Build It Green / Green Point Rated


The burning question everyone is asking: “What is the difference between the new California Building Code (CALGreen) and third party rating systems?”  GOOD NEWS – a very handy and thorough comparison chart has arrived!

The USGBC-NCC, along with AIA California Council, AIA-SF, StopWaste, City of San Francisco, Simon and Associates, and Build it Green formed the Green Building Codes Educational Collaborative.  This group created two matrixes (one for commercial space and one for residential space) as quick reference guides to compare CALGreen to third party systems.  The matrixes are as compact as one could hope.

The commercial matrix compares CALGreen (Commercial) with LEED BD+C.  The residential matrix compares CALGreen (residential) with (GreenPoint) Build it Green and LEED for Homes.

Please click below for the complete packet I just received Friday from the USGBC-NCC.  If you like the content of these documents, please consider a membership with at least one of the groups that helped make the documents possible.

Cover Letter

Commercial Buildings

Residential Buildings

(Full disclosure, I am a member of the USGBCC-NCC, but I receive no compensation for this, or any, post on the CGBB)

Just a quick editor’s note (and honestly, a little self-promotion) to let you know I will be a panelist on September 25, 2010 at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California.  You don’t have to be an attorney to attend, so please consider this engaging educational event.  The Annual Meeting will be held in Monterey, California from September 23 -26.  My panel is entitled Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Master Planning, and I will be joined by Ed Quevedo and Bret Stone of the Paladin Law Group, (a great law firm by the way). 

The Annual Meeting promises to be informative, and our panel will address a number of the new developments in laws supporting sustainablity.  The keynote speaker this year is Justice Anthony Kennedy, and there are lots of other insightful speakers.  Check 0ut the dozens of sessions by clicking the link above!

While we’re discussing conferences, I want to note that West Coast Green 2010 is coming up September 30 – October 2, 2010.  Once again, West Coast Green lo0ks to be a fantastic event at the same scenic location on the bay in San Francisco.  Last year it was a lot of fun. Note that the early bird discount for West Coast Green ends today, August 20!

Also note, the USGBC’s GreenBuild, November 17-19 in Chicago, IL, has early registration going on, too (until September 10).  They have not announced the keynote speaker for GreenBuild, and it will be tough to top Al Gore from last year… who knows….  Regardless of the speakers, I attended last year, and it was a blast (though Gore was a very inspiring speaker).  It is still the largest green building conference and expo in the United States (if not the world).

Hi All,

A friendly reminder that I am presenting in one of three great webinars presented by the State Bar of California.  The webinars will be on May 12, 19, and 26.  If you can’t make these dates, you can register by the date of the event, and listen any time in the three months afterward.

The first webinar is “Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Sustainable Master Planning” I will discuss alternatives to LEED and the many factors interested parties should consider when designing and developing sustainable buildings and neighborhoods.  Jeff Conner (Conner & Associates), Matt Burris (CTG), and Patricia Chen (Miles Chen Law Group, P.C.) will join me  in a roundtable discussion that will discuss LEED as well as other ways to develop a sustainable project (i.e. ICC, GreenPoint Rated, or independent assessment).  Each approach requires unique planning and permitting.  More information can be found by clicking here.

Our webinar is the first of a series.  There are two more webinars that are really worth checking out.  The first is , “Sustainable Development: Charting a Course to a Sustainable Future Through CEQA Compliance and Effective Climate Action Planning – Demystifying AB 32 and SB 375″ and the second is “Sustainable Development: The California General Plan Law and General Plan Updates: The Future of Sustainable Development”

We hope to catch you online at these events!

I am presenting in one of three great webinars presented by the State Bar of California.  The webinars will be on May 12, 19, and 26.

The first webinar is “Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Sustainable Master Planning” I will discuss alternatives to LEED and the many factors interested parties should consider when designing and developing sustainable buildings and neighborhoods.   Jeff Conner (Conner & Associates), Matt Burris (CTG), and Patricia Chen (Miles Chen Law Group, P.C.) will join me  in a roundtable discussion that will discuss LEED as well as other ways to develop a sustainable project (i.e. ICC, GreenPoint Rated, or independent assessment).  Each approach requires unique planning and permitting.  More information can be found by clicking here.

Our webinar is the first of a series.  There are two more webinars that are really worth checking out.  The first is , “Sustainable Development: Charting a Course to a Sustainable Future Through CEQA Compliance and Effective Climate Action Planning – Demystifying AB 32 and SB 375″ and the second is “Sustainable Development: The California General Plan Law and General Plan Updates: The Future of Sustainable Development”

We hope to catch you online at these events!

Editor’s Note:  The CGBB is always pleased to have Sarah Grilli contribute, and here is her latest post:

On Tuesday January 12, 2010 California became the first state in the USA to pass a state-wide building code that requires comprehensive sustainable construction and energy reduction. Currently voluntary, the CalGreen Codes are mandatory starting January 2011.

The codes focus on all aspects of sustainable buildings (materials, energy, water, construction and other waste). An important piece of the legislation that media failed to mention, however, is the requirement for building commissioning and post occupancy systems management. This often overlooked piece is seen as a huge victory by the USGBC whose LEED version 3.0 also placed significant emphasis on systems performance elements.

Several California environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and NRDC along with, Build-it-Green and the USGBC (the two leading CA organizations with private green rating systems) have opposed certain elements of the codes.  A key concern for some of these groups is the fear the new code will allow developers to market a development as “green” by building to code instead of the more stringent private rating systems.  Thus, the new codes may cause marketplace confusion about the definition of a “green” building.

These concerns are legitimate.  The fight to define “green,” is the subject of constant debate.  Take the term “organic” for example.  The federal “organic” label is regularly the subject of litigation and debate.  Is “green” different?

As sustainable building measures become commonplace, the building community and the public will strive to comprehend what elements make a building “green.”  People may still opt for buildings that exceed the State’s green code, but the state now provides an easier option.  As long as the codes are enforced, smaller California communities without any green elements in their building codes will benefit enormously. This is precisely the reason a national energy efficiency building code is needed.

It is possible that “green building” will follow a similar path as “organic,” and the federal government will pass a national energy efficiency building code (See our post on the subject here and a fact sheet from the EPA here). There will always be variations on quality, but at the end of the day what’s most important is that “green building” practices become the norm.

There were many compelling sessions at the USGBC Greenbuild conference, but I focused on sessions that discussed policy, local government, and risk transfer.  I would like to start with the session on risk transfer.  But rather than go into what the speakers presented (which only scratched the surface), I thought it would be a good to dig deeper and review and summarize what we have stated previously on the CGBB.

When going for LEED, Greenpoint Rated, or any other certification, make sure to pay close attention to the following areas:

- Scope of work.  Make sure the scope of work is clearly defined.  If you’re going for a specific certification, LEED, GreenPoint Rated, or other, cut and paste the requirements right into the specifications in the contract.  Also, you’re going to need to specify who is responsible for review and inspection of each item, and who is responsible for documentation and preservation.  High-performance buildings require a new level of inspection, and the heightened level of liability for these tasks must be detailed in the contract.  Failure to properly document materials for construction is one of the top reasons buildings fail to get proper certification.

- Incentives and rebates.  Make sure it is clear who is responsible for applying for and securing incentives and rebates for products and efficiencies.

- Standard of care.  The AIA recently issued form contract B214–2007 for architects working on LEED buildings.  That form specifies the standard of care architects should observe when designing a LEED building.  After the AIA contract, there’s not a lot of guidance, so make sure your contract is specific regarding ALL parties on the project.

- Review specifics with your surety.  Make sure your surety is committed to building a green building…not many are convinced of the added value in green buildings.  Sureties will not help you build an independently certified building unless you clearly specify such in the contract.

- Value engineering.  Don’t go through the process of value engineering without reviewing how this might effect your LEED or GreenPoint Rated application.  Know your materials, and make sure there are no substitutions without a clear understanding of the implications.  This goes for projects that use BIM software too.  If the project uses BIM, make sure liability is clearly assigned for any changes that may result in issues, and make sure the liable party is aware of the implications changes may have of third party certifications.

Arguably, the greatest risk to constructing a high-performance building is in the contract documents themselves.  Make sure the documents are precise and reflect exactly what needs to happen.  All parties need to be informed of their responsibilities, AND liabilities.

Stay tuned for more from Greenbuild – future posts will reflect more of actual session content…I promise.

First a little bit of history for the nostalgic . . .

The year was 1933 and the U.S. was 4 years into a crippling depression.  Unemployment was over 25% in most sectors and FDR had been in office for less than a year.  On June 16, 1933, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, creating the Public Works Administration (PWA).  The PWA then set out to “spend big bucks on big projects” by financing numerous public works projects in order to curb the astronomical rate of unemployment.  Between July 1933 and March 1939, the PWA funded the construction of more than 34,000 projects, including: airports, electricity-generating dams, aircraft carriers, and 70% of all schools and one-third of all hospitals built during that time.  However, the PWA failed to build quality, affordable housing, building only 25,000 units in four and a half years. (click here for more information)

Of course, the debate remains whether it was public works or World War II that ultimately reduced unemployment rates and bolstered the economy.  Regardless, our modern infrastructure reached a new height of production during the era of the New Deal.

Fast forward to 2009 . . .

President Obama has been in office for less than a month and the U.S. is  one year into a devastating recession.  Unemployment, at least in California, has reached nearly 10%.  On January, 29, 2009, the U.S. Green Building Council announced that it would be working closely with the Obama administration to create millions of new green-collar jobs and save Americans billions of dollars in energy

The USGBC states that it is actively monitoring the economic recovery package under development in Congress.  (click here for more information)  While the bill is not yet finalized, USGBC states that the following parts of the package hold great promise for green building:

  • Green Schools – Billions of dollars for modernization of schools and universities, with preferences or requirements for green building projects
  • Green Federal Buildings – Billions of dollars for the General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings Fund, with green requirements for federally funded projects
  • Weatherization Assistance Program – Billions of dollars to expand the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides weather services to help improve energy efficiency of homes and lower energy costs
  • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants – Billions of dollars in block grant funds to states, localities, and tribes for green projects
  • Public Housing – Billions of dollars for the Public Housing Capital Fund to support improvements for public housing, including authority or priority for energy efficiency incentives and projects
  • Green Job Training – Billions of dollars to spend on job training programs, with preference or requirements that a portion be used for training in green sectors

While critics may continue to laud that the proposed economic recovery package is nothing more than more government spending, two facts remain true: 

  1. Our nation’s infrastructure is failing
  2. When reinvesting in infrastructure we must invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources to increase our energy independence.

Perhaps in the short-term, it may seem like the federal government’s expenditures in green initiatives does little for the economy; but these investments are sure to pay off in the long run.

 

San Francisco has emerged as a leader in the Bay Area by enacting a comprehensive set of green building standards that include aggressive mandates. On November 3, 2008, a new chapter of San Francisco’s Building Code, Green Building Ordinance, Chapter 13C went into effect. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection also released an administrative bulletin, AB-093 on September 24, 2008 to accompany the code and provide a comprehensive guide to the new requirements.

The new chapter of the building code includes sustainability requirements for new construction and substantial remodel work in both the residential and commercial context. The regulations incorporate elements of the USGBC’s LEED rating system as well as the GreenPoint rating system for residential construction and make several of these voluntary systems mandatory practice. San Francisco’s new codes  promote energy reduction and sustainable practices but also focus on stringent requirements in two particular areas: water efficiency and waste reduction. Recognizing a key environmental challenge the city faces is scarcity of water, the chapter focuses on water reduction and efficient use by requiring certain buildings to meet standards and develop ways to maintain site imperviousness, prevent post-development peak discharge rates,  protect existing on-site stream channels, capture rainwater, recycle gray water, and choose to plant specific vegetation that reduces run-off.  Another major element the city chose to focus on is reducing the amount of waste that is generated during the actual construction process by mandating strict on-site separation of materials for recycling and composting. For a complete detailed summary of the specific requirements of Chapter 13C check out the full article here:

SF Green Building Code Analysis

San Francisco has taken a strong stand by enacting this new chapter into their building code and cities and towns on the verge of creating their own green building ordinances will most likely look at Chapter 13C as an innovative and aggressive benchmark.

The following is an excerpt of an article I wrote for the Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes newsletter.  It’s a little dated for a blog post. But the article provides some good introductory information, so I wanted to include it here.  Let me know what you think.

 

Green certification programs offer builders and developers an opportunity to set themselves apart from competition.  With the declining cost of implementing green features into construction, builders and developers don’t need to spend green to “go green.”[1]  Some green features do add costs to the price of a home, but the opportunity to offer a home that will not have an energy bill may be a benefit for which homebuyers are willing to pay a premium.[2]  The California Green Builder program (www.cagreenbuilder.org) – created by The Building Industry Institute, the research arm of the California Building Industry Association – has been guiding builders for over two years, but two new certifications for residential homes made their debut in 2007.  Build It Green (www.builditgreen.org), a professional non-profit membership organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy- and resource-efficient buildings in California, launched the GreenPoint Rated system; and the U.S. Green Building Council (“USGBC”) formally announced the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) for Homes rating system during the first week in November of 2007 (www.usgbc.org).  The LEED program has been helping commercial developers and builders for years, but the LEED for Homes program is the first LEED for single-family residences.  These three programs offer developers, builders and buyers a scale of options for measuring environmental friendliness. The good news is picking one certification program does not preclude you from fulfilling the requirements of another.

 

The LEED for Homes system offers a wide range of options for builders and developers.  Projects can be “Certified,” “Silver,” “Gold,” or “Platinum,” based on the level of environmental friendliness.  One clear advantage is the program is building a nationwide reputation, so buyers moving to California from other states will recognize the LEED brandname.  The USGBC officially launched LEED for Homes at the Greenbuild Conference in Chicago in November 2007, although the pilot program was launched in 2005 and modified in February 2007.

 

Admittedly, LEED for Homes is not for every builder or buyer, and the USGBC forecasts that the program will only be a deciding factor for 25% of home buyers nationwide.  Attaining a LEED rating at any level adds some cost for the independent verification process.  However, Californians have a high standard for home building, and a unique affinity for environmental sensitivity.  Add to that the higher cost of energy in California, and one can imagine the demand for LEED rated residential homes will likely outpace national averages.  In fact, of the 134 certified LEED for Homes projects built nationally under the pilot program, 55 were in California, and of the 336 units, 78 were in California.  That’s 41% of the projects and 23% of the units nationwide![3]

 

Unlike the LEED program, Build It Green’s GreenPoint Rated program is a California-centric system.  GreenPoint Rated is specifically designed to be compatible with developers and builders who may want to eventually strive for the more stringent LEED standards, but prefer to start with a smaller bite of the green apple.[4]  Indeed, Build It Green and the USGBC are working closely together, so their systems compliment rather than compete with each other.  Significantly, GreenPoint Rated’s requirements are more generally defined, but provide points for features particularly important to California.  One major criticism of the LEED program is that in creating a national sustainability standard LEED ignores regional needs.  The GreenPoint Rated system answers these criticisms by exclusively tailoring their incentives for homes located in California.

 

The California Green Builder program is also California-centric, and has been utilized by builders and developers in California since 2005.  Like the GreenPoint Rated system, the California Green Builder program offers a more general approach to achieving sustainability goals.  Since the program was designed by the Building Industry Institute, the CA Green Builder program is seen as being more “builder-friendly.” 

 

As energy bills rise, so too does the public’s awareness of “carbon footprints.”  The public now recognizes green certification programs mean real dollar savings.  When developers and builders construct green residences with a negligible increase in cost, attaining one of these green certifications is an easy way to generate buyer interest in a highly competitive market.

[1] Attaining LEED certification adds an average of 0.5% to 2% of initial cost to a building, and adds only .04% when one considers the cost to build and operate a facility for 20 years. (Jeff Ihen, Michaels Engineering, Lorman Construction Update Newsletter, August 2007) ; also see the Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes companion article on financial incentives for sustainable development. 

[2] Through “energy netting” local energy suppliers offer energy credits to users who produce more energy than they use.  With photovoltaic cells in full use during the day while a resident is away from their home, the resident only pays basic service fees for energy, and may pay nothing for actual energy usage.

[3] See www.usgbc.org. Large public housing projects in other states account for the discrepancy between unit and project percentages.

[4] GreenPoint Rated is also compatible with the California Green Builder, and the National Association of Home Builders’ guidelines.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers