Posted on March 10, 2010 by Chris Cheatham

Federal Agency Adopts Green Globes Certification

During green building presentations that include legal views, I usually expect that someone in the crowd will not agree with my views of the green building industry.  Usually, the unhappy audience member cannot fathom that there are potential risks associated with green building.  Last week, though, I received a much different reaction when I presented to the National Research Council.  

A number of the federal agency employees in attendance voiced dismay that I focused exclusively on federal agencies' adoption of the United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) LEED rating system.  Some audience members expressed concern that federal agencies had wholesale adopted LEED certification in order to build green. 

These concerns reminded me of a recent news article highlighting alternative green building certification adopted by a federal agency:
"Fifteen Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in 10 states have received Green Globes green building ratings under the assessment system administered by the Green Building Initiative.

The GBI's third-party review system certifies buildings at four levels with ratings ranging from a single to four Green Globes.

All but two of the 15 VA medical centers that were recently certified received ratings of three Green Globes. The Los Angeles Ambulatory Care Center and the Durham VA Medical Center in North Carolina each received a rating of two Green Globes."

In describing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Green Globes buildings, Rob Watson, the Father of LEED, argued that Green Globes was continuing to "penetrate its mid-market target." 

The use of non-LEED rating systems is a new development in federal policy, and one that may continue to gain in popularity for different building markets.  On Thursday, we will look at why green building certification is so important to federal agencies.

Is it possible that two green building rating systems can live harmoniously in federal policy? 

Related Links:

15 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers Attain Green Globes Certification (GreenerBuildings)
 
Yogi Berra Was Right (GreenerBuildings)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on June 1, 2009 by Chris Cheatham

OUR Green Building Mission

I took away a very important, very big thought from my conversation with Rob Watson.  This big, important thought was based first on a comment from Watson himself:

"We are in a 'you bet your species' proposition with unmanageable climate change, so more rapid penetration of LEED is not a problem, rather a prerequisite with regards to solving this global problem."
The second thing that led to my big, important thought was the book Tribes.  Here is a particularly salient excerpt:
"Initiating is really and truly difficult, and that's what leaders do.  They see something others are ignoring and they jump on it." 
Do you see where I am going with this? 

The USGBC was created to improve the built environment because its founders believed our current method of design and construction threatened the planet.  That is a huge task.  When you are undertaking a project like that, of course you are creating new and bigger risks. 

The USGBC is not ignoring risk.  Watson's statements in previous posts clearly show that LEED rating system risks are on his radar.  The risks associated with green building aren't the primary concern for the USGBC; losing the planet to global warming and other environmental risks are. 

On the other hand, I am most concerned about the risks associated with green building.  While Watson sees green building as a solution to our environmental problems, I see risks stemming from green building projects as a factor that could eventually drag down the green building movement.  This is why I want to reduce the risks associated with green building. 
 
If the USGBC or the green building industry does not get my message, or your message, on how to reduce green building risks, then shame on us.  We aren't properly conveying our message.  Or we aren't working hard enough to convey our message.

As an attorney and an independent analyst,  I see it as my role to make that standard work better, with less risk to all parties.  We can't wait for the USGBC to undertake that task - that is OUR task.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 29, 2009 by Chris Cheatham

Concern Remains Regarding Some LEED Mandates

In addition to clarifying the LEED 25% guideline, Rob Watson also had some interesting points regarding regulations that required LEED certification.* 

First, Watson made a great point about governments requiring municipal projects to achieve LEED certification:  "As far as municipalities requiring their own buildings to go LEED, that's an owner decision and no problem.  Municipally-funded projects are in a similar vein."  I wholly agree with Watson. 

I still remain concerned about private development LEED mandates.  Watson indicated he also has similar concerns:  "It gets a bit dicey when talking about broader mandates because we designed LEED as a market-leading standard and there is concern about the market's ability to respond on a very broad level.  As penetration of green accelerates, I believe this will become less of a problem."

What do you think?  Can LEED mandates for private projects work?

*To be clear, Watson was speaking to me as the CEO of The EcoTech International Group.  He was not speaking on behalf of the USGBC. 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 27, 2009 by Chris Cheatham

LEED and the 25 Percent Rule, Revisited

I have been spending a lot of time recently thinking about two posts I made regarding the LEED 25 percent premise and why this will be problematic for green building mandates.  Why did I reconsider these posts?  Rob Watson told me I was wrong. 

Watson knows LEED better than you and I.  He was one of the original members of the USGBC.*  When he tells you your post about green building "does not add up", you listen.  Watson made some great points that I would like to share with you. 

The general premise of my post was that the USGBC intends for only 25 percent of the building stock to attain LEED certification.  As more cities mandate LEED certification, which requires 100 percent compliance, some projects will fail to achieve LEED certification.

Watson was kind enough to explain the 25 percent premise to me in more detail.  In short, it is not as simple as adding up all the building stock, determining how much new stock achieves LEED New Construction certification and coming up with a percentage. 
 
This was the incorrect equation floating around in my head:


Here is how Watson describes it: 
 
 
The 25% guideline (and again to emphasize that this is as much a figure of art as it is of science) refers to each individual market, so once a project 'graduates' from the new construction classification, it goes into the existing building classification. Thus, the 25% of new construction floor area gets significantly diluted once it becomes part of the much larger EB base.
 

Based on this description, it is now clear to me that the 25% guideline would only apply to new construction starts, not the entire building stock.  Here's the simplified equation:


I am less concerned about the 25 percent premise from a risk and liability standpoint after Watson's clarifications.  My primary concern was that very soon, 25% of the total building stock would achieve LEED certification and that the USGBC would have to make significant revisions to reduce the number of certifications occurring.  Since the 25% guideline is only measured in terms of new construction starts, the percentage will fluctuate up and down from year to year. 

Of course, LEED is under continuous improvement and increasing stringency in part to ensure that the system is dynamic and market leader and to disseminate best practices as rapidly as possible.  But the massive overhaul of LEED that I feared does not appear to be on the horizon. 

*To be clear, Watson was speaking to me as the CEO of The EcoTech International Group.  He was not speaking on behalf of the USGBC. 
Tags: , ,
Posted on May 13, 2009 by Chris Cheatham

LEED and the Top 25 Percent

I have had another green building epiphany.  Actually, a series of epiphanies. 

But before we get to the epiphany, we have to review a simple premise.  I have to thank Will Clark over at Multi-Family Guide for pointing out this premise to me.  So here it is: 

The LEED rating system was created to only apply to the top 25 percent of the market. 

It's true.  After doing a little digging, I found an interview from February 2008 with Rob Watson, the "Father of LEED," where he states the premise.   

VL: Here in the US, LEED is becoming mainstream and expanding to cover homes, schools, banks, businesses, neighborhood development, etc. Ultimately, how far do you think LEED can go?

RW: LEED is designed to fully reach the top 25 percent of the market in terms of the number of square feet—so a quarter of new buildings will be built to LEED specifications. The rest of the market will catch up eventually as green practices become more mainstream. So as we reach our target 25 percent (currently about 10 percent of new building square footage is LEED certified), LEED will get more stringent so it will be a moving bar. Unless the engine is moving, the train following it won’t move, either. So we want to keep raising the bar as the knowledge gets greater and the technology availability gets greater. We want to bring in ever greener and greener buildings.

I would venture to guess that most people don't realize LEED is only supposed to apply to "the top 25 percent of the market."  There are all sorts of ramifications, or epiphanies, we will get to in later posts that are the result of this premise. 

But for now, does anyone know the percentage of square footage that is LEED certified currently? 

Tags: , , ,