Buiding Not LEED Anymore, Eh?
On Saturday, I was having a leisurely breakfast with my wife when I foolishly flipped on my blackberry, opened my email and stared at the following headline:
Breakfast was essentially over. Never before had I seen the potential for LEEDigation stated so clearly in a headline.
The Comox Recreation Centre is located in Comox, Canada. According to the story at Canada.com, the project was originally pitched to receive LEED Platinum certification:
"The expansion of the main entrance area and the older multi-purpose was expected to be built to the highest level of LEED certification, or LEED Platinum when it was awarded $950,000 in federal grants last fall.
But Comox Mayor Paul Ives says that certification was never realistic given the project's smaller budget and that the retrofit had to be built on the existing footprint.
'If we'd gone through LEED, we were going to be hard pressed to get LEED Silver, probably not Gold and definitely not Platinum because of the rating scale,' said Ives."
"Town council held in camera meetings March 23 and resolved to build 'an environmentally responsible and as energy efficient building as the budget allows', a downgrade of an earlier resolution that called for LEED platinum 'or a similar standard with financial limits.'"
And what are the consequences if a Government in this scenario proceeds with the project and continues to demand LEED certification from a contractor or architect?
Related Links:
Comox Rec Centre Not LEED Anymore (Canada.com)
Los Angeles Times Assails Weatherization Program (GBLU)
Photo credit: Antony Pranata
Here I thought this would make you hungry for LEEDigation!
I'm not sure I understand the hullabaloo or the concern. Questions:
(1) Did the town "promise" to build to a platinum level in order to get a Federal grant of $950,000, or was there simply an "expectancy" of achieving a platinum level? There is a difference.
(2) Was there a Federal requirement, or "expectancy," that the project would obtain LEED certification, or was there merely a requirement or "expectancy" that the project would be built to LEED standards but without necessarily getting certified -- i.e. the project is still "green" but simply hasn't spent tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to get the formal certification? Again, there is a difference.
(3) What is the risk of litigation/LEEDigation? Who would have standing to sue, and who would they sue? I don't know Canadian law, but in the U.S. it would be very hard for a disgruntled taxpayer to sue either the town or the Federal government for this sort of thing. Recourse is generally through public hearings, embarrassment, and the ballot box.
(4) How could the Government, the owner of the project, "demand LEED certification from a contractor or architect," a concern you express, when it is the Government, the owner of the project, that (i) has decided to downgrade the level of "green" in the plans and specs, and (ii) has decided to not apply for LEED certification?
Steve,
All good questions.
(1) The article states that the town had passed a resolution to build LEED platinum.
(2) I am not certain. Any Canadian attorneys want to fill us in on green building procurement law?
(3) The headline made me think of LEEDigation. Immediately, I thought of LEED decertification (which we will be discussing next week). I agree, it would be difficult to seek legal recourse against the government. I stated as much when I commented that a similar situation in the United States would result in GAO audits and negative press.
(4) I was speaking to a hypothetical where a Government recognizes that it will be difficult to obtain LEED certification but proceeds anyways and contractually requires certification from a contractor/architect.
Thanks for your comments and congrats on the speaking opportunity at the USGBC event in DC.