Green Building Groups Oppose Green Building Regulations
These are strange times for the green building industry. Last week, California prepared to vote on new green building codes that would improve energy efficiency, water use and waste reduction in the construction industry. Normally you would anticipate that environmental groups and green builders would applaud these measures, right?
Not quite.
"[P]arts of the state's new code, which would take effect in January 2011, would amount to 'a setback for California's leadership on green building,' according to a Dec. 22 letter from six groups. They included the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Global Green, along with two nonprofit certification groups, the Green Building Council and Berkeley-based Build It Green.
The groups largely applaud the code's mandatory rules as a baseline minimum standard. But they take issue with its two-tier labeling system for stricter voluntary measures, CalGreen, saying it would be open to conflicting interpretations and be unenforceable by local building inspectors.
'The tiers cause confusion in the marketplace and the potential for builders to label their buildings green without substantiating their claims,' said Elizabeth Echols, director of the Green Building Council's Northern California chapter. Many local officials who would be responsible for verifying builder claims do not have the technical expertise that LEED and other third-party verifiers provide, she added."
I am puzzled by these groups attempts to thwart passage of the California green building code. Pushing for the LEED rating system, or any other third party green building rating system, to be codified for an entire state is not a viable option. Next post I will give you three reasons to consider.
What do you think about the environmental groups' attempts to block the California green building code?
Photo: mars discovery district
I was fascinated to see this split. Some calling it the most green code in the country, others hammering the code.
I agree with you LEED not being viable on a statewide code basis, nor was it ever intended for such. Seems like this is letting the great be the enemy of the good.
Chris - I believe you are misunderstanding the argument against CalGreen. The Sierra Club, NRDC, Global Green, USGBC, and Build It Green are NOT trying to endorse LEED or any other green building rating system to be codified for the state. They are simply taking issue with the fact that CalGreen (the 2-tier rating system portion of the new CA green building code) is unenforceable by local inspectors with measures that cannot be credibly verified and thus will likely cause market confusion (and serious greenwash) - which will be a major setback to the green building movement's progress thus far in the state.
Elaine - Thanks for your comment. I understand your points although I don't entirely agree.
The argument against CalGreen, particularly from the perspective of Build it Green and USGBC, seems disingenuous. It's unfair to automatically label every new green building rating system "greenwashing." For example, Green Globes, which I have heard many in the industry label as "greenwashing", was recently commended by Rob Watson for penetrating its mid-market target:
http://www.greenerbuildings.com/blog/2010/01/15/yogi-berra-was-right?page=0%2C1
In short, there are different submarkets that can support many green building rating systems.
Finally, I always try and ask the same question when I find a problem with something: Ok, then what? What is the alternative to CalGreen? Are you proposing that the California legislation simply cut out the CalGreen portion of the legislation? Again, this seems disingenuous since this would mean less competition for USGBC and Build it Green. Or would you prefer that another rating system replace CalGreen?
Timothy - It's incredible to see how far the green building industry has come in just a few years.
Here's what Rob Watson, the Father of LEED, has to say on the topic of the CalGreen:
This week's Look-Grandpa-I-picked-up-the-$20-bill-you-said-was-fake-but-it's-real! award goes to the California Building Standards Commission for last week's adoption of CALGREEN, which is anticipated to result in 3 million metric tons of CO2 reduction in 2020. I urge the BSC and the many parties worried about market confusion between CALGREEN, LEED, Build It Green and other systems to work together to educate the market about the respective niches of voluntary and mandatory standards and how they can complement each other. Confusion exists only if you let it.
http://www.greenerbuildings.com/newsletter/newsletter-greenerbuildings-greenerbuildings-news-january-21-2010
Chris - Actually, USGBC, Sierra Club, NRDC, etc wrote a letter to the BSC opposing CalGreen and offering alternative solutions. This letter was ignored. Unfortunately, a lot of this information is not public, but I know that none of the arguments were "disingenuous." In fact, these organizations tried to help provide better methods of accomplishing what the BSC was trying to do. And why would these non-profit organizations be frustrated if regulation furthers the movement? (For USGBC, this is not about competition. It is about credibility and transparency.)
Scratch a little deeper, and you will find that Green Globes was developed by GBI (a non-profit that was founded by Big Lumber, Big Tobacco, Vinyl Institute, etc.). If you look at their system of verification, it is questionable as to whether it is actually third-party rated. (It's technically 2nd party rated.) Where is the credibility and transparency in that? To their credit, I think Green Globes is more accessible for some builders and seems more streamlined than LEED. Unfortunately, the organization that developed the system is mostly made up of trade associations because they were shut out of USGBC for such a long time and the system is colored by that bias.
My personal opinion is that green building rating systems that educate and change behavior positively are great for the industry, but systems that are difficult to verify credibly and regulations that are difficult to enforce become an excuse for those who don't want to change to keep doing what they are doing.
Thanks for really thinking critically about this topic. It's an important one that many are just brushing off as an interesting sound-bite. If you are interested in hearing more about the opposing argument, I would encourage you to talk directly to folks involved with those organizations. Let me know if you want contact info.
Thanks for sharing Rob's reaction, which I am not surprised by. For all that folks want to struggle over the upper level voluntary piece of this code regime, imposition of code based serious energy performance minimum standards sounds like a huge step forward that should be applauded. I agree with Rob again.
Chris,
What I find particularly interesting is the underlying unspoken tone of the opposition which is that more green building certifications will lead to "greenwashing" as potential purchasers will buy what they believe to be a building certified to LEED like standards. While I have spoken about the fact that LEED is not the perfect system particularly in light of its failure to account for regional differences perhaps there is something to be ssid for a national standard of sorts so that everyone knows exactly what it is they are getting for their money.
Good points Rich.
Ultimately, the question is building design, construction and performance in my book. The question is not which organization gets the credit, members, or issues the ticket on the wall ...
If end users and the public are educated on the substance of high performance buildings, we all benefit.