Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would revive and reshape Nevada’s green building abatement into a resilient‑building tax incentive
Summary
AB 528 would replace the old Green Building Tax Abatement with a Resilient Building Tax Abatement tied to LEED v5 resilience credits, require benchmarking and recertification for long abatements, and add a zero‑carbon tier.
The Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure heard testimony on Assembly Bill 528 on April 8, a proposal to replace Nevada’s former Green Building Tax Abatement with a Resilient Building Tax Abatement that emphasizes resilience, performance monitoring and stronger guardrails.
Jennifer Gunby of the U.S. Green Building Council described the bill as a voluntary, tiered income‑tax abatement program based on LEED v5 certification with an added resilience pathway and a new zero‑carbon tier. The bill requires projects receiving abatement to benchmark and report annual energy and water consumption to the Governor’s Office of Energy, requires a minimum energy‑use reduction for benefiting projects (or that existing buildings meet or exceed current code), and imposes a recertification requirement for projects that seek the full 10‑year abatement to ensure performance is maintained.
Gunby noted the prior Green Building Tax Abatement (in place since 2007) was halted in 2021 after state review found many beneficiaries were meeting only code requirements rather than delivering higher‑performance outcomes. The new bill is intended to “future proof” the incentive, target resilience to protect occupants during extreme events, and require park‑smart connected parking for parking elements.
Supporters including the Nevada Conservation League, SWEEP and Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter praised the bill’s stronger performance and resilience focus. A caller, Kelly Thomas — who previously administered the former program at the Governor’s Office of Energy — testified in opposition as written but supportive of the concept; Thomas warned of “free ridership” under the old program, noted administrative challenges for counties (citing Clark County fiscal impacts and uncapped incentives), and urged clearer fiscal caps, monitoring and assessor/treasurer tools to prevent repeat unintended consequences.
The committee recorded support from conservation and efficiency groups and no committee vote was taken. Stakeholders emphasized the need to address administrative implementation, local assessor capacity and fiscal safeguards before the program is reinstated.
