economy. The 12th FYP builds upon this goal, aiming to
reduce energy intensity an additional 16% by 2015.39
Renewable Energy Focus

China’s renewable energy development goals are shown in Table 1. The
major renewable energy technologies are described in the following
paragraphs. Since China considers hydropower to be renewable energy, it is
also included in the section.
Table 1. China—Renewable Energy Deployment Targets

(Capacities by Year)
Renewable Energy Source 2005 2010 2020

Hydropower 117 GW 200 GWa 380 GWb
Biomass Power 2 GW 5.5 GW 30 GWb
Wind Energy 1.26 GW 42 GWa 200 GWb
Solar PV 0.07 GW 0.6 GWa 50 GWb
Bioethanolc 1.02 million tons 2 million tons 10 million tons
Biodieseld 50,000 tons 200,000 tons 2 million tons
Source: Compiled by CRS from various sources. Notes: GigaWatts (GW)
a
Actual installed capacity for 2010.
b
Reported new target.
c
Non-food grains used as feedstock.
d
From waste and edible oil sources.
Biomass
Biomass as a source of grid-connected electric power in China has yet to
realize its full potential, with inefficiencies in transporting biomass feedstocks
to centralized locations being a major hurdle. Biomass electric production was
estimated to have reached 5,500 MW in 2010, and is expected to increase to
30,000 MW by 2020.40 Biomass is widely used in China’s rural areas where
over 80% of the population lives.41 When biomass is used in biogas digesters,
the resulting biogas mixture can be up to 70% methane.42 Biogas produced
from livestock manure is a major resource in rural areas for household cooking
and heating.43 Biogas methane can also be used to fuel internal combustion
engine generators to produce electricity for households. Larger biogas projects
from collectives can operate cogeneration facilities providing thermal energy
for heating or hot water.
Biomass-fueled electricity is generally considered to be carbon-neutral,
but biomass is a very small part of China’s overall centralized electricity
production. Development of biomass projects connected to the grid is expected
to be limited to areas with abundant biomass resources in order to promote
direct-fired biomass electric power generation plants. As of 2006, biomass
electric power capacity was about 2,200 MW.44 Biomass power projects are
eligible for a feed-in tariff45 (FIT) which was raised to $0.051 per kilowatt-
hour in 2008.46 A production subsidy was authorized of $19 to $22 per ton of
biomass pellets produced from agricultural or forestry residues.47 Biomass
energy is also viewed as a part of the solution to arrest desertification in China,
with programs to plant willow trees springing up in affected regions. Willow
trees grow quickly, and are harvested for energy. For example, a power plant
in Inner Mongolia burns as much as 200,000 tons of willow annually,
producing 210 million kiloWatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, thus displacing
power from coal-based generation. The ashes left over from the combustion
process can be used for fertilizer.48
With China’s domestic oil reserves dwindling, biofuels are considered a
supplement to enhance China’s transportation energy supplies, and reduce air
emissions. Over $290 million was allocated for research, development, and
demonstration of biofuels. While biofuels can be made from a variety of
biomass sources, China’s MLTPRE focuses on using marginal lands and non-
food crops for biofuels production,49 with specific targets for bioethanol and
biodiesel (See Table 1). It should also be noted that China has become a net
food importing country which makes food security a priority, and is a likely
reason for China’s focus on non-food crop sources of bioethanol.50 As of 2009,
China was the world’s third largest national producer of ethanol, following the
United States and Brazil.51
Hydropower
China is now the world’s largest hydropower producer with over 229 GW
of installed capacity.52 That capacity is expected to increase to 290 GW by
2015, according to goals announced by China’s National Energy
Administration, with major new dams to be installed on the Huanghe,
Jinshangjiang,Yalongjhiang, Daduhe, Nujiang, and Lancangjiang rivers.53
With the lifting of the effective “ban” on large- and medium-scale hydropower
development, 54 China now reportedly plans to virtually double its hydropower
capacity to 380 MW by 2020.55 China’s overall potential for “technically
developable” hydropower is estimated to be 542 GW, with over 400 GW of
that capacity seen as “economically developable.” Past dam-building booms
created many water resource and environmental problems, but China’s
government has passed a variety of water-protection laws and regulations over
the last 20 years which it hopes will reduce environmental impacts of the
current dam-building cycle.56
Solar
China’s initial goal for solar power was established in the 2007 MLTPRE
at 1.8 GW. A “Golden Roofs” initiative announced in March 2009 provided a
subsidy of $2.93 per Watt for roof-mounted solar photovoltaic57 (PV) systems
over 50 kiloWatts (kW) which could cover over half of a system’s installation
cost. A feed-in tariff of $0.16 per kWh was also established for PV power
projects at the same time. Encouragement for larger utility scale solar projects
was announced in July 2009 under the “Golden Sun” program, which provides
for up to 50% of project costs (including transmission or distribution lines to
connect to the grid), and up to 70% of such costs for projects in more remote
areas (such as the Western Region). The Golden Sun program was for projects
of 300 MW capacity (and above) which are in service for a minimum of 20
years.58 Provinces also provide local incentives for solar development. For
example, the Jiangsu provincial government established a FIT for solar power
from ground-based solar farms, rooftop, or building integrated PV systems
installed in 2009 with respective rates of $0.31, $0.54, and $0.63 per kWh of
electricity generated.59
A national solar FIT was initiated in 2011 at 1.15 yuan ($0.19) per kWh
for ground-based, utility-type systems, but the subsidy was lowered that year
to 1 yuan ($0.16) per kWh. China announced a new FIT policy in 2013,
extending the program to cover distributed generation (DG) including rooftop

systems. The subsidy was changed to 0.9 yuan ($0.14) per kWh generated for
ground systems, with 0.95 yuan ($0.15) per kWh or 1 yuan ($0.16) per kWh
possible based on solar radiation levels where the solar plant is located. DG
PV systems are eligible for 20 years to receive a subsidy of 0.42 yuan ($0.07)
per kWh generated.60 Distributed systems may also get the coal-fired
electricity price of a further 0.20 to 0.36 yuan ($0.03 to $0.06) per kWh for
surplus electricity sent back to the grid.
As of 2011, manufacturers in China accounted for 63% of global solar
photovoltaic (PV) panel production.61 Installed capacity in China has grown
more slowly than production, with a total of 0.6 GW of solar PV installed as of
2010.62 With the global economic downtown came a slowdown in overseas
orders for PV panels, and so China began to look at developing the domestic
solar market. China increased its goals for domestic solar PV capacity, with
installed capacity rising to 19 GW in 2013,63 following through with a policy
to move away from coal for electric power generation.64 Plans have now been
reported for increasing installed capacity to as much as 50 GW by 2020.
Pilot plants for large scale concentrating solar power65 (CSP) facilities
were proposed for Gansu (300 MW) and Shaanxi (92 MW), with discussions
for a demonstration plant in Inner Mongolia (50 MW).66 China now reportedly
has a goal of developing 3 GW of CSP by 2015, growing to 10 GW by 2020.67
Wind
China’s installed wind capacity was reported to be 91 GW as of 2013, and
plans have been reported to increase wind capacity to 200 GW by 2020.68 The
official MLTPRE target for 30 GW of installed wind power by 2020 has long
been surpassed. China became the world’s leader with almost 42 GW of
installed wind power capacity in 2010. However, the United States still led in
total electrical energy produced from wind power, because China’s grid-
connected capacity lagged behind its installed capacity by over 30% at that
time.69 As of the end of 2012, China was reported to have 75 GW of installed
capacity, meaning that about 17% of wind capacity was not connected to the
grid.70 China plans to increase investment in its transmission system to connect
the remote regions where wind farms are being built to population centers
where the power can be used.
Domestic wind power turbine technology and electricity production have
grown tremendously in China since the turn of the century. National
government support for wind power in China began in 2001 with a 50% cut in
value-added taxes for power generated by wind. This was followed in 2003
with a push for wind power development from the Chinese government with
the introduction of a tender process for award of concessions for wind power
projects.71
Wind farm development usually begins with the NDRC conducting wind
resource assessments for prospective areas prior to arranging for a concession
for a wind power project. Projects below 50 MW do not require competitive
bidding, and so may be developed by local authorities. Wind power projects
over 50 MW are approved by the NDRC, which also sets prices for the
electricity generated by these projects. While wind projects under 50 MW can
be approved by local governments, prices for wind power are generally subject
to final approval by the NDRC.72
The regional grid power company would enter into a long-term power
purchase agreement to buy electricity from the selected bidder over the life of
the wind project, with the national government guaranteeing the power
purchase. The bidding process would also determine the in-grid tariff, with the
agreement specifying how much electricity the bidder would provide to the
grid. The goal of the program was to achieve economies of scale by producing
a large capacity and thereby produce a low price for grid-connected wind
power. Additionally, it was thought that foreign companies would be attracted
by the long-term purchase power agreement to invest in China’s wind energy
sector.73 Initially, mixed results came from the tenders received with many
being structured on impractically low power prices. Winning bids were often
too low to make the projects economically viable. This prompted the
government to change the weighting of power prices in its process of
evaluating the bids.74
The 2005 Renewable Energy Law established a purchase system for
renewable electricity, but the process of requesting bids for tenders continued
for grid-connected wind power projects. In 2007, a target of 15% of China’s
total energy consumption from renewable energy was set for 2020. The law
required the grid company to purchase the full amount of power generated by
wind power projects with the tariff for all projects being set by the winning
bid.75
In 2009, the NDRC replaced the public bidding process and instituted
FITs for wind power, scaled according to the available wind resource and
construction conditions in the various regions of China.76 As more projects
were installed, the understanding of the dynamics between localized wind
resources and resulting power production led to more rational prices for wind
power. As of 2009, China’s Meteorological Administration estimated China’s
developable wind power resources at over 250 million kWh,77 with a potential
onshore capacity of between 700 GW and 1,200 GW.
Offshore wind is a largely untapped resource in China. China’s offshore
wind power potential is estimated at more than 750 million kilowatt-hours,
which is more than twice the estimate of exploitable wind power resources
onshore. As with onshore wind, offshore concessions would be put up for
tender offers with price offers to send electricity to the grid. Developers must
be Chinese-funded enterprises, or Sino-foreign joint ventures with majority
Chinese ownership. The process of establishing concession areas has already
begun with China’s National Energy Bureau, and the State Oceanic
Administration jointly issuing an “Interim Measure” in 2010 concerning
regulations for developing offshore capacity.78 As of 2012, China’s offshore
installed capacity is about 260 MW, which accounts for only about 0.5% of
installed wind capacity.79 China has an ambitious goal of 30 GW of installed
offshore wind capacity for 2020.
Incentives, Subsidies and Procurement Programs

Financial support for renewable energy in China involves subsidies, tax
policies, pricing mechanisms, and a reward scheme for green production.
Subsidy support is extended to overhead costs of programs (i.e.,
administrative, operational, and other expenses for government renewable
energy agencies), renewable energy technology research and development, and
provincial or local electrification projects. Tax incentives can come from the
central or local governments, and can be technology specific. Pricing for
renewable energy is not standardized, and is set by contracts negotiated
between projects and utilities.80
Renewable energy is subsidized by a rate fee charged to all electricity
users in China.81 Electricity customers in China pay rates according to
customer class.82 The fee was originally based on the incremental cost
difference between coal and renewable energy (which was estimated in China
at $0.044 to $0.059 per kWh).83 The fee goes to the companies which operate
the electricity grid and must buy the renewable power from project developers.
The fee for industrial users of electricity doubled in 2009 to about 0.8% of
their electricity bill.84
However, reported problems with levels of payments into the renewable
energy fund led to delays in reimbursing generators of renewable energy.85 To
address the issue, the NDRC shifted the burden of renewable energy funding
to the industrial sector in 2013 by doubling the industrial surcharge to 0.015
yuan ($0.25) per kWh, while keeping the fee levied on other electricity
customers at a rate of 0.008 yuan ($0.13) per kWh.86
Under the economic stimulus plan designed to help China recover from
the global financial crisis, the national government allocated over 210 billion
yuan (about $31 billion), or 5.3% of its entire stimulus package, for
environmental protection and energy conservation.87
China is now using more of its own domestic manufacturing capacity to
meet domestic clean energy needs, and relying less on imported equipment.
China has embraced an array of incentives, subsidies, and procurement
policies to encourage such development. Interest rates as low as 2% for bank
loans enabled the financing of renewable energy projects.88 Preferences were
established with the Government Procurement Law of 2002, which specified
government procurement of domestic goods, construction and services, unless
availability or other conditions existed to impair such procurement.89
Application of domestic content rules for renewable energy projects were
formalized in 2005 by the NDRC’s “Notice of Requirements for the
Administration of Wind Power Construction.” Under the Wind Power
Concession Project, the NDRC is “overseeing construction” of a series of wind
farms of at least 10 GW generating capacity.90 The determination of domestic
content was based on the percentage of total components in a wind turbine
manufactured and assembled in China, regardless of the level of Chinese
ownership in the producing factory. As much as 70% of wind power
equipment was required to be produced in China until 2009, when local
content requirements were abolished with the introduction of the wind power
FIT.91
Financial incentives for other renewable energy projects in China are
available from both the national and provincial governments. The central
government offered an investment subsidy of 50% for solar power projects
under the Golden Sun program in 2009. However, subsidies for solar PV
projects for the developer’s own use were reduced (e.g., grid-connected
rooftop solar) from 7 yuan ($1.11) per Watt to 5.5 yuan per Watt due to the
drop in solar PV panel prices. For biomass power projects, a $0.04 per kWh
subsidy was offered, along with incentives such as risk reserves and tax
breaks, and the government has established at least one joint venture to
demonstrate and deploy biomass power technology at a reported 40 plants.92
Incentives for non-food sourced biofuels production are available to
farmers and biofuel producers. Ethanol production in 2006 was 1.56 million
tons compared to 0.19 million tons for biodiesel, with subsidies for ethanol at
$115 million and no subsidies for biodiesel in that year. In 2007, flexible
subsidies were made available to biofuels producers to make up for losses on

crops due to low crude oil prices (though the Chinese government wants to
encourage enterprises to reserve funds to offset such risks). Farmers were
authorized a subsidy of $405 for each hectare of forest used for biofuels
production, and a subsidy of $365 for each hectare growing biofuel crops.93
China controls transportation fuel prices, and sets the price of ethanol at
approximately 91% of the price of gasoline. The five licensed producers of
ethanol in China are eligible for support in the form of direct output-linked
subsidies, tax exemptions and low-interest loans, and they are the beneficiary
of mandatory blending programs for ethanol with gasoline in ten provinces.
Contrary to the highly-controlled ethanol industry, the biodiesel industry is
dominated by small scale producers who use waste cooking oil and animal fats
as feedstock. Producers sell biodiesel direct to users without taxation or direct
fuel subsidies. Total support for ethanol and biodiesel is expected to rise to
$1.2 billion by 2020, excluding the subsidy support to farmers mentioned
earlier.94
China provides substantial domestic subsidies to its green energy
industries in support of its deployment goals. However, in the wake of
complaints in the United States (principally by the United Steelworker’s
Union) that China was illegally subsidizing its wind power and solar PV
exports in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, the U.S.
Trade Representative announced an investigation in 2010 of China’s support
for makers of wind power, solar energy, advanced batteries, and energy-
efficient vehicles.95
China’s export restrictions on rare-earth elements96 (REEs) were described
by the United Steelworkers Union as an example of China’s unfair trade
practices, as China produced 97% of the world’s REEs and charged a 10%
export tariff. China cut its exports of REEs by 40% in July 2010, causing
global demand to exceed supplies for the first time.97 The WTO issued a report
in 2011, which stated that Chinese restrictions on its exports of nine raw
materials were inconsistent with WTO rules, which induced WTO members to
bring a similar case against China over its export restrictions on REEs.98
China’s government denied the allegations of unfair trade practices, pointing
to proposed federal incentives for the U.S. clean energy industry as
comparable subsidies.99 The WTO ruled against China for a second time in
2013, judging that China’s export restrictions on REEs were incompatible with
WTO rules.100
United States
Some observers would argue that the United States does not have a
comprehensive national policy in place for promotion of renewable energy
technologies. Others might say that federal policies exist, providing corporate
tax incentives for renewable electricity, even though the incentives are
generally authorized for short periods, and have been periodically
reauthorized. And even when such renewables incentives programs are
authorized for longer terms, they are not always fully funded in appropriations
legislation.
Most federal grant and loan programs are short-term in funding duration,
with the programs authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 being an example. An exception, however, is biofuels which do
have significant federal government support in the form of the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS). The RFS mandates minimum goals for blending quantities of
renewable fuels with gasoline and diesel through 2022.101
Much of the U.S. renewable electricity installed capacity is a result of
state deployment initiatives102 rather than federal programs, with 30 states
having a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in place to encourage
deployment.103 However, the availability of federal tax incentives has aided
deployment in recent years, with the Investment Tax Credit104 (ITC) being key
to much of the investment in solar PV installations.
Clean Energy Research and Development Programs

The history of energy research and development in the United States in the
closing quarter of the last century could be characterized as being driven by
energy prices, causing shifts in the direction of policies, programs, and levels
of program funding. During this period, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
has been the key federal agency involved in energy R&D in the United States,
according to a 2001 report from the National Research Council:
From 1978 through 1999, the federal government expended $91.5

billion (2000 dollars) on energy R&D, mostly through DOE programs.
This direct federal investment constituted about a third of the nation’s
total energy R&D expenditure, the balance having been spent by the
private sector. Of course, government policies—from cost sharing to
environmental regulation to tax incentives—influenced the priorities of a
significant fraction of the private investment. On balance, the government
has been the largest single source and stimulus of energy R&D funding
for more than 20 years.105
DOE continues to be responsible for the largest share of federal energy-

related research dollars, and administers the national laboratories and
technology centers which are key to the execution of U.S. national energy
research strategies. The modern history of U.S. energy research can be traced
to the 1977 Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91) which
dismantled the predecessor agency (the Energy Research and Development
Administration) and created the agency.
Key Legislation Promoting Renewable Energy

The National Energy Act of 1978 followed the formation of DOE, and
was largely focused on conservation of fossil fuels in reaction to the 1973
energy crisis. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) (P.L. 95-
617) encouraged generation of electricity from renewable sources by requiring
electric utilities to purchase electricity from qualifying small power and
cogeneration facilities.106
It was the Energy Security Act of 1980 (ESA) (P.L. 96-294) which
largely brought renewable energy and renewable technologies into the
forefront of public policy. ESA consisted of six major acts107 and provided
funding for research in areas such as renewable energy and biofuels.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) (P.L. 102-486) was wide-
ranging legislation addressing topics of energy efficiency and conservation,
natural gas supplies, alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. EPACT set
goals for energy management,108 and authorized subsidies for wind and other
alternative energy technologies (e.g., the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive discussed later in this report). EPACT also established the
Production Tax Credit109 (PTC).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT5) (P.L. 109-58) continued the
focus on energy supply and demand policies. EPACT5 extended the PTC for
wind and qualifying biomass technologies. The law also authorized funds for
developing renewable energy technologies and loan guarantees for renewable
energy deployment, and required electric utilities to offer net metering on
request to customers. EPACT5 also created the Renewable Fuel Standard with
requirements for blending 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel with gasoline
by 2012.
This was followed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA) (P.L. 110- 140) which was largely focused on energy security
and energy efficiency. EISA also provided funds to accelerate R&D for
renewable energy particularly solar and geothermal power, and energy storage
technologies. EISA also extended the RFS program with a mandate to blend
36 billion gallons of renewable fuel with gasoline and diesel fuel by 2022.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (P.L.
111-5) was enacted as a stopgap measure in response to the financial crisis of
2007 to 2008 in order to aid economic recovery.
More than $45 billion was appropriated for energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs across federal government programs, most of
which was to be obligated before the end of FY2010. Almost $8 billion
was provided for energy and other R&D programs, $2.4 billion for
energy technology and facility development grants, and $14 billion for
electric power transmission grid infrastructure development and energy
storage development (including $6 billion for loan guarantees). Another
$14.1 billion was provided for renewable energy tax incentives, with an
additional $2.3 billion for energy efficiency tax incentives.110
ARRA also included a temporary provision allowing projects eligible for

the Investment Tax Credit to receive a grant covering 30% of project costs.
Renewable Energy Focus

The principal U.S. renewable energy sectors are described in the following
paragraphs. Hydropower is not viewed by all U.S. experts as renewable
energy, but since China has significant goals for hydroelectric development, a
summary of U.S. hydropower is included.
Biomass
Biomass for electric power is arguably the most conventional of all
renewable electricity technologies. Approximately 23.5% of non-hydropower
renewable electricity produced in the United States came from biomass in
2010.111 Biomass combustion is a relatively mature technology but it is not
widely used and is generally not very efficient unless it is used in a combined
heat and power application. Large scale co-firing of biomass with coal is a
higher efficiency, lower per unit cost application, and is categorized usually
under coal power generation. Technologies for biomass gasification could
result in higher efficiencies when used to produce synthesis gas or hydrogen
for heat and/or power production. Demonstration and deployment of newer
industrial gasification technologies is needed to scale-up plants and provide
economical designs with high degrees of availability. Wood-burning stoves
and solar water heaters are the most common residential renewable energy
applications. With wood and biomass electric power net summer generating
capacity reported at 7.7 GW for 2012, DOE estimates that 11 GW of biomass

capacity could be available by 2030.112 The RFS is a significant factor in
biofuels policy which has largely focused on corn-based ethanol113 but is
shifting to cellulosic and other advanced feedstocks.114 Increasing scrutiny on
the effects of ethanol production on global food prices and production
practices has pushed researchers to focus more on non-food cellulosic sources
production of ethanol.115
Hydropower
While only about 2,400 of the existing 80,000 dams in the United States
produce power, many of the non-powered dams have a significant hydropower
potential. A DOE study in 2011 indicated that enhancing existing hydro
facilities, by adding turbines to dams without any hydro capacity or enhancing
existing structures, is relatively inexpensive and could present a further
opportunity as much as 12GW of capacity.116 The opportunity is however
concentrated at the top 100 non-powered dam sites.
However, a previous DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory assessed the
potential for developing small and low-head hydroelectric generation in the
United States.117 A set of feasibility criteria was established for “developable
resources, and identified approximately 5,400 with the potential for small
hydro projects (e.g., providing between 1 MW and 30 MW of annual mean
power). DOE estimated these projects (if developed) could result in a greater
than 50% increase in total U.S. hydroelectric power generation.
Solar
As of 2012, the net summer grid-connected solar power industry in the
United States was approximately 7.7 GW of capacity, representing both solar
PV and solar thermal capacity. DOE estimates that approximately 29 GW
could be available by 2030.118 Solar power, like wind power, is considered a
variable resource but solar power technologies can produce its highest output
at peak energy demand times when the weather is hot and sunny.
Concentrating solar power thermal plants with heat storage capacity are being
considered for large central station generating plants in the sun-rich areas of
the western United States. Solar thermal hot water heating is a small but
growing application in the United States whose deployment prospects may be
enhanced by a recent focus on energy efficiency and conservation. For the
solar power industry, the key federal incentive of recent years has been the
Investment Tax Credit (ITC) which allowed businesses to invest in solar
power projects and receive a tax credit for up to 30% of the expense. As a
short-term remedy to the almost annual reauthorization quest for the ITC, the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the 30% solar
investment tax credit for eight years to 2016, and removed the prohibition
against utility company use of the ITC, thus allowing them to take advantage
of the credit.
Wind
The net summer wind power capacity in the United States was
approximately 59 GW in 2012.119 However, DOE estimates that domestic
wind power could reach a capacity of 77 GW or greater by 2030.120 A major
federal government incentive for wind power has been the Production Tax
Credit (PTC), which originated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 as aid to
facilities in operation. Currently, an income tax credit of $0.023 per kWh is
available for electricity produced from utility-scale wind turbines under the
PTC. However, the PTC has expired three times in the last decade only to be
restored. The importance of the PTC to the industry is apparent as installations
of wind power have consistently fallen in the year following the lapse of the
tax credit.121 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
(P.L. 111-5) extended the Section 45 Production Tax Credit “placed in
service” date for wind to the end of 2012, and allowed PTCeligible facilities
placed in service from 2009 and 2012 to choose a 30% ITC in place of the
PTC, or to receive a 30% grant.
The PTC was scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, but was extended for
one year, through 2013, as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA;
P.L. 112-240). In addition to extending the PTC for wind, provisions in ATRA
changed the credit expiration date from a placed-in-service deadline to a
construction start date for all qualifying electricity-producing technologies.122
Offshore wind power in the United States is a fledgling industry, having
just received federal authority in 2010 to go ahead with the first U.S. offshore
wind farm in Nantucket Sound, off the Massachusetts coast. Known as the
Cape Wind project, it will involve 130 turbines with a total capacity of up to
468 MW.123 The overall potential for U.S. offshore wind power production
capacity was estimated at 908 GW in 2005.124
Incentives, Subsidies and Procurement Programs

Government incentives, subsidies and procurement requirements exist at
both the federal and state government levels in the United States. The federal
government is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States, and
has defined procurement goals for the use of renewable energy:
EPACT5 required federal agencies to increase their purchase of

renewable energy to a minimum of 7.5% of overall energy purchases by
2013. Agencies receive double-credit for renewable energy generated on
their facility sites. Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13423 required that
at least one-half of the EPACT renewable energy requirement come from
“new” (i.e., put in service after January 1, 1999) renewable energy
sources, preferably sited on agency property for agency use. EO 13423
also allowed agencies to use new “nonelectric” renewable energy sources
to meet the requirement for new renewable energy. Examples of non-
electric renewable energy include thermal energy from solar ventilation
pre-heat systems, solar heating and cooling systems, solar water heating,
ground source heat pumps, biomass-fueled heating and cooling, thermal
uses of geothermal and ocean resources. However, these non-electric
renewable energy sources cannot apply to meeting the EPACT renewable
federal electricity purchase requirement. In 2010, an agency could use
nonelectric renewables equal to 2.5% of its electricity to satisfy EO
13423, and then use old renewable energy sources for 5% of its use to
satisfy EPACT, for a total equivalent of 7.5% of its electricity use from
renewable energy.125
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) was established by

EPACT to provide incentive payments for new projects generating and selling
renewable electricity. Eligible renewable energy technologies include solar,
wind, and biomass (excluding municipal solid waste). The payment of $0.015
per kWh (in 1993 dollars, indexed for inflation) was for the first 10 years of a
facility’s operation, but is subject to availability of annual appropriations in
each federal fiscal year of operation.126 REPI was reauthorized by EPACT5 for
FY2006 through FY2026. REPI program funding is determined under the
DOE budget process, and employs a tiered decision process as to which
projects have priority for payments.127 However, the program has not been
funded since 2010.128
Under the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill)
(P.L. 110-234), the U.S. Department of Agriculture runs a grant program for
developing renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under the Rural
Energy for America Program (REAP). REAP is intended to encourage the
adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies by rural
small businesses and farmers largely through the competitive issuance of
grants and loan guarantees. The program also funds energy audits and provides
other renewable energy technology assistance. The 2014 Farm Bill extended
the REAP program through FY2018, with mandatory funding of $50 million
for FY2014 and each fiscal year thereafter.129
DISCUSSION
China
With the process of urbanization continuing in China, a further 200

million to 300 million people are expected to move to urban areas over the
next 20 years. This shift in population is seen as a driving force behind the
change in focus from increasing GDP to increasing domestic consumption in
the 12th Five-Year Plan. 130 The national government still owns or controls
many of the country’s large industries and enterprises, and sets goals for
economic development in the periodic Five-Year Plans. As such, China’s
industries and enterprises are still encouraged to meet goals set in the national
government’s economic plan. But today’s China also has a large and growing
private sector, and improving the employment and income prospects for its
citizens appears to be behind a shift to a market focus in many areas of
China’s “socialist market economy.”131
The 12th Five-Year Plan emphasizes the development new industries
which can feed into the future growth of its economy. One such sector is
renewable energy, and in the last five years, China has developed its
manufacturing capabilities in wind turbines and solar panels and is using these
capabilities to serve its own needs to produce renewable electricity. China
recognizes that given the growing demand for energy at home, developing its
domestic renewable energy industry and building manufacturing capacity can
lead to advantages in future export markets. In late 2009, the Standing
Committee of the National People’s Congress affirmed its support of the
development of the renewable power industry by building China’s domestic
capacity. Grid companies were directed to purchase all renewable electricity
generated, with the State Council to determine the proportion of renewable
electricity to overall generating capacity in order to meet national goals. 132
China has chosen to implement a Renewable Energy Law mandating
minimum deployment levels for renewable electricity technologies (in terms
of gigawatts of capacity by a target date), and to support these deployment
goals with a complementary, national feed-in tariff for selected technologies.
Officially, however, energy efficiency and conservation remain China’s
top energy priority. These are considered the “low-hanging fruit” in the quest
to reduce energy use and cut demand. Energy efficiency in China’s larger
firms is approaching levels in Western countries. The 11th FYP saw China’s
energy consumption per unit of GDP (i.e., energy intensity) drop by 19.6%.133
The 12th FYP may not result in the energy savings seen in the previous five
years, since many small power plants, less energy efficient coal-fired power
plants, and steel mills were shut down. Few if any of these less efficient
producers remain open.134 Most of the energy savings in the 12th FYP are
expected to come from structural changes in China’s economic structure and
technological improvements.135 Energy efficiency benchmarks have been
established for China’s top 1,000 energy consuming industries (which
accounted for 33% of national and 47% of industrial energy usage in 2004)
with energy reduction goals set for each enterprise.136 China is the world’s
largest market for new construction with approximately 2 billion square meters
of floor space added annually. China’s existing building codes (for both
residential and public buildings) focus on heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, as well as lighting, hot water and power use. New standards have
been in development since 2005 with national energy design criteria for
residential buildings.137 Energy efficient building codes are a key tool in
establishing passive measures for energy savings in new future housing stock.
The “weak link” in China’s electricity planning has been transmission.
Targets have been set for building renewable electric power generation
without effective measures for accomplishing grid connection and integration,
especially for remote wind power. China’s grid companies must accept
subsidized wind power, but costs of building transmission lines to connect to
wind farms (especially those in remote regions) are not subsidized. As a result,
as much as one-third of wind power generation in China is not connected to
the grid due to a lack of transmission capacity. When combined with low
tariffs, this likely means that China’s wind power sector has been operating at
a loss.138 To help remedy the imbalance, the State Grid Corporation has begun
to build a pilot “Smart Grid” in China’s larger cities to help integrate
renewable energy sources. Formal goals for a Smart Grid are expected to be
incorporated into China’s 12th Five-Year Plan, with a “unified strong and
smart grid” to be built nationwide by 2020.139 The lack of grid integration for
wind has improved only slightly in the last few years, with curtailment of wind
capacity (due to inadequate transmission capacity) being especially acute in
the less populous northern western provinces of China.140
China today is dealing today with some of the same issues that the United
States is likely to face as it considers building the infrastructure to take
advantage of potentially huge wind and solar resources of the U.S. west and
southwest. China’s transmission system (like that of the United States) is
mostly regional in functionality, and could benefit from improved connectivity
across regions if renewable resources in remote areas are to be more fully
harnessed. The cost of developing the transmission system will be great in
both countries, but China has begun to build efficient ultra-high voltage
(UHV) transmission lines (e.g., voltages of 1,000 kilovolt (KV) alternating
current, or higher, and 800 KV direct current, or higher). UHV can reduce
transmission line losses and transmit more power over longer distances.141
China’s State Grid Corporation plans to invest $88 billion through 2020 to
build UHV lines.142
United States
In contrast to China’s socialist market economy, the United States has

overall a market-driven economy. Some observers argue that the current
higher costs of renewable electricity do not favor market adoption.143
However, the goals for increased use of renewable energy are several, and
include energy security, energy independence, cleaner air, and more recently
anthropogenic climate change, sustainability concepts, and economic
development. Goals for reducing pollution have been enforced by government
regulations requiring changes in the fuels used for power generation, and are
often buttressed by requirements to install equipment to reduce particular types
of emissions. Such goals could reasonably be said to apply both to the United
States and China.
In the United States, while individual states may have renewable
electricity mandates, there is no federal law driving development of renewable
energy. Many observers believe that renewable energy technologies need a
federal policy driver which creates a national demand for renewable electricity
if it is to be a “significant” contributor to domestic power generation picture.
This opinion is largely based on the view that renewables are not “mature”
technologies, since renewable electricity technologies are largely intermittent
or variable resources, requiring fossil resources to make renewables
dispatchable (i.e., providing power on demand). If increased deployment of
renewable electricity technologies is a U.S. policy goal, a recent analysis by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggests that the United States
could also implement both a renewable electricity standard and a FIT.144
Others believe that renewable energy technologies should rely on venture
capital and private sector investment alone, and the market alone should
dictate whether they are employed. However, it is noted that the United States
relies more on investment from venture capitalists for clean energy technology
development than the rest of the world combined.145 Venture capital has driven
much energy innovation in the United States in the past and will undoubtedly
play a role in the future in funding the next generations of clean energy
technologies.
Creation of green jobs by developing a globally competitive renewable
energy technology manufacturing industry has been described as a cornerstone
of U.S. economic policy. Developing such a capability in the United States
will likely require major investments from the federal government. Such an
effort may have to go beyond tax credits and loan guarantees as have been
used to this point in time if the development of renewable energy technology
manufacturing capacity and “green jobs” creation are goals. In some countries,
these policies can be instituted at the discretion of a central government. The
massive allocation of government-funded resources by countries seeking to
build renewable energy technology leadership and global market share is an
indication of the greater reliance these nations expect to have on the renewable
energy industry. The potential for product and equipment sales is key to their
belief that such a transition should be accelerated.
The United States has traditionally relied primarily on market forces and
tax incentives to encourage the deployment of new technologies. This would
be the “business as usual” model. However, several factors exist that call into
question the “business as usual” model for innovation and deployment of
renewable energy technologies. For example, investment dollars are scarce at
this time, as the nation is still emerging from a recession; and other nations
have aggressively used governmental powers to channel resources into
renewable energy programs that have permitted them to establish renewable
energy industries whose products and productivity have exceeded those of the
United States. Further, many believe that the U.S.’s existing (mostly non-
renewable) low-cost energy system limits market opportunities in the short
term, despite potential opportunities in the longer term or abroad. With recent
environmental regulatory measures to reduce air emissions coming into
effect,146 the opportunity for clean technologies may be increasing. But some
observers have argued for more aggressive governmental intervention to
bolster and accelerate U.S. activities relating to renewable energy.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
China’s 11th FYP required state-owned enterprises to reduce energy
intensity by 20% overall from 2005 levels. While China was able to reduce
energy intensity 14.4% from 2005 to 2009, there was an increase of 3.2% in
energy intensity during the first quarter of 2010.147 Meeting these energy
intensity goals proved to be a challenge.148
China pledged in the 12th FYP to cut energy consumption per unit of GDP
by 16% and cut carbon emissions by 17% in the period from 2011 to 2015.
But meeting the 16% drop in energy intensity in the 12th FYP may be a greater
challenge if total GDP is larger. The NDRC recently stated that during the first
two years of the 12th FYP, “China’s aggregate energy consumption per unit of
GDP dropped by 5.5%, only meeting 32.7% of the Five-Year Plan target.... To
realize the 12th Five-Year Plan goal, China must reduce its annual energy
consumption by 3.84% ... over the next three years.”
Like China, the United States relies most on coal for electric power
generation with that fuel providing about half of the U.S. power generation.149
Clean coal technologies are seen as a part of China’s clean energy future, and
an opportunity exists for China and the United States to work together to
develop these technologies.150 However, China has decided that renewable
electricity will also be a significant part of that energy future, with current
plans for renewable energy sources to contribute 15% of its primary energy
needs by 2020. Targets, planning, and investment have all followed to further
China’s renewable energy goals.
Unconventional sources of natural gas, such as coalbed methane and gas
shales, may be resources that both the United States and China can develop.151
Recent technological developments have raised the potential for natural gas to
be produced in abundance especially from tight shale gas formations. The
outlook for renewable energy development could be affected if these
unconventional natural gas sources can be developed and economically
produced in an environmentally acceptable manner.
End Notes
1
Roger Ballentine, “China Offers Tips on Using Energy More Efficiently,” Renewable Energy
World.com, February 23, 2009, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article
/2009/02/energy-efficiency-tips-from-china-54611.
2
Energy Information Administration, “International Energy Statistics: Total Electricity Installed
Capacity,”
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7.
3
World Coal Association, “Coal Statistics,” 2012, http://www.worldcoal.org/resources
4
Energy Information Administration, “China—Overview,” February 4, 2014,
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm? fips=CH.
5
Lucy Hornby, “China Pollution: Trouble in the Air,” Financial Times, February 26, 2014,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c8d06578-98d8-11e3-8503-00144feab7de.html#axzz2zYn
YdFCA.
6
About 60% of China’s new coal plants have a fuel conversion to energy efficiency of about
44%, as compared to the most efficient coal plants in the United States with an efficiency of
about 40%. Keith Bradsher, “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants,” New York
Times, May 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/ 11coal.html?_r=1.
7
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
8
National Research Council, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use, October 19, 2009, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?
record_id=12794#toc.
9
Coal-fired electricity was reported by EIA to be 70% of China’s generation capacity as of 2009.
10
Renewable energy resources are defined by the U.S. Department of Energy as energy resources
that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration
but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy
resources include biomass, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and
tidal action. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_r.htm.
11
Jianxiang Yang, China Speeds Up Renewable Energy Development, Global Environmental
Institute, October 26, 2006, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4691.
12
Xie Liangbing and Chen Yong, Making Up for Lost Time: China’s Hydropower Push,
Economic Observer, January 24, 2011, http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/Industry/2011/01/24
/192214.shtml. (CHHYDP).
13
Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Report—2012, 2012, http://www.gwec.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Annual_report_2012_LowRes.pdf.
14
Official Chinese government (English language) source documents are used when possible.
Amounts quoted in dollars use currency conversions in reference documents, and are not
adjusted for time-value of money.
15
The highest level body coordinating energy policy in China is the National Energy
Commission established in January 2010. It is tasked with formulating energy development
strategy, reviewing major issues related to energy security and energy development, and
coordinating energy exploitation and international cooperation on energy issues. Its
members include the heads of ten government ministries, several quasi-ministries and
regulatory commissions, the governor of the Central Bank, a deputy chief of the People’s
Liberation Army, and other power figures. “China’s National Energy Commission Is
Established,” China People’s Daily online, January 27, 2010,
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/6880658.html.
16
“China bound its commitment domestically through a State Council decision even before last
year’s Copenhagen meeting, and it has said that the 40-45% carbon intensity reduction
target will also be incorporated into its 12th Five-Year Plan to be adopted by its National
People’s Congress in March 2011.” See Deborah Seligsohn, Cancún Climate Change
Summit: China’s Journey from Copenhagen, Guardian Environmental Network, WRI,
November 1, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01/cancun-climate-
change-summit-china.
17
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “Clean Energy Investment Falls for Second Year,” press
release, January 15, 2014, http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-investment-
falls-for-second-year/.
18
Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, Key Technologies
R&D Program, http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/programmes1/200610/t20061009_36224.htm.
19
Center for American Progress, Out of the Running?, March 2010,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/ pdf/out_ofjunning.pdf. (CAP).
20
CAP.
21
CAP.
22
The Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, or the Five-Year Plan,
mainly aims to arrange national key construction projects, manage the distribution of
productive forces and individual sector’s contributions to the national economy, map the
direction of future development, and set targets. See http://english.gov.cn/2006-04/05/
content_245556.htm.
23
HSBC Global Research, China’s Next 5-Year Plan—What It Means for Equity Markets,
October 6, 2010, http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&key=DRpq
0Zsciy&n=279532.PDF.
24
APCO Worldwide, China’s 12th Five-Year Plan—How It Actually Works and What’s in Store
for the Next Five Years, December 10, 2010, http://www.apcoworldwide.com/content/PDFs
/Chinas_12th_Five-Year_Plan.pdf.
25
Angie Austin, Energy and Power in China: Domestic Regulation and Foreign Policy, The
Foreign Policy Centre, April 2005, http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/448.pdf.
26
Electric Power Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 48,
http://www.lehmanlaw.com/resource-centre/lawsand-regulations/environment/electric-
power-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-1996.html.
27
See Law of the People’s Republic of China on Conserving Energy,
http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/ 34454.htm.
28
Energy intensity as consumption per unit of gross domestic product.
29
National Development and Reform Commission of China, National Climate Change Program,
June 4, 2007, http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/213624.htm.
30
Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric
Pollution, Article 9, http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/34422.htm.
31
Renewable Energy World, Authorized Release: The Renewable Energy Law. The People’s
Republic of China, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/download /China_RE_
Law_05.doc. (RELaw).
32
National Development and Reform Commission, People’s Republic of China, Medium and
Long-Term Development Plan for Renewable Energy in China, Abbreviated English
Language version, September 2007, http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/04/medium-and-long-term-development-plan-forrenewable-energy.
pdf.
33
Ibid.
34
China Economic Net, China Adopts Amendment to Renewable Energy Law, December 26,
2009, http://en.ce.cn/ National/Politics/200912/26/t20091226_20695325.shtml. (CENet).
35
Peta Hodge, “China’s Emissions Pledge Shows Commitment to Copenhagen,” Green Business
News, November 26, 2009, http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/chinas-emissions-
pledge-shows-commitment-to-copenhagen936.aspx.
36
The National Energy Administration (NEA) was created in March 2008 as part of the general
reforms of the Chinese energy sector by the Congress of the Communist Party of China.
The NEA is a semiautonomous body under the NDRC responsible for energy planning and
development, drafting of energy laws, and international energy cooperation. See
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/bilateral_cooperation/china/stakeholders_en.htm.
37
Barbara Finamore, Staff Blog—China’s Announcements on Energy and Climate in Advance of
Presidential Summit, Natural Resources Defense Council, January 18, 2011,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bfinamore/ chinas_announcements_on_energy.html.
38
The amount of energy used in producing a given level of output or activity. It is measured by
the quantity of energy required to perform a particular activity (service), expressed as
energy per unit of output or activity measure of service. See
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/eii_trend_definitions.html.
39
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Energy and Climate Goals of China’s 12th Five-Year
Plan, March 2011, http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china/energy-
climate-goals-twelfth-five-year-plan.
40
David DuByne, “Biogas? China Size It,” Science Alert, May 9, 2008,
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/ 20080905-17301.html.
41
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/france-chine/en/chinaworld/2/c15.html
42
Methane digesters convert manure or other organic matter into biogas through a process called
anaerobic digestion. In this process, bacteria decompose the organic matter in the absence
of oxygen, producing a gas composed of 60% to 70% methane and 30% to 40% carbon
dioxide—biogas. See http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/technology/ biogas-
digesters.
43
By the end of 2005, there were more than 17 million household biogas digesters producing
6,500 million cubic meters of biogas annually. Over 1,500 large-and medium-scale digester
projects facilities generate around 1500 million cubic meters of biogas annually. See
http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/213624.htm.
44
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, Recommendations for Improving the
Effectiveness of Renewable Energy Policies in China, October 2009,
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/ Recommendations_for_RE_Policies_in_China.pdf. (RECREN).
45
“A feed-in tariff is an energy-supply policy focused on supporting the development of new
renewable power generation.... The FIT contract provides a guarantee of payments in
dollars per kiloWatt-hour for the full output of the [renewable energy] system for a
guaranteed period of time (typically 15-20 years).” Karlynn Cory, Toby Couture, and Claire
Kreycik, Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-6A2-45549, March 2009. (FITP).
46
RECREN.
47
RECREN.
48
Zhang Qi, “Burning Willows to Stop Desertification,” China Daily, May 11, 2009,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ bw/2009-05/11/content_7761535.htm.
49
The potential land area for cultivating oilseed plants and energy crops (including jatropha
curcas, rapeseed, ricinus communis, lacquer tree, Chinese goldthread tree, and sweet
sorghum) is estimated to meet the annual feedstock requirements of 50 million tons of
liquid biofuel. China has banned the use of grain for ethanol production. RECREN.
50
Jonathan Lynn, “China Became Net Food Importer in 1st Half,” Reuters, August 22, 2008,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49900/story.htm.
51
Renewable Fuels Association, World Ethanol Production, 2014,
http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/World-Fuel-EthanolProduction.
52
Jonathan Moch, Renewable Energy in China: An Overview, World Resources Institute, 2013,
http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/chinafaqs-renewable-energy-china-overview-0.
53
Energychinaforum.com, “NEA Outlines Key Tasks For Energy Sectors, To Benefit Related
Listed Firms,” January 20, 2011, http://www.energychinaforum.com/news/46032.shtml.
54
See CHHYDP.
55
Includes 330 GigaWatts (GW) conventional hydropower, and 50 GW of pumped storage. See
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/sep10/Chinesehydropowertoreach380GWby2020.ht
ml.
56
Peter Bosshard, “Dam Nation,” Foreign Policy, March 8, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com
/articles/2011/03/08/ dam_nation.
57
Solar energy is converted directly into electricity using photovoltaic cells which capture
photons.
58
China also announced several utility-scale renewable energy projects in 2009, including the
world’s largest wind farm, a 10 GW “Three Gorges of Wind Power” project in Gansu
Province, and a 2 GW solar power plant in Northern China using Arizona-based First
Solar’s thin-film solar PV panels. See http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bfinamore/
china_records_its_climate_acti.html.
59
Yotam Ariel, “Incentives, Falling Cost, and Rising Demand in China’s PV Market,”
Renewable Energy World, November 13, 2009, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea
/news/article/2009/11/incentives-falling-cost-andrising-demand-in-chinas-pv-market.
60
Xie Yu, “New Policy Boosts Construction of Solar Plants,” China Daily, September 13, 2013,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2013-09/13/content_16968866.htm.
61
David L. Chandler, Solar-Cell Manufacturing Costs: Innovation Could Level the Field,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MITNews, September 5, 2013,
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/solar-cell-manufacturing-costs0905.html.
62
Energychinaforum.com, India and China to Benefit As Global Solar PV Returns to Pre-
Recession Growth, March 8, 2011, http://www.energychinaforum.com/news/47839.shtml.
63
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, China Overview, 2013, https://www.newenergyfinance.com
/core/country-profiles/ chn.
64
Jennifer Duggan, “China Sets New World Record for Solar Installations,” The Guardian News,
January 30, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/jan/30
/china-record-solar-energy.
65
Solar energy is converted into heat energy using fields of lenses and mirrors focused on a pipe
carrying a fluid (solar troughs), or aimed at a tower (i.e., a power tower). The heat produces
a temperature sufficient to turn water into steam and drive a turbine just as in a thermal
power station.
66
Helios CSP, “China Moves Toward Concentrating Solar Power Plants,” February 23, 2011,
http://helioscsp.com/ noticia.php?id_not=221.
67
John A. Mathews, Mei-Chih Hu, and Ching-Yan Wu, “Concentrating Solar Power: China’s
New Solar Frontier,” Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 21, No. 2, May 27, 2013,
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ching_Yan-Wu/3946.
68
SustainableBusiness.com News, “China Leads Wind Industry Growth for 2013,” February 10,
2014, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25506.
69
Whats On Xiamen, Inc., “China Overtakes US as World's Largest Wind-Power Installer,”
January 14, 2011, http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/tech625.html.
70
Global Wind Energy Council, Global Installed Wind Power Capacity in 2013—Regional
Distribution, 2013, http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/graphs/.
71
Li Junfeng, Shi Jingli, and Xi Hongwen, et al., A Study on the Pricing Policy of Wind Power in
China, Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association, Greenpeace, Global Wind
Energy Council, October 2006, http://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Report-wind-
power-price-policy-china.pdf.
72
With the exception of Guandong Province which approves its own projects and prices.
RECREN.
73
“Wind Power in China,” Ecoworld, July 2006, http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/wind-
power-in-china.html.
74
RECREN.
75
RELaw.
76
Tariff levels ranged from $0.07 to $0.09 per kWh. Rob Atkinson, Michael Shellenberger, and
Ted Nordhaus, et al., Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giants, The Breakthrough Institute and the
Information and Technology Innovation Foundation, November 2009,
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Rising_Tigers.pdf.
77
Zhang Qi, “Wind Can Power Up Entire Nation,” China Daily News, June 18, 2009,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ bizchina/2009-06/18/content_8296706.htm.
78
“China Speeds Up Offshore Wind Power Construction,” China.Org.Cn, Xinhua, March 20,
2010, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2010-03/20/content_19647071.htm.
79
Global Wind Energy Council, Global Offshore: Current Status and Future Prospects, 2014,
http://www.gwec.net/ global-offshore-current-status-future-prospects/.
80
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Renewable Energy in China—Financial Incentives,
NREL/FS-710-36045, April 2004, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36045.pdf.
81
The original surcharge of 0.014 cents per kWh was increased to 0.029 cents per kWh in 2007.
See RECREN, p. 23.
82
For example, electricity for residential use in Beijing was 49 fen per kWh [about $0.07], while
that for agricultural use was around 52 fen per kWh, for secondary industry use 76 fen per
kWh and for commercial use 79 fen per kWh, according to Beijing Electric Power
Corporation. One yuan is 100 fen. See http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/
19/content_12492364.htm.
83
RECREN.
84
Keith Bradsher, “China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy,” New York Times,
January 30, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31
renew.html. (NYT1).
85
Michael Davidson, Transforming China's Grid: Sustaining the Renewable Energy Push, The
Energy Collective, September 24, 2013, http://theenergycollective.com/michael-
davidson/279091/transforming-china-s-grid-sustainingrenewable-energy-push.
86
Ibid.
87
Zhu Shaobin, “China’s Economic Stimulus Plans Benefit Environment,” Xinhua, March 3,
2009, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/10/content_10986048.htm.
88
NYT1.
89
The Government Procurement Law of the People’s Republic of China (Order of the President
No. 68), Article 10, http://english.gov.cn/laws/2005-10/08/content_75023.htm.
90
See China’s Promotion of the Renewable Electric Power Equipment Industry,
http://www.nftc.org/default/ Press%20Release/2010/China%20Renewable%20Energy.pdf.
(CPRE).
91
“In China, all wind turbine generator manufacturers were required to use respectively 40%
(before 2003), 50% (2003) and 70% (until 2009) of domestic components in the
manufacturing of wind turbines.” Jan-Christoph Kuntze and Tom Moerenhout, Local
Content Requirements and the Renewable Energy Industry—A Good Match?, International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, June 2013,
http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Contribution/ DITC_TED_13062013_Study_ICTSD.pdf.
92
The national government established the National Bio Energy Company, Limited, as a joint
venture between the State Grid Corporation of China and the Dragon Power Company, Ltd.
CPRE.
93
“China to Offer Incentives for Non-Food Biofuels,” Xinhua, November 7, 2007,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ china/2007-12/07/content_6306076.htm.
94
See Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development,
BIOFUELS—AT WHAT COST? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in China,
December 2008, http://www.globalsubsidies.org/ files/assets/China_Biofuels_Subsidies.pdf.
95
Sewell Chan and Keith Bradsher, “U.S. to Investigate China’s Clean Energy Aid,” New York
Times, October 15, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/business/16wind.html.
96
A group of 17 elements consisting of scandium, yttrium, and the 15 lanthanides. Rare-earth
elements are vital to many electronic and renewable energy technologies. See CRS Report
R41347, Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain, by Marc Humphries.
97
Robert F. Service, “Chinese Policies Could Pinch U.S. Efforts to Make Electric Vehicles,”
Science, vol. 329, no. 5990, p. 377, July 23, 2010, http://www.sciencemag.org
/content/329/5990/377.1.short.
98
John Miller and James Areddy, “Trade Judges See Flaw in China Policies: Preliminary WTO
Report Finds No Case for Some of Beijing's Export Restrictions,” Wall Street Journal,
February 18, 2011.
99
Michael Wines and Xiyun Yang, “China Rips US Complaint on Clean Energy Aid,” New York
Times, October 18, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles
/2010/10/18/china_rips_us_complaint_on_clean_energy_aid/.
100
Lucy Hornby and Shawn Donnan, “WTO Rules Against China on Rare Earths Export
Quotas,” Financial Times, October 29, 2013, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/486d5c68-
40b5-11e3-ae19-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tEc5AsoQ.
101
CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues, by Randy
Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci.
102
The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that state Renewable Portfolio Standard programs
will support 76,750 MW of new renewable power by 2025—an increase of 570% over total
1997 U.S. levels (excluding hydro). Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity
Standards at Work in the States: Fact Sheet,” http://www.ucsusa.org/
assets/documents/clean_energy/RES_in_the_States_Update.pdf.
103
See map of states with renewable portfolio standards at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy
/detail.cfm?id=4850.
104
See business energy tax credit discussion at http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?
Incentive_Code= US02F&re=1&ee=1.
105
National Academy of Sciences, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency
and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000, Washington, DC, 2001,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10165.
106
Qualifying Facility (QF): A cogeneration or small power production facility that meets certain
ownership, operating, and efficiency criteria established by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_q.htm.
107
Under the Energy and Security Act of 1980 were the following: U.S. Synthetic Fuels
Corporation Act, Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act, Renewable Energy Resources
Act, Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Act and Solar Energy and Energy Conservation
Bank Act, Geothermal Energy Act, and the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act.
108
See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/epact1992.html#wc.
109
The renewable electricity Production Tax Credit is a per-kiloWatt-hour tax credit for
electricity generated by qualified renewable energy technologies and sold by the taxpayer to
an unrelated party during the taxable year. See CRS Report R40913, Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, by Lynn J. Cunningham

and Beth Cook.
110
CRS Report R40412, Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5), coordinated by Fred Sissine.
111
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014, Renewable Energy
Generating Capacity and Generation, April 2014, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo
/tables_ref.cfm. (AEO 2014).
112
Ibid.
113
CRS Report R41282, Agriculture-Based Biofuels: Overview and Emerging Issues, by Randy
Schnepf.
114
CRS Report RL34738, Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress, by Kelsi
Bracmort et al.
115
See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Research Advances Cellulosic Ethanol, NREL
Leads the Way,” http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf.
116
Boualem Hadjerioua, Yaxing Wei, and Shih-Chieh Kao, An Assessment of Energy Potential at
Non-Powered Dams in the United States, DOE Wind and Water Power Program, ED 19 07
04 2, April 2012, http://nhaap.ornl.gov/system/ files/NHAAP_NPD_FY11_Final_Report.
pdf.
117
U.S. Department of Energy—Idaho National Laboratory, Feasibility Assessment of the Water
Energy Resources of the United States for New Low Power and Small Hydro Classes of
Hydroelectric Plants, DOE-ID-11263, January 2006, http://hydropower.inel.gov/resource
assessment/pdfs/main_report_appendix_a_final.pdf.
118
AEO 2014.
119
AEO 2014.
120
CRS Report R40833, Renewable Energy—A Pathway to Green Jobs?, by Richard J. Campbell
and Linda Levine.
121
See Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger et al., “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation,
Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, May 2008,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf.
122
CRS Report R43453, The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit: In Brief, by Molly F.
Sherlock.
123
Cape Wind Associates, “Frequently Asked Questions: Cape Wind Basics,” 2014,
http://www.capewind.org/faqs/ cape-wind-basics.
124
Walt Musial, Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, May 2005, http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/workshops
/2005_summit/musial.pdf.
125
CRS Report R41040, Identifying Incentives and Barriers to Federal Agencies Achieving
Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, by Anthony Andrews and
Richard J. Campbell.
126
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Renewable
Energy Production Incentive, April 10, 2007, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi/about.cfm.
127
The payment under REPI was $0.021 per kWh. If there were insufficient appropriations to
make full payments for electricity production from all qualified systems for a federal fiscal
year, 60% of the appropriated funds for the fiscal year will be assigned to facilities that use
solar, wind, ocean, geothermal or closed-loop biomass technologies; and 40% of the
appropriated funds for the fiscal year will be assigned to other eligible projects. Funds were
to be awarded on a pro rata basis, if necessary. See http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives
/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US33F&re=1&ee= 1.
128
CRS Report R40913, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of
Federal Programs, by Lynn J. Cunningham and Beth Cook.
129
CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side,
coordinated by Ralph M. Chite.
130
S. Klamp, “Chinese 12th 5-Year Plan—New Energy, New Energy Cars,” CITE Investments,
November 8, 2010, http://cleaninvest.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/chinese-12th-5-year-plan-
new-energy-new-energy-cars/.
131
CRS Report RL30519, The Growth of the Private Sector in China and Implications For
China's Accession to the World Trade Organization, by Wayne M. Morrison.
132
CENet.
133
Liu Jianqiang, Reining in China's Energy Targets, Chinadialogue, March 2, 2011,
http://www.chinadialogue.net/ article/show/single/en/4138-Reining-in-China-s-energy-
targets.
134
“China Small Power Plants Closures Ahead of Schedule,” Reuters, July 3, 2010,
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/ 07/03/idINIndia-49857620100703.
135
Yang Fuqiang, Hu Yangli, and Li Jingjjng, “China Needs Higher Targets,”
Chinadialogue.net, March 3, 2011, http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show /single/en
/4140—China-needs-higher-targets-.
136
Lynn Price, Xuejun Wang, and Jiang Yun, China’s Top-1000 Energy-Consuming Enterprises
Program: Reducing Energy Consumption of the 1000 Largest Industrial Enterprises in
China, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-519E, June 2008.
137
B. Shui, M. Evans, and H. Lin, et al., Country Report on Building Energy Codes in China,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 2009, http://www.energycodes.gov
/implement/pdfs/CountryReport_China.pdf.
138
China’s wind power sector is expected to be operating at a loss for some time to come, largely
due to the practice of awarding concessions to the bids with the lowest tariff and awarding
contracts for the life of a project. As such, higher government subsidies may be required for
wind farm profitability, and building transmission infrastructure will still be needed on a
massive scale to bring this power to market. See “Wind Power Growth in China's Deserts
Ignored Financial Risks,” The Guardian, May 14, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk
/environment/2010/may/14/wind-powerchina-desert.
139
The “Smart Grid” is an intelligent system capable of seamlessly integrating renewable energy
sources like solar and wind power into the electricity network. See “China Sets to Build
Smart Grid to Tap Renewable Energy,” Xinhua News, March 13, 2010,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/13/c_13209617.htm.
140
Micahel Davidson, “Spilled Wind: An Update on China's Wind Integration Challenges,” The
Energy Collective, March 4, 2014, http://theenergycollective.com/michael-
davidson/346951/spilled-wind-update-china-s-windintegration-challenges.
141
International Electrotechnical Commission, Energy Efficient Ultra High Voltage: The Future
of Electricity Transmission, March 2007, http://electronics.ihs.com/news/articles/iec-uhv-
electricity-transmission.htm.
142
Julian Wong and Andrew Light, China Begins Its Transition to a Clean-Energy Economy,
Center for American Progress, June 4, 2009, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009
/06/china_energy_numbers.html.
143
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy: Is Government
Support Warranted?, CATO Institute, Policy Analysis no. 422, January 10, 2002,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1281.
144
FITP.
145
“The United States continues to hold an overwhelming advantage in the area of venture
capital/private equity investment, accounting for 73 percent of the G-20 total in 2010.” Pew
Charitable Trusts, Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race?, March 2011,
http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/G-20Report-
LOWRes-FINAL.pdf.
146
CRS Report R42895, Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview, by James E.
McCarthy.
147
“Stick to Energy Goals,” XinHua News, May 7, 2010, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english
2010/indepth/2010-05/07/ c_13281612.htm.
148
“According to reports submitted by each province to this year’s parliamentary sessions in
Beijing, only Xinjiang admitted it had failed to hit its 11th FYP target—achieving a 10.2%
cut against a target of 20%. Of the 30 other provinces, eight said they had either hit their
targets earlier than required or exceeded them, while four—Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi and
Qinghai—gave ambiguous responses. Anhui, for example, said it “expected to be able to
hit” its target, while Fujian said it “will hit” its target. The remainder all said they had fully
met their emissions-reduction obligations.” Yuan Duanduan and Feng Jie, “Behind China’s
Green Goals,” ChinaDialogue, March 24, 2011, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show
/single/en/4181-Behind-China-s-green-goals.
149
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All
Sectors), May 14, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html.
150
See http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/documents/US-China_Fact_Sheet_Coal.
pdf.
151
Vello Kuuskraa and Scott Stevens, Worldwide Gas Shales and Unconventional Gas—A Status
Report, Advanced Resources International, December 12, 2009, http://www.adv-
res.com/pdf/Kuuskraa%20Condensed%20Worldwide%20Uncon%20Gas%2012_12_09.
pdf.
INDEX
awareness, viii, 4, 5, 7, 10, 43, 45, 46, 47,

A 50, 58, 60, 66, 69, 75
access, 20, 27, 48
accounting, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 129 B
accreditation, 3, 42, 44, 58, 75
acoustics, 19 background noise, 84
age, 43 bacteria, 123
agencies, 2, 5, 36, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 107, ban, 104
115 barriers, viii, 3, 5, 10, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45,
air emissions, 103, 119 47, 50, 56, 58, 67, 70, 75
air quality, 23, 26, 51, 77 base, 18, 22, 59
alternative energy, 111 basic research, 98
American Bar Association, 86 basic services, 60
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, batteries, 109
50, 110, 112, 114, 127 beams, 56
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Beijing, 17, 64, 66, 87, 88, 89, 102, 125,
of 2009, 110, 112, 114, 127 126, 129
anaerobic digestion, 123 benchmarking, 52
appropriations, 110, 115, 127 benchmarks, 117
architects, vii, 1, 5, 36, 40, 43, 46, 47, 56, benefits, 15, 39, 43, 89, 100, 101
58 biodiesel, 103, 108
arrest, 103 biofuel, 108, 123
Asia, 86, 124 biogas, 103, 123
assessment, 17, 19, 25, 26, 31, 34, 127 biomass, 96, 99, 101, 103, 108, 111, 112,
assets, 55, 122, 126 115, 121, 127
atmosphere, 37, 51 biotechnology, 98, 99
audit(s), 25, 62, 63, 115 blogs, 88, 123, 124
authority(s), 31, 34, 101, 114 boilers, 56
automation, 25 Brazil, 104
breakdown, 15
132 Index
breathing, 78 combustion, 100, 103, 112

building code, 9, 10, 50, 53, 54, 60, 62, 67, commercial, vii, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 117 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 31, 34, 37,
businesses, 113 38, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62,
63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76,
90, 91, 125
C communication, 20, 33, 40
Communist Party, 122
campaigns, 50
community(s), 20, 47, 58
CAP, 122
compliance, 4, 5, 8, 9, 46, 50, 51, 52, 54, 61,
carbon, 16, 40, 61, 62, 66, 88, 103, 120,
64, 69, 77, 78, 79
121, 123
conditioning, 11, 12, 30, 35, 36, 40, 117
carbon dioxide, 121, 123
conference, 102
carbon emissions, 16, 40, 120
Congress, 19, 50, 99, 116, 121, 122, 127,
case studies, vii, 56
129
cash, 48, 70, 76
connectivity, 117
category a, 31
consensus, 16, 20, 36, 42, 52, 75
category b, 38
conservation, ix, 31, 37, 86, 94, 99, 100,
CEC, 53, 85
111, 113, 116
CEE, 85
consulting, 32
certificate, 30
consumers, 97
certification, viii, 1, 2, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22,
consumption, vii, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
34, 36, 37, 42, 44, 55, 57, 59, 70, 71, 75
15, 19, 35, 36, 37, 52, 55, 89, 90, 102,
challenges, 44, 66, 128
106, 116, 120, 122
chemical, 24, 25, 26, 56
convention, 35
Chicago, 28, 86
cooking, 13, 15, 103, 109
Chinese government, 106, 109, 121
cooling, 12, 13, 15, 28, 35, 36, 49, 65, 82,
circulation, 28
100, 115
city(s), vii, 4, 7, 8, 16, 52, 53, 56, 61, 62, 63,
cooperation, 15, 121, 122
66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 76, 88, 117
cost, ix, 3, 5, 6, 16, 27, 35, 39, 42, 44, 46,
citizens, 116
48, 55, 67, 69, 71, 76, 94, 100, 101, 104,
classroom, 19
107, 110, 117, 119, 124
clean energy, 97, 101, 108, 109, 118, 120
cost saving, 16
cleaning, 18, 26, 84
covering, 18, 52, 97, 112
clients, 47
crises, 15
climate, vii, ix, 1, 9, 11, 34, 47, 50, 53, 64,
crop(s), 103, 109, 123
75, 95, 102, 118, 121, 123, 124
crude oil, 109
climate change, vii, ix, 1, 75, 95, 118
currency, 90, 121
CO2, 8
customers, 101, 107, 108, 111
coaches, 59
coal, viii, ix, 14, 36, 90, 93, 94, 95, 98, 100,
101, 103, 105, 107, 112, 117, 120, 121 D
coastal waters, vii
cogeneration, 100, 103, 111, 126 data collection, 35
collaboration, 19, 40 database, 20, 34, 44
colleges, 58, 60
Index 133
demonstrations, viii, 4, 5, 10, 45, 46, 50, 55, energy consumption, viii, ix, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12,
58, 62, 65, 69 13, 14, 15, 19, 28, 31, 36, 37, 57, 63, 64,
Department of Energy, 9, 22, 55, 85, 110, 65, 94, 101, 116, 120
111, 121, 127 energy efficiency, vii, ix, 1, 8, 9, 10, 25, 34,
Department of Labor, 58 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53,
depth, 46 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 75, 94,
designers, 19 98, 99, 100, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 121
diesel fuel, 112 energy efficiency codes, vii, 8, 50, 64, 66
diffusion, 100 Energy Independence and Security Act, 111
disclosure, 46, 52 Energy Policy Act of 2005, 111
displacement, 28, 95 energy prices, 97, 110
distribution, 26, 37, 104, 122 energy rating systems, vii, 8
district heating, 100 energy recovery, 30
divergence, 2, 37 energy security, ix, 94, 101, 111, 118, 121
draft, 20 energy supply, 11, 111
drainage, 83 enforcement, 5, 42, 46, 52, 61
engineering, 3, 16, 17, 44, 52, 60
English Language, 122
E environment, ix, 17, 19, 39, 42, 45, 48, 50,
54, 82, 85, 94, 99, 101, 121, 122, 123,
economic development, ix, 59, 95, 99, 116,
124, 125, 128
118
environmental impact, 22, 55, 95, 104
economic growth, viii, 8, 13, 93, 95, 98 environmental issues, 22
economic policy, 119
environmental organizations, 15
economies of scale, 106
environmental protection, 99, 108
education, viii, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 19, 44, 47,
Environmental Protection Agency, 52, 89
49, 58, 60, 61, 66, 68, 69
environmental quality, 2, 9, 17, 18, 37, 51
efficiency criteria, 126
EPA, 52, 89
electric power, viii, 93, 95, 100, 103, 105,
equipment, 8, 10, 11, 13, 25, 26, 30, 38, 43,
112, 117, 120
50, 83, 100, 108, 118, 119
electric power generating capacity, viii, 93,
equity, 129
95 erosion, 24
electricity, viii, ix, 11, 12, 13, 35, 61, 93, 94,
ethanol, 104, 108, 113, 123
95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
evapotranspiration, vii
107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116,
evidence, 5, 6, 40, 69, 76
117, 118, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127,
exchange rate, 90
128, 129 execution, 111
electricity users, ix, 94, 107
Executive Order, 55, 58, 88, 115
emergency, 13
expertise, 52
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 114
exploitation, 121
emitters, 8
export market, ix, 94, 116
employment, 101, 116
exports, 109
encouragement, 100
exposure, 19
energy conservation, 38, 99, 100, 108
Energy Conservation Law, ix, 94, 99, 100
134 Index
global markets, 99
F government procurement, 108
governments, 5, 8, 45, 46, 56, 57, 61, 66,
Farm Bill, 115, 128
99, 108
farmers, 108, 115
governor, 121
farms, 104
grants, 6, 48, 59, 70, 112, 115
federal agency, 56, 110
green building evaluation systems, viii, 10
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 28,
green building market, viii, 11, 76
90
Green Building Rating System, vii, 1, 65
federal government, 8, 55, 56, 110, 112,
green building sector, vii, 1
114, 119
green buildings, viii, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16,
federal law, 118
17, 29, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 55, 66, 67,
feedstock(s), 102, 103, 109, 113, 123
69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 80
fertilization, 28
greenhouse, 95
filtration, 77
greenhouse gas, 95
financial, vii, 3, 5, 8, 10, 31, 40, 43, 44, 58,
grids, 101
67, 98, 100, 108, 112
gross domestic product, viii, 93, 95, 122
financial crisis, 108, 112
ground water, vii
financial incentives, vii, 8, 10, 67
growth, vii, 7, 8, 19, 59, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76,
fiscal policy, viii, 5, 6, 10, 47, 50, 70
95, 100, 116
fixed rate, 21
growth rate, 7, 70
flexibility, 8, 34, 37, 38, 75
GSA, 56, 86
fluid, 124
Guangdong, 64
fluidized bed, 100
Guangzhou, 66
food, 25, 102, 103, 108, 113
guardian, 121, 128
food security, 103
guidance, 17, 79, 80
force, 16, 116
guidelines, 17, 29
foreign companies, 106
formation, 111
foundations, 55 H
fuel cell, 98
fuel prices, 109 habitat, 24
funding, 16, 42, 46, 58, 67, 97, 100, 107, Hawaii, 57
110, 111, 115, 119 health, 3, 39, 40, 42, 52, 54
funds, 50, 58, 98, 99, 109, 111, 115, 127 heat pumps, 56, 115
hiring, 58
history, 110, 111
G homeowners, 10
homes, 2, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 52
gasification, 100, 112
hotels, 2, 12, 18
GDP, viii, ix, 93, 94, 95, 116, 120
House, 15, 16
General Services Administration (GSA), 56
housing, 12, 13, 64, 117
geography, 47
humidity, 11
Germany, 85
hydroelectric power, 113
global climate change, 95, 97
hydrogen, 98, 112
global demand, 109
hydropower capacity, ix, 94, 104
Index 135
hydropower project, ix, 94, 95

K
I kindergarten, 19
ICC, 50, 86
ID, 89, 127
L
improvements, 5, 7, 10, 18, 19, 39, 67, 117
labeling, vii, viii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 34, 36, 45,
income, 59, 114, 116
46, 50, 52, 54, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 75, 80,
income tax, 59, 114
100
independence, ix, 94, 118
lakes, vii
India, 124
landscape(s), 3, 24, 39, 40
individuals, 34
landscaping, 23, 24
industrialized countries, 8, 14
laws, viii, 93, 95, 96, 99, 104, 122, 125
industry(s), viii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 36, 39,
laws and regulations, 104
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53,
lawyers, 36
54, 58, 60, 66, 68, 69, 75, 76, 94, 96, 97,
lead, 58, 67, 116
98, 99, 109, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 125
leadership, 58, 119
infiltration, vii
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
inflation, 115
Design, vii, 1, 9, 16
infrastructure, 112, 117, 128
learning, 7
inspectors, 40
legislation, ix, 50, 55, 94, 99, 101, 110, 111
institutional change, 45
LID, vii
institutions, 31, 42
light, 10, 23
insulation, 28, 36, 45, 82
livestock, 103
integration, 3, 10, 30, 43, 117
loan guarantees, 111, 112, 115, 119
integrity, 46
loans, 101, 108
interest rates, 101
local authorities, 106
intervention, 119
local conditions, 8
investment(s), ix, 3, 5, 6, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44,
local government, 5, 35, 55, 57, 61, 75, 97,
45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 70,
106, 107
94, 97, 98, 99, 105, 108, 110, 114, 118,
Low Impact Development, vii
119, 120, 121, 129
low-interest loans, 109
investors, 48, 60
LPG, 11
irrigation, 28, 35
islands, 40, 41, 47
issues, 16, 42, 95, 98, 117, 121, 122, 128 M
iteration, 52
major issues, 121
majority, 11, 14, 17, 65, 107
J
management, vii, 2, 9, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25,
26, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38, 78, 100, 111
joint ventures, 107
manufacturing, ix, 13, 94, 96, 97, 108, 116,
justification, 34
119, 124, 125
manure, 103, 123
market economy, 116, 118
136 Index
market share, 9, 101, 119 oil, 11, 12, 15, 95, 102, 103, 109
marketing, 22 oilseed, 123
marketplace, 45 operating data, 2, 21
Maryland, 16, 59 operations, 2, 3, 18, 26, 42, 43, 47, 60, 61,
mass, 7, 14, 27 63
materials, 3, 7, 8, 20, 24, 26, 30, 31, 36, 44, opportunities, 4, 47, 49, 55, 69, 119
50, 51, 55, 64, 67, 68, 81, 83 organic matter, 123
matter, 81, 83, 123 organize, 34
measurement, 3, 25, 34, 38, 43, 47, 56, 60 outpatient, 19
media, 77, 78 overhead costs, 107
medical, 13, 19 oversight, 3, 36, 44
medical care, 19 ownership, 107, 108, 126
membership, 20 oxygen, 123
mercury, 25
meta-analysis, 6
meter, 6, 12, 13, 35, 67, 70, 74, 76 P
Mexico, 16
Pacific, 85, 88, 124, 128
military, 98
performance measurement, 24
modifications, 18
permeability, 83
mold, 19
photons, 124
momentum, viii, 7, 11, 97
photovoltaic cells, 124
Mongolia, 103, 105
plants, 28, 95, 103, 105, 108, 112, 113, 117,
municipal solid waste, 115
121, 123
platform, 63, 65
N platinum, 2, 22, 27, 28, 38, 39, 54, 59
playing, 54
National Academy of Sciences, 126 policy, vii, viii, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 25, 26, 39,
national policy, ix, 94, 110 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 57, 59, 61, 67, 69,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 86, 76, 97, 104, 105, 113, 118, 121, 123, 124
118, 123, 125, 127 policy instruments, vii, 8
National Research Council, 110, 121 policy makers, 39
natural gas, 11, 13, 95, 111, 120 pollutants, vii, 19
neutral, 103 pollution, viii, 23, 24, 82, 84, 93, 95, 97, 98,
next generation, 119 101, 118
nitrogen, 95 poor performance, 31
nitrous oxide, 121 population, 12, 37, 95, 103, 105, 116
NREL, 123, 125, 127 population density, 37
population growth, 12
portfolio, 55, 110, 126
O power generation, ix, 94, 97, 102, 103, 105,
112, 117, 118, 120, 123
Obama, 55, 56, 88
power grid, viii, 94, 101
obstacles, 95
power plants, ix, 94, 117
Office of Management and Budget, 56
precipitation, 11
officials, 16, 40, 61
present value, 39
Index 137
president, 42, 55, 125 recycling, 28, 37, 99

prevention, 19, 23 redevelopment, 23
principles, 17, 19, 35, 42 reform(s), 10, 13, 66, 88, 97, 122
private investment, 110 regulations, 95, 107, 118, 122, 126
private sector, 110, 116, 118 regulatory agencies, 99
private sector investment, 118 rehabilitation, 56
private-sector developers, vii Renewable Electricity Standard, 126
procurement, 99, 108, 114 renewable energy technologies, 10, 30, 98,
producers, 108, 117 102, 111, 115, 118, 126
professional development, 4, 7, 68, 69 renewable fuel, 110, 111, 112
professionals, 16, 40, 43, 47, 58, 76 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), 110, 111,
profit, 40 126
profitability, 128 Renewable Fuels Association, 123
program administration, viii, 10, 75 renewable-energy, 123
project, vii, ix, 1, 16, 17, 20, 22, 27, 29, 34, rent, 5, 39, 69, 76
36, 37, 42, 43, 59, 61, 75, 77, 78, 94, 97, repair, 55
104, 106, 107, 112, 114, 124, 128 requirements, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 27, 28, 30,
propane, 11, 12 31, 37, 38, 46, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61,
property taxes, 59 68, 69, 76, 79, 80, 108, 111, 114, 118,
protection, 104 123
public education, 46 RES, 126
public policy, viii, 93, 95, 111 researchers, 113
public schools, 59 reserves, 95, 103, 108
pumps, 13, 80 Residential, 13, 15, 32, 80, 82, 85, 89
PURPA, 111, 126 residential buildings, ix, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17,
PVC, 82, 84 30, 46, 50, 64, 71, 80, 90, 94, 117
residues, 103
resource utilization, 36, 98
Q resources, viii, 36, 40, 51, 56, 60, 85, 89, 90,
93, 95, 99, 103, 106, 107, 113, 115, 117,
quality control, 2, 31 118, 119, 120, 121
response, 22, 112
R restaurants, 12
restrictions, 109
radiation, 105 restructuring, 99, 100
rainwater, vii, 28, 35, 37 retail, 2, 12, 16, 19, 101
rating scale, 16 rewards, 60
raw materials, 109 RFS, 110, 112, 113
RE, 122, 123, 125 Richland, 85
real estate, 36 risk(s), 3, 5, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 56, 108, 109
real property, 55 risk perception, 44
reality, 90 robotics, 98
recession, 119 roots, 15
recognition, 22, 46 rules, 108, 109
recovery, 112 runoff, vii
138 Index
runoff of water, vii stoves, 112

rural areas, 99, 100, 103 strategic planning, 61
rural development, 99 structural changes, 117
structure, ix, 14, 32, 94, 101, 117
subsidy(s), 44, 45, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109,
S 114, 126
sulfur, 95, 121
safety, 3, 42
sulfur dioxide, 95
savings, 28, 30, 35, 39, 42, 47, 48, 49, 51,
Sun, 104, 108
61, 65, 77, 116
supply chain, 47
savings rate, 35
surplus, 105
scandium, 126
sustainability, ix, 28, 40, 43, 51, 95, 100,
school, 2, 16, 19, 60, 64, 65
118
science, 52, 98, 99 sustainable development, ix, 35, 86, 90, 94,
scope, 37, 66, 75
98, 101, 125, 126
sensor network, 56
sustainable energy, 39
September 11, 86
synthesis, 112
services, 20, 32, 59, 108
shape, 75
shortage, 58 T
showing, 59
silver, 2 target, 7, 9, 17, 56, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66,
simulation(s), 59, 77 74, 75, 76, 102, 105, 106, 116, 120, 121,
Singapore, 90 129
small businesses, 115 tariff, 104, 106, 109, 116, 123, 128
social development, 98 tax breaks, 108
society, ix, 94, 101 tax credits, 5, 6, 10, 59, 69, 70, 119
software, 20 tax deduction, 10
solar photovoltaic (PV) power sector, viii, tax incentive, 10, 97, 110, 112, 119
94 tax policy, viii, 10, 48
solar PV capacity, viii, 94, 105 taxation, 109
solution, 103 taxes, 48, 105
specifications, 52 team members, 15, 20
spending, 60, 97 teams, 21, 22, 60
stakeholders, 2, 3, 4, 37, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, technical support, 32
50, 69, 75, 122 techniques, vii, 67
stars, 2, 9, 29 technological developments, 120
state(s), vii, 5, 8, 9, 16, 40, 46, 50, 51, 52, technology(s), viii, 3, 5, 10, 27, 36, 42, 43,
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 68, 69, 89, 97, 99, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 67, 96, 97, 98,
101, 110, 114, 118, 119, 126 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 111, 112,
state-owned enterprises, 97, 119 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123
statistics, viii, 11, 14, 62, 63 teeth, 56
steel, 97, 117 telecommunications, 13
stimulus, 108, 110 temperature, 11, 30, 82, 124
stock, 12, 13 tenants, 10, 19
storage, 12, 35, 111, 112, 113, 124 terminals, 27
Index 139
testing, 19, 56, 86 vote, 20

thermal energy, 100, 103, 115
tobacco, 23, 26
tobacco smoke, 23, 26 W
total energy, vii, 8, 10, 13, 14, 102, 106, 110
walking, 27
trade, 40, 109
Washington, 16, 24, 27, 52, 58, 85, 86, 88,
training, 58, 60, 66
89, 90, 126
training programs, 58
waste, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, 54, 102, 109
trajectory, 75
waste management, 23, 25, 26
transformation, 5, 58
wastewater, 23, 37, 80, 82
transmission, 104, 105, 112, 117, 128
water, vii, 2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23,
transportation, 19, 23, 24, 27, 38, 55, 103,
25, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 47, 50,
109
51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 65, 81, 83, 98, 101,
treatment, 56
103, 104, 112, 113, 115, 117, 124
water heater, 30, 112
U water pollutants, vii
water quality, vii
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 115 water resources, 36
U.S. policy, 118 web, 85, 124
uniform, 8 Western countries, 116
unit cost, 112 White House, 16
United, v, vii, viii, ix, 85, 88, 93, 94, 96, 97, wind farm, 105, 108, 114, 117, 124, 128
104, 105, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 117, wind power, viii, 93, 95, 99, 105, 106, 107,
118, 119, 120, 121, 127, 129 108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 128
United States, v, vii, viii, ix, 85, 88, 93, 94, wind power capacity, viii, 93, 95, 105, 114
96, 97, 104, 105, 109, 110, 112, 113, wind turbines, 114, 116, 125
114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 127, 129 windows, 42, 45, 56, 79, 83
universities, 19, 49, 58 wood, 11, 12, 23, 112
urban, 8, 11, 13, 15, 63, 65, 116 workers, 47, 58
urban areas, 11, 116 workforce, 3, 5, 44, 58, 66, 69
urbanization, 8, 116 working groups, 20
World Bank, 87
World Trade Organization (WTO), 109, 128
V worry, 3, 43
validation, 56
vehicles, 109, 111 Y
ventilation, 13, 23, 26, 28, 36, 40, 51, 77,
78, 82, 115, 117 yield, 100
venture capital, 118, 129 yttrium, 126
venue, 35 yuan, 29, 104, 108, 125
vocabulary, 40

Ebook - (Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology) Brenden Forester-Green Buildings in The U.S. and China - Development and Policy Comparisons-Nova Science Pub Inc (2015) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ebook - (Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology) Brenden Forester-Green Buildings in The U.S. and China - Development and Policy Comparisons-Nova Science Pub Inc (2015) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

GREEN BUILDINGS IN THE

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

GREEN BUILDINGS IN THE

NOTICE TO THE READER

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN:  (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

This report reviews and compares the development of green buildings in

0.14 GW as of 2009 to over 19 GW in 2013, with goals reported for 50 GW of

COMPARATIVE POLICY STUDY FOR

Nina Khanna, John Romankiewicz, Wei Feng,

by central and provincial government agencies, specifically the Ministry of

Table ES1. U.S. and China green building policy comparison

Policy U.S. China

Policy U.S. China

Figure ES3. Percentage of commercial floorspace certified by LEED or GBEL, with

Education and awareness levels on green building practices also vary

ASHRAE 90.1 standards. As of the end of 2011, 39 states had adopted

2. OVERVIEW OF BUILDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

In order to contextualize the development and future role of green

2.1. Building Characteristics and Energy Trends

residential floorspace are 1 or 2-story units, with only 3% of total residential

Source: EIA 2013b.

Figure 1. U.S. Residential Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.

Source: EIA 2013b.

Figure 2. U.S. Commercial Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.

Source: Shui and Li, 2012.

Figure 3. 2008 Urban Residential Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.

In terms of energy consumption by end-use, the annual research report by

2.2. Review of Green Buildings Development

improve the eco-efficiency of Chinese buildings. This set of guidelines applies

3. COMPARISON OF GREEN BUILDING

Development of the U.S. Leadership in Energy & Environment Design

3.1.1. Rating Systems

1. New Construction and Major Renovation: originally designed for

These nine LEED rating systems were developed in an open, consensus-

3.1.2. LEED Certification Process

submitted by the LEED Project Administrator as part of the application

Table 1. LEED Rating Systems and Projects to Date

A formal application review is initiated once the completed application

3.1.3. Prerequisites and Credit System

• Certified: 40-49 points

The number of points needed to achieve a specific LEED certification

Table 2. Summary of LEED for New Construction Rating System

Table 3. Detailed List of Credits for LEED for Existing Buildings

Credit Credit Points

3.1.4. U.S. LEED Building Case Studies

3.1.4.1. Betty Irene Moore Natural Sciences Building, Oakland,

photovoltaic arrays, rainwater catchment and re-use, extensive daylighting,

• Sustainable Sites: 9 out of 14 points

3.1.4.2. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Chicago Regional

• Sustainable Sites: 8 out of 12 points

3.2. China’s Green Building Rating Standard

China’s voluntary Green Building Evaluation and Labeling program was

3.2.1. Rating and Labeling Systems

efficiency items for residential buildings include meeting energy-savings

Figure 4. China Green Building Design Label.

3.2.2. Program Management and Application Process

Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:

Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:

ISBN: (eBook)