Green Building Law Update : Green Building & Construction LEED AP, Lawyer & Attorney Chris Cheatham : Washington DC, Virginia, New York City

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included $250 million for a "RAT" board (pdf) established to audit and investigate stimulus-funded programs and projects. In addition, states have established their own auditing programs.

California risks losing $226 million in federal stimulus funds for energy projects for failing to quickly spend the cash and establish a system to track its use, a state auditor said today.

Auditor Elaine Howle said a state commission created to spend money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "has been slow in developing guidelines, issuing requests for proposals and implementing the internal controls needed to administer" the funds. . . . The $226 million was given to California as part of $3.1 billion made available under the stimulus law's State Energy Program."

The audit of the California State Energy Program concluded that the state has failed to create a system of internal controls adequate to ensure that those funds are used appropriately.

• State's handling of stimulus jeopardizes $226M in energy funds -- auditor (E&E News) (subscrip. req.)
• Stimulus Act Oversight (Crowell & Moring) (pdf)

Photo: Wikipedia

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Down in Los Altos, California, a green building controversy is brewing. Linda Kincaid, industrial hygienist, has made some serious accusations about high levels of formaldehyde in certified green homes. On September 15, Kincaid, along with Richard Calhoun, held a press conference to discuss her findings. I am particularly interested in Calhoun's reference to "sick buildings" during the press conference:

Calhoun pointed out that commercial buildings were sealed too tightly after the energy crisis of the 1970s. Sick buildings were the result.

Calhoun stated that recent building practices reduce ventilation in homes to the point that people become ill. There is not adequate fresh air to dilute formaldehyde emitted from building materials and furniture. “History is repeating itself,” said Calhoun.

Calhoun himself is a realtor in California. If he has been a realtor for a number of years, he would likely have experienced the previous sick building crisis that he references. So what is this sick building syndrome that occurred in the 1970s?

Much of the history of sick building syndrome can be traced to the energy crisis of the 1970s. Before the mid-1970s, most commercial buildings had only one way of regulating the volume of air transmitted to the occupants, namely the windows which were opened or shut as the occupant desired, while homes had fairly significant airflow even with all doors and windows shut. Energy conservation efforts undertaken following the 1973 OPEC embargo changed all this. Voluntary and involuntary energy consumption reduction efforts required the reduction of heat loss or gain through the exterior of buildings and a reduction in the supply of outside air quantities into buildings. Buildings were made "tight" and commercial buildings became solely dependent upon mechanical ventilation to supply heating, cooling, and humidity. Windows were sealed shut. While many homes did not receive the benefit of such elaborate mechanical ventilation systems, they were nevertheless sealed and insulated.

This is where I am hoping I can tap the immense knowledge of all the readers of this blog. Tell me about sick building syndrome. Do you see the potential for another round of sick building syndrome from the new wave of green buildings? What do you think of Kincaid and Calhoun's findings?

You can email me at ccheatham@crowell.com or post a comment below. If I get some great responses, I will feature them in a follow up post.

Related Links

More on formaldehyde allegations (Examiner)

Sick Building Syndrome: A potpourri analysis (bnet)

Photo:  timlovesbrian

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link