Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 55 Task Force Estimates Dropping Green Building Standards Saves $5M over 5 Years; No Tally of Lost Benefits

The Legislative war on perceived leftism (translation: academic honesty, science, and education that makes young people too smart to vote Republican) goes beyond rubbing out cultural diversity to protect white privilege. The Legislature is also making our campus buildings less green.

In its report to Joint Appropriations yesterday, the Senate Bill 55 Task Force, a group of legislators, regents, and establishment pals dedicated to the proposition that all higher education should be squeezed to within an inch of its budgetary life, noted that one completed recommendation is the reduction of green building standards for public buildings. The presentation claims that the passage of 2021 Senate Bill 134, which repealed the requirement passed in 2008 to build public buildings up to “silver” green building standards, will allow our campuses to save money. According to the slide, the university system spent around $5 million over the last five years complying with that requirement.

That’s a million dollars a year, less than the state spent bribing Kingsbury County in 2020 to allow one stinky CAFO to pollute the Big Sioux watershed. We can afford $1.53M to subsidize one dairy, but we can’t afford $1M a year to build greener buildings that “use less energy and water, reduce operating costs and increase cash available for other investment and innovation, raise property values, provide better working conditions, and fight climate change and coronavirus“?

Neither the task force slides nor its October recommendations detail any of the benefits our university system loses by abandoning the 2008 green building standards. The task force just suggests the Regents will save five million over five years… which savings I suspect won’t be plowed back into education but will simply go toward more SDGOP priorities, like lawsuits and saunas.

9 Comments

  1. Loren 2021-12-07 08:00

    How far back would the GOP like to take us? The 1940/50s of coal bins in the basement next to the Freddy Kruger boiler or all the way back to the 1800s with wood stoves in the corner of the classroom? Ahh, the good ol’ days. Progress, schmogress, better to own the progressives!

  2. Nick Nemec 2021-12-07 08:18

    Short sightedness. The theory, and it is a good theory, is to spend money up front to save even more money overtime. Apparently the business wing of the Republican Party has been driven out by the “own the libs” wing of the Republican Party. They are too stupid to understand the concept of business decisions made with an eye to the future. An energy efficient university building will save money for decades to come.

  3. O 2021-12-07 09:05

    Nick, you give the old GOP too much credit, the business wing of the GOP (aka GOP Classic) always seemed to grab the short-term profit over the long term investment mentality when it came to spending and cutting.

  4. Porter Lansing 2021-12-07 10:54

    Ah. The year 2008.
    The Madville Times.
    Barack Obama was President.
    Mike Rounds was Governor.
    The SD legislature was fully controlled by the Republican Party.
    The requirement passed to build South Dakota public buildings up to “silver” green building standards.
    Oh, my. The year is now 2021.
    Senate Bill 134, repealed the requirement passed in 2008 to build public buildings up to “silver” green building standards.
    Governor Kristi Noem can try to change how children are taught this history but she’ll still and probably always be on the wrong side of it.

  5. John 2021-12-07 13:35

    Cory, this is yet another fine example of state government willfully ignoring best practices, most efficient practices that the state government should have asked, tasked from the state’s engineering and business schools. The legislators, and their voters, are idiots. Not well-intentioned idiots, just idiots.

  6. Mark Anderson 2021-12-07 15:42

    Cory, what’da ya expect, they ain’t scientist’s ya know.

  7. Mark Winegar 2021-12-07 19:18

    Thank you for bringing this idiotic bill to our attention.

  8. Arlo Blundt 2021-12-07 20:54

    Loren…yes, a totally ridiculous effort…how far back will they go?? A staggering question….they yearn for the days of Archie Gubbrud.

  9. John 2021-12-08 13:33

    “By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. ” – International Energy Association, Renewable Fuels Report, Dec 1, 2021.
    One may access the 175 pp report via their website: https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy

    The IEA belatedly realized the S-curve that Tony Seba and others tell us about. Electric utilities have stranded fossil and nuclear fuel liabilities. They will likely try jacking up our rates in a vain attempt to remain economically viable.

    Yes, state government must retain and improve upon the green building standards.

Comments are closed.