This is interesting. I got an email from the AIA California Council about a formal response to an email sent by a "coalition" comprised of the USGBC, Global Green and the NRDC (not too shabby). I had not heard of this initial email until I read the response. I'm copying and pasting for everyone's information (I am assuming that since this is public record, it's OK, and I thought everyone should see and know about it)
~~~~~
January 11, 2010
Kurt T. Cooknick, Associate AIA
Director, Regulation and Practice
Dear AIA Components and Members:
On Friday, January 8, 2010, Catherine Merschel, the Executive Director of Build It Green emailed AIA chapters and members to request that they contact the Schwarzenegger administration to “urge the Governor to adopt a "Green" Green Building Code.” This request was on behalf of a coalition consisting of USGBC, Global Green, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The message is confusing in that it seems to agree with the course of action the Governor and the Building Standards Commission will be taking next week – to adopt a robust and comprehensive green building code. On the contrary, the coalition’s request will actually delay or even prevent that adoption.
The emphasis on “Green” in the email is based on the coalition’s concern that the California Building Standards Commission’s proposed adoption of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code as a mandatory code contains a "quasi rating system" structured as CALGREEN Tier I or CALGREEN Tier II. It is their contention that these tiers lack clarity and an adequate verification mechanism, will likely create significant market confusion, and could potentially undermine the rigorous green building ordinances adopted by cities across the state.
The “tiers” are taken from the current California Green Building Standards Code which has been available for use on a voluntary basis throughout the state for almost three years. The new organization of the California green code places the optional compliance electives into appendix chapters to allow local jurisdictions to adopt the tiers for application in their community. This allows communities to determine the level of “green” that they want to enforce in their jurisdiction. As an appendix, it also allows communities to integrate local ordinances they may already have in place with the new state code. Rather than superseding local adoptions, this new tiered format in a code appendix allows coordination with those locally adopted green measures. Additionally, they are not mandatory until adopted by the local jurisdiction having authority.
Furthermore, the coalition’s contention that if California adopts this code it would “…undermine the rigorous green building ordinances adopted by cities across the state.” is incorrect. Health & Safety Code § 18941.5 (2)(b) states “Neither the State Building Standards Law contained in this part, nor the application of building standards contained in this section, shall limit the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Further, nothing in this section shall require findings required by Section 17958.7 beyond those currently required for more restrictive building
standards related to housing.”
As written, the California Green Building Standards Code is the end result of nearly three years and countless thousands of hours on the part of hundreds of volunteers. Both AIACC members and staff have been active participants in the development of the green code. We were joined in the development of this code by numerous building industry groups from all parts of the construction and inspection community, all of whom are in vigorous support of this document. We note that the coalition members protesting the code adoption have had limited involvement in its development and seem to have little understanding of the development process, or the content and function of the code itself.
The AIACC believes the code is both adoptable and enforceable, that dropping the term “CalGreen” and/or undoing the voluntary “Tiers” merely to conform the code to the requirements of specific groups would not be in the best interest of a credible sustainable statewide building code, and that doing so would delay its adoption. The coalition’s claim that by virtue of the use of a descriptor like “CalGreen” or a tiered system developed by anyone other than the USGBC’s LEED rating system would cause “confusion” is incorrect. Furthermore, the coalition has advocated that in order for the state to implement any type of standards above and beyond the minimum, private third party certification is required. The implications of the latter argument are an expensive and fundamental departure from the way all other code issues are enforced. Requiring third party certification was considered and deliberately omitted from the green code as not being good public policy. It also insinuates that local building departments are unable to enforce environmental measures, even though we trust them for other health, fire and life safety issues.
It is important to note that because of the constant changes occurring to how we design, construct, and now deconstruct buildings; the building code is a living document. The tiers under consideration for adoption by the California Building Standard Commission are the beginning, not the end and there is a regulatory process to make changes. One need only participate.
Sincerely,
Kurt Cooknick, Assoc. AIA
~~~~~
Thoughts? It's good to have this on everyone's radar screens as I'm sure a lot of these "green building code" issues are going to start popping up more and more.
There are actually a lot of alternatives to LEED, that many architects don't know about, maybe because the USGBC has done such a good job of marketing to that specific professional segment. There are several governing bodies, California obviously, and Oregon among them, that are debating what kind of standard could be established for buildings as we speak. And I don't have any details just yet but I think the BIG Department of Energy might be taking up the effort soon.
Here are a few off the top of my head:
The HERS Index, a nationally regarded standard, which stands for "Home Energy Rating System", and which is administered by ResNet;
Most of these are performance rating systems, not a prescriptive path like LEED, but it's some of those prescriptive requirements that are being absorbed into the code.
I would argue that LEED is not prescriptive (though some credits are) and it's also a terrible 'code' mechanism. Ideally you're using LEED on a voluntary basis (as it was intended), and after working on a few projects where it was mandated you always run into the problem of not being 100% certain where all the points will fall at the end of the design phase.
Codes serve a different purpose than LEED. I know nothing about the proposed California code, and it may stink overall, but I definitely agree that trying to shoehorn LEED into a mandate is not the only option and likely not the best option.
On the other hand, I don't see why they're not relying on something like ASHRAE 189.1, which IS designed to be code enforceable and is a more likely candidate to be adopted nationwide. I'm relatively new to the profession, but I seem to remember classes discussing how we used to have a wild array of codes that varied from state to state, but over the last 20 years or so the IBC started to unify standards across the nation. I think it is a little silly for California to start a trend where we return to a splintered set of codes that will make it difficult to build across state lines.
NEEP - Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships - published a white paper about a lot of the rating systems that are out there. It's very informative, you can download it here. The part about existing rating systems starts around page 56, FYI :o)
It wouldn't be the first time that the NRDC's good intentions were subverted by their failure to understand the details of the issue in which they were meddling.
unfortunately, many municipalities already mandate LEED for public projects, when they should be mandating significant energy reductions instead. the rest is just feel good, green-washed BS propped up by the [hacks] @ USGBC
Yesterday, California's Building Standards Commission (BSC) unanimously adopted the first-in-the-nation mandatory Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGREEN. Scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011, these comprehensive regulations will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and water use in the state.
A quick glance over the calgreen code, it appears to be on the right track, targetting specific energy and water consumption reductions as well as making things manditory and straightforward. I agree with their points about the ease of not having to deal with a third party, point based system.
Upcoming battles over "greener" building codes, Round 1: California
This is interesting. I got an email from the AIA California Council about a formal response to an email sent by a "coalition" comprised of the USGBC, Global Green and the NRDC (not too shabby). I had not heard of this initial email until I read the response. I'm copying and pasting for everyone's information (I am assuming that since this is public record, it's OK, and I thought everyone should see and know about it)
~~~~~
January 11, 2010
Kurt T. Cooknick, Associate AIA
Director, Regulation and Practice
Dear AIA Components and Members:
On Friday, January 8, 2010, Catherine Merschel, the Executive Director of Build It Green emailed AIA chapters and members to request that they contact the Schwarzenegger administration to “urge the Governor to adopt a "Green" Green Building Code.” This request was on behalf of a coalition consisting of USGBC, Global Green, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The message is confusing in that it seems to agree with the course of action the Governor and the Building Standards Commission will be taking next week – to adopt a robust and comprehensive green building code. On the contrary, the coalition’s request will actually delay or even prevent that adoption.
The emphasis on “Green” in the email is based on the coalition’s concern that the California Building Standards Commission’s proposed adoption of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code as a mandatory code contains a "quasi rating system" structured as CALGREEN Tier I or CALGREEN Tier II. It is their contention that these tiers lack clarity and an adequate verification mechanism, will likely create significant market confusion, and could potentially undermine the rigorous green building ordinances adopted by cities across the state.
The “tiers” are taken from the current California Green Building Standards Code which has been available for use on a voluntary basis throughout the state for almost three years. The new organization of the California green code places the optional compliance electives into appendix chapters to allow local jurisdictions to adopt the tiers for application in their community. This allows communities to determine the level of “green” that they want to enforce in their jurisdiction. As an appendix, it also allows communities to integrate local ordinances they may already have in place with the new state code. Rather than superseding local adoptions, this new tiered format in a code appendix allows coordination with those locally adopted green measures. Additionally, they are not mandatory until adopted by the local jurisdiction having authority.
Furthermore, the coalition’s contention that if California adopts this code it would “…undermine the rigorous green building ordinances adopted by cities across the state.” is incorrect. Health & Safety Code § 18941.5 (2)(b) states “Neither the State Building Standards Law contained in this part, nor the application of building standards contained in this section, shall limit the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Further, nothing in this section shall require findings required by Section 17958.7 beyond those currently required for more restrictive building
standards related to housing.”
As written, the California Green Building Standards Code is the end result of nearly three years and countless thousands of hours on the part of hundreds of volunteers. Both AIACC members and staff have been active participants in the development of the green code. We were joined in the development of this code by numerous building industry groups from all parts of the construction and inspection community, all of whom are in vigorous support of this document. We note that the coalition members protesting the code adoption have had limited involvement in its development and seem to have little understanding of the development process, or the content and function of the code itself.
The AIACC believes the code is both adoptable and enforceable, that dropping the term “CalGreen” and/or undoing the voluntary “Tiers” merely to conform the code to the requirements of specific groups would not be in the best interest of a credible sustainable statewide building code, and that doing so would delay its adoption. The coalition’s claim that by virtue of the use of a descriptor like “CalGreen” or a tiered system developed by anyone other than the USGBC’s LEED rating system would cause “confusion” is incorrect. Furthermore, the coalition has advocated that in order for the state to implement any type of standards above and beyond the minimum, private third party certification is required. The implications of the latter argument are an expensive and fundamental departure from the way all other code issues are enforced. Requiring third party certification was considered and deliberately omitted from the green code as not being good public policy. It also insinuates that local building departments are unable to enforce environmental measures, even though we trust them for other health, fire and life safety issues.
It is important to note that because of the constant changes occurring to how we design, construct, and now deconstruct buildings; the building code is a living document. The tiers under consideration for adoption by the California Building Standard Commission are the beginning, not the end and there is a regulatory process to make changes. One need only participate.
Sincerely,
Kurt Cooknick, Assoc. AIA
~~~~~
Thoughts? It's good to have this on everyone's radar screens as I'm sure a lot of these "green building code" issues are going to start popping up more and more.
We really need an alternative to LEED.
There are actually a lot of alternatives to LEED, that many architects don't know about, maybe because the USGBC has done such a good job of marketing to that specific professional segment. There are several governing bodies, California obviously, and Oregon among them, that are debating what kind of standard could be established for buildings as we speak. And I don't have any details just yet but I think the BIG Department of Energy might be taking up the effort soon.
Here are a few off the top of my head:
The HERS Index, a nationally regarded standard, which stands for "Home Energy Rating System", and which is administered by ResNet;
The United Kingdom's Energy Performance Certificate, which has been around for a little while now;
ASHRAE's Building Energy Quotient, which looks a lot like the UK EPC;
Energy Trust of Oregon's EPS, which again gives a score for homes;
... and the U.S. DOE has the e-Scale, also for homes.
Most of these are performance rating systems, not a prescriptive path like LEED, but it's some of those prescriptive requirements that are being absorbed into the code.
I would argue that LEED is not prescriptive (though some credits are) and it's also a terrible 'code' mechanism. Ideally you're using LEED on a voluntary basis (as it was intended), and after working on a few projects where it was mandated you always run into the problem of not being 100% certain where all the points will fall at the end of the design phase.
Codes serve a different purpose than LEED. I know nothing about the proposed California code, and it may stink overall, but I definitely agree that trying to shoehorn LEED into a mandate is not the only option and likely not the best option.
On the other hand, I don't see why they're not relying on something like ASHRAE 189.1, which IS designed to be code enforceable and is a more likely candidate to be adopted nationwide. I'm relatively new to the profession, but I seem to remember classes discussing how we used to have a wild array of codes that varied from state to state, but over the last 20 years or so the IBC started to unify standards across the nation. I think it is a little silly for California to start a trend where we return to a splintered set of codes that will make it difficult to build across state lines.
From my friend Richard Strong at the Center for Sustainable Building Research:
infrascapedesign
USGBC and NRDC are closely partnered. Global Green has a competing standard.
Interesting stuff, barry, thanks.
NEEP - Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships - published a white paper about a lot of the rating systems that are out there. It's very informative, you can download it here. The part about existing rating systems starts around page 56, FYI :o)
It wouldn't be the first time that the NRDC's good intentions were subverted by their failure to understand the details of the issue in which they were meddling.
unfortunately, many municipalities already mandate LEED for public projects, when they should be mandating significant energy reductions instead. the rest is just feel good, green-washed BS propped up by the [hacks] @ USGBC
Yesterday, California's Building Standards Commission (BSC) unanimously adopted the first-in-the-nation mandatory Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGREEN. Scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011, these comprehensive regulations will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and water use in the state.
Read the full press release here.
Learn more about CALGREEN here.
well... that's that then.
A quick glance over the calgreen code, it appears to be on the right track, targetting specific energy and water consumption reductions as well as making things manditory and straightforward. I agree with their points about the ease of not having to deal with a third party, point based system.
The only thing LEED / USgBC should be doing is helping write Local Building codes. Fuck LEED.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.