An important article about the roles of USGBC, LEED, and the LEED accredited professional appears in the most recent issue of ArchitectureBoston, a quarterly publication of the Boston Society of Architects.

Written by Michael Liu, a principal at The Architectural Team in Chelsea, Massachusetts, the piece notes the proliferation of LEED-driven legislation at the state and local levels. It observes that “[a]lthough the USGBC’s LEED system has done more to bring the cause of sustainability into the public consciousness than an other, perhaps the time has come to revisit that assumption in the case of a private regulatory body that is not answerable to governmental authority.”

While this issue is not necessarily a novel one, it is significant that a major architectural publication has openly asked the question. The article itself appears to be motivated (at least in part) by Henry Gifford’s lawsuit against USGBC. From that perspective, perhaps Mr. Gifford’s suit can already be deemed a success, regardless of the Southern District of New York’s decision on USGBC’s pending motion to dismiss his complaint.

Liu asks whether “[t]he shrill original allegations aside, at its core, the [Gifford v. USGBC] case raises the question of whether it is appropriate for a private fee-generating nongovernmental organization to assume what amounts to a regulatory role in the building industry.” This legal concept is likely familiar to you: by relying on the LEED system within legislation, state and local governments have effectively punted control over their programs to an unaccountable private third-party organization.

As we’ve noted here previously, although this type of policymaking may have legal repercussions worth discussing under the non-delegation doctrine, Liu’s article is more concerned with the “process of certifying buildings and the creation of a new fee-generating bureaucratic structure to do so.” Although he does not walk through any proposed solution, Liu writes that “[i]t seems fair to ask whether so much administrative complexity and hierarchy actually advances the cause of sustainability.”

The article refrains from critiquing LEED itself. (“The issue then is not the LEED rating system, the virtues and shortcomings of which can be separately discussed.”) But Liu identifies many of the legal process questions that have floated across the green legal landscape since LEED-driven legislation began to proliferate in the mid-2000s.

One open issue is whether the IGCC will become the policymaking tool that LEED itself was never intended to be. Already several states have incorporated it into building codes. The IGCC itself raises a host of issues outside the scope of both this article and Mr. Liu’s. But shining a spotlight on these issues as green building regulatory activity continues is critical, particularly as construction starts increase in an improving real estate climate.

Earlier this year, Pat Penfield of Syracuse’s Whitman School of Management and Rene Germain at SUNY’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry published a study titled “The Potential Certified Wood Supply Chain Bottleneck and Its Impact on LEED Construction Projects in New York State,” which was recently profiled on the Science Blog. The study is interesting because its conclusions echo – from a practical perspective – the calls by many in the industry for USGBC to open up its MR-7 Certified Wood credit to wood products certified under other sustainable forest management systems apart from FSC. It’s also of particular personal interest to me because of its focus on the timber industry as it exists here in New York State.

Penfield and Germain’s purpose in performing the study was to determine whether end users in New York are having difficulty in sourcing FSC-certified wood products, as well as to assess exactly how FSC wood is being specified and used on LEED-certified projects across the Empire State. The authors identified these questions based on “anecdotal evidence from suppliers and users over the past several years suggesting a supply shortfall,” as well as a 2008 study from the Yale Program on Forest Policy and Governance. According to the data that the authors were able to assemble, 38 million board feet of FSC-certified sawlogs were produced in New York State in 2010 on 1.46 million acres of FSC-certified forest. However, because only 1 FSC-certified sawmill exists in New York State, and FSC certification requires an intact chain-of-custody, the authors calculated that 28 million board feet of FSC-certified sawlogs leave New York State’s supply chain annually.

Using USGBC’s database of LEED-certified projects, the authors identified 48 public LEED projects in New York State. 14 of those 48 projects (29 percent) used FSC-certified wood (i.e., earned the MR-7 credit). The authors then proceeded to contact the architects for each of those projects, and administered a 20-question telephone survey which yielded some interesting results about architect attitudes towards FSC:

• 92 percent said they used FSC because of the available “LEED points” and “good stewardship.”
• 25 percent said FSC products were requested by the client;
• 27 percent had difficulty identifying an FSC supplier;
• 42 percent perceived a shortage of FSC-certified wood in the marketplace; and
• 73 percent said they paid a premium for FSC-certified products.

These last two points lead Penfield and Germain to make some interesting conclusions. First, they were “surprised” to find a price premium for FSC-certified wood products given that “[m]ost of the literature on certified wood products has reported that price premiums are rare (Jenson et al. 2003, Anderson et al. 2005, Perera et al 2008). . . . [I]t is noteworthy that most LEED projects were rquired to purchase FSC-certified wood at a premium price from neighboring states, which suggests a lack of product in New York and evidence of supplier leverage on a regional basis.” 

Critcally, they also note that “[a]nother alternative for alleviating this potential shortage of certified wood in the marketplace is for the USGBC to reconsider their certified wood criteria for LEED to possibly include other certification programs, such as the SFI. The SFI-certified products are recognized by many leading green building rating programs in the United States, Canada, and overseas, including the National Green Building Standard, National Association of Home Builders, and Green Globes. Including the SFI program would add a considerable area of certified forestland and stumpage, which in turn would make more certified logs available for processing.”

This study is a timely addition to the antitrust aspects of the debate – which we’ve noted previously here at GRELJ - as USGBC reviews the most recent public comments to the proposed revisions to MR-7.

Mr. Coleman writes that he is “deeply concerned with what would happen if this legislation became New Jersey law. Construction costs for schools would unnecessarily increase, with absolutely no benefit to the students and teachers who use these buildings or the taxpayers footing the bill. Such legislation would also set a dangerous precedent that could lead to all new public buildings in New Jersey having to use lumber certified through the U.S. Green Building Council. Such legislation would quickly waste millions of dollars in taxpayer money.” Mr. Coleman’s specific concerns with respect to increased costs derive from the types of wood products his organization’s constituents would need to stock in the event S239 passes:

Under LEED, the lumber can only be handled through the strict chain of custody by those who are certified in the program. If this lumber is put in the hands of a yard that is unaffiliated, it is actually deemed corrupted and cannot be sold as certified. If my company were to become LEED certified – in which we would be permitted to sell this ‘certified’ lumber – it would cost us thousands of dollars to follow the regulations of the program. We’d also have to stock certified and uncertified lumber in all the dimensions, doubling our inventory, and making sure the products were clearly separated. This would double my costs for such expenses as financing, space allocation, administration, insurance and other related expenses.

First, just as a quick housekeeping matter, USGBC does not certify lumber or any other individual type of product that may qualify for LEED points. As we noted here at GRELJ earlier this year in the context of LEED Version 3.0′s MR Credit 7: Certified Wood, this is because of the high level of scrutiny which private environmental standard-setting organizations such as USGBC receive under controlling antitrust law. It is also important to note that USGBC does not certify individual companies, either. While Mr. Coleman’s constituents may choose to stock more FSC-certified or reclaimed wood products, there is no requirement that those constituents become “LEED-certified” in order to do so.

However, I was particularly interested in Mr. Coleman’s concerns about chain of custody and the requirements for individual New Jersey lumber yards to apply FSC trademarks. According to its website, FSC requires that

[a]ny operation making, changing, trading, re-labeling or repackaging FSC certified products needs to be chain of custody certified in order to use the FSC trademarks and to enable its customers to make an FSC claim about these products. Retailers were traditionally seen as the end of the supply chain; today brokers or agents, who neither take physical nor legal possession of the products, and retailers, who sell FSC products to end consumers that do not want to make an FSC claim, usually do not need to become certified.

According to FSC, there are 133 companies in New Jersey that already hold FSC chain-of-custody certificates, which at quick glance seem to be a relatively even split between lumber and graphics concerns. The actual cost to obtain certification is unclear; on its website FSC states that the “costs and timescale for [chain-of-custody] certification vary depending on the size and complexity of the operation. It also depends on the range of products and processes.”

Nevertheless, although Mr. Coleman’s general points here about increased costs that would ultimately be passed along to taxpayers are duly noted, the more critical issue to consider generally is the scrutiny under which I believe LEED-driven legislation will continue to come in 2010. As Mr. Coleman notes, “[w]ith New Jersey teetering on bankruptcy and local school districts facing major cuts in state aid, this legislation is impractical, unnecessary and does nothing to solve the paramount issues plaguing the state.” Whether or not you are convinced of the technical merits and purported benefits of the LEED program, it is indisputable that state and local governments across the country – including those right here in our own backyard – are facing severe budget problems. Legislators will need to demonstrate bottom-line benefits to taxpayers for policy decisions similar to New Jersey’s S239, particularly if voices like Mr. Coleman’s grow louder and more uniform.

In addition to the points that Mr. Coleman raises, it’s also worth noting that S239 does not explicitly require formal LEED certification, nor does it provide any guidance with respect to what “incorporate the guidelines” might mean. I think that this is another good example of the type of ambiguous language that continues to appear in third-party-driven green building legislation. I would suggest that such language is indicative of a more general lack of understanding about USGBC, LEED, and the various iterations of the LEED system; consider Mr. Coleman’s own remarks, for example, where he refers to companies as actually being LEED-certified! These distinctions do mean something, in the context of both legislation (where taxpayer dollars are at stake) and, of course, construction contract documents.

But, Connecticut law does allow electrical cooperatives, which “may be organized . . . for the purpose of generating electric energy by means of . . . renewable energy resources.” With the input of the state’s Clean Energy Fund, Becker formed a co-op called the Elm Electrical Cooperative, Inc., and approached United Illuminating (the local utility) about organizing a net metering arrangement. Absent DPUC’s consent, the utility refused. Becker proceeded to file another petition that requested, among other relief, that UI be ordered to power the co-op, that the co-op be eligible for energy conservation and incentive programs, and that the co-op be able to implement Becker’s proposed net metering program. Earlier this month, DPUC rejected Becker’s petition (the written report on which the decision was based does not appear available on DPUC’s website).

In its article, the Courant makes several points which I think are worth repeating here at GRELJ for your consideration. First, according to the Courant, DPUC suggested both in its report and oral hearing that although Becker’s proposed solutions are novel, the agency itself needs input from the legislature on how it should respond. Connecticut is behind other jurisdictions (including New York) in terms of net metering legislation; I think this is a good example of technology bumping up against an antiquated regulatory regime. Legislation needs to enable – and not restrict – technologies that can improve building performance. A thought that follows is how quickly many state and municipal governments have acted to incorporate third-party building rating systems into legislation without fully considering (1) the corresponding legal implications; or (2) whether those rating systems actually result in higher performing buildings. We’ll be keeping an eye on 360 State Street’s plight and follow up if anything else of import transpires.

On a New York side note, last August Governor Paterson signed a series of bills to allow commercial net metering installations across New York State. Previously, only residential users were allowed to generate their own electricity from renewable sources and sell it back into the grid. Senate Bill 7171 now allows net metering for commercial systems up to 2 megawatts in capacity. It also increased the maximum system size for residential installations from 10 to 25 kilowatts. In addition, for building owners that install solar power systems, Senate Bill 8145 (which applies only to New York City) allows for a four-year real property tax abatement of up to $62,500.00 per year. As we noted recently over at gbNYC, the first such commercial installation in New York City was recently commissioned at 925 Bergen Street in Brooklyn by solar power installer Solar Energy Systems (SES) for Big Sue LLC, a general contracting and consulting firm that specializes in green design-build projects, which owns and operates the property. The installation is a 40 kilowatt solar array and, according to SES, is the largest commercial net-metered photovoltaic system in the entire country.

As you may know, in order to earn LEED’s MR-7 credit, projects must “[u]se a minimum of 50 percent (based on cost) of wood-based materials and products that are certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria for wood building components.” In other words, wood-based products that are not certified by FSC are effectively excluded from earning this credit under LEED 2009 for New Construction, Core and Shell, Commercial Interiors, and Schools. USGBC, however, expressly disclaims on its website that the organization “does not certify, endorse or promote products, services or companies, nor do we track, list or report data related to products and their environmental qualities. LEED is a certification system that deals with the environmental performance of buildings based on overall characteristics of the project. We do not award credits based on the use of particular products but rather upon meeting the performance standards set forth in our rating systems. It us up to project teams to determine which products are most appropriate for credit achievement and program requirements.”

Nevertheless, USGBC is currently reviewing proposed amendments to MR-7 which would create a USGBC Forest Certification System Benchmark. The Benchmark would recognize certain forest certification systems, and the credit would be awarded for only wood products that “use a minimum of 50 percent (based on cost) of wood-based materials and products that are certified in accordance with a forest certification scheme that is recognized after evaluation against the USGBC Forest Certification System Benchmark for wood building components.” More than 50 forest certification regimes currently exist globally; the four major players in the North American market are FSC, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the Certified Family Forest, and the American Tree Farm system. It’s unclear how many in addition to FSC the Benchmark would recognize.

The leading Supreme Court case in this space which I analogize in the Article to the ongoing issues with the MR-7 credit is Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988). In Allied Tube, a manufacturer of plastic electrical conduit claimed that a rival member of the National Fire Protection Association which manufactured steel conduit had packed the organization’s annual meeting with sympathetic interests in order to vote against the plastic manufacturer’s proposal to include plastic conduit in the Association’s National Electric Code. The Supreme Court noted that “private standard-setting associations have traditionally been objects of antitrust scrutiny,” that the Code was “the most influential electrical code in the nation,” and that many governments had adopted it into state- and local-level legislation by reference. It also suggested that “members of such associations often have economic incentives to restrain competition and that the product standards set by such associations have a serious potential for anti-competitive harm.” The significant factor for the Court in finding antitrust liability against the manufacturer of electrical conduit was the adoption of the Code into legislation. Although my Article does not suggest (nor am I suggesting here) that this sort of activity is taking place within USGBC, I do think the Supreme Court’s identification of legislation driving market effect in this context is an important consideration for policymakers.

What’s also interesting when reviewing the line of case law presented in my Article is that USGBC’s Antitrust Compliance Policy states that “from an antitrust standpoint, [USGBC] will be commonly referred to as a trade association. Trade organizations are subject to antitrust scrutiny because they involve meetings of competitors, but they frequently engage in a number of legitimate, pro-competitive and lawful activities. In order to avoid allegations of illegal price signaling, there should be no communications or discussions between any USGBC members either at USGBC meetings or at any other time about (a) current or future prices, pricing plans or production plans, or (b) announcements of price changes or output changes. . . . As a general matter, each member should be extremely careful and seek legal advice before engaging in any conduct that could possibly provide evidence to support allegations of collusion.”

As it turns out, though, the antitrust issues raised in my Article are more than just legal theory. As you may know, back in October,  the Coalition for Fair Forest Certification filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging anti-competitive behavior on the part of FSC and USGBC. Among other things, the complaint alleges that “the preference shown for FSC-certified products by the USGBC raises concerns about the viability of fair competition with other domestic certification programs. The Coalition submits that USGBC and FSC operate in tandem to disadvantage wood products certified by SFI and other certification systems. Thus, to the extent an investigation is warranted, the [FTC's] Bureau of Competition should look closely at the conduct of USGBC and its favoring of FSC certification.” It’s unclear what the current status of the complaint is and whether FTC has initiated any sort of investigation.

My Article concludes with some recommendations for policymakers, including a suggestion that the “LEED Certifiable” concept and general trend towards flexibility in how green building legislation is implemented may be an implicit acknowledgment of these emerging antitrust issues. I also present a number of other federal cases that are similarly interesting to review in light of current green building regulatory activity.  I would also note that the bases raised in my Article are by no means the only antitrust grounds on which LEED or other third-party systems might be challenged at some point.

Finally, I do expect many of these antitrust considerations to crystalize further during the course of 2010 as USGBC begins to evaluate various forest certification systems against its Benchmark and the Coalition for Fair Forest Certification’s complaint moves forward within the FTC.

As we move into the first full week of 2010, the Northland Pines decertification proceeding is casting a long shadow over the short-term green building legal landscape- but more on that in a bit. Before we push forward here at GRELJ and continue dissecting them in much more detail this year, I think it makes sense to look back at what I think were the five most important green building-related legal issues which emerged during 2009:

• The stimulus package contained numerous green building-related provisions, including significant funds for state and local governments to implement energy efficiency codes. However, most of these funds have yet to be distributed, so it will be interesting to track legislative implementation during the course of 2010. Some municipalities are beginning to look more closely at the logistics of  implementing third-party-driven legislation, including in our own backyard here in New York. This will be a critical and ongoing issue to monitor.

• USGBC acknowledged the legal risks implicit with building green, but its white paper on the subject dubbed them “old wine in new bottles.” We reviewed the white paper here at GRELJ and concluded that it seemed “to be an effort to sweep many of the thornier legal issues that may indeed ferment into ‘new wine’ under the rug.” My reasons for disagreeing with the paper’s conclusions stemmed (and continue to stem) from the pace of regulatory activity, the lack of input from the insurance industry on green building risks, the uncertainty over the prevailing standard of care for design professionals practicing in the green building space, and the questionable body of green building performance data.

• Critiques of LEED building performance moved into the mainstream; USGBC mobilized in response. The ongoing debate about the energy performance was picked up on in media outlets that included the New York Times after Henry Gifford and USGBC’s Brendan Owens debated the merits of LEED at the NESEA forum last March. LEED Version 3.0 was released with the obligation for owners and landlords to report data on building performance to USGBC, though many of you wondered what USGBC would actually do with that data upon its compilation. USGBC’s Building Performance Initiative, which was launched in advance of Greenbuild in Phoenix, is ongoing; we’re likely to start seeing results and further studies and critiques of LEED building performance throughout 2010.

• The National Institute of Building Sciences convened a Task Group to review various third-party building performance rating systems, which identified associated risk and policy problems for the A/E/C community to contemplate. The Task Group’s recommendations to NIBS’ Board of Directors included the development of various white papers analyzing risk and policy issues in greater detail; we emphasized the import of this effort in the context of NIBS’ political backing and the scope of the report’s conclusions.

• The potential for decertification of LEED Version 3.0 projects that (1) fail to report building performance data or (2) provide a legal mechanism for the reporting requirement to carry forward after a sale or sublease caused a firestorm of blogosphere commentary. Interestingly, though, the first publicly reported decertification proceeding- the Northland Pines High School complaint, which USGBC is currently reviewing – received comparably little attention.

In my opinion, these last two items were clearly the most important green building legal stories of 2009. Although the Northland Pines proceeding is not the full-blown green building litigation that many have predicted, it implicates all of the legal issues associated with decertification that were discussed last year. It is also the type of scenario out of which green building litigation could arise in the event USGBC/GBCI revokes the school’s LEED Gold status. For all of these reasons, and regardless of the outcome, the Northland Pines proceeding will be the first major green building legal story of 2010, particularly because we are (publicly) witnessing USGBC/GBCI follow the procedures of its Certification Challenge Policy for the first time.

If there are any other noteworthy issues we missed, please feel free to note them in the comments below. Happy New Year, everyone!

For those of you reading this article in a reader or by email, we recently gave GRELJ a makeover and encourage you to visit the site in your browser. Hopefully the new design is easier to read and better organized. One new feature is threaded comments, which allow you to reply specifically to a given comment in each thread. I look forward to any feedback on our new look.

Back in August, you may recall that Community Solutions executive director Pat Murphy authored the first piece of a three-part survey titled “LEEDing from Behind: The Rise and Fall of Green Building,” which we noted here at GRELJ. Our article pointing you to the piece generated quite a bit of commentary and, now that Mr. Murphy has completed Parts 2 and 3, we thought we’d point you to his new book compiling the survey which is titled “The Green Tragedy: LEED’s Lost Decade.” The book was released while I was away last month and builds on Part 1 by tracing the historical argument promoting minimal green building cost premiums, reviewing the ongoing marketing efforts behind LEED, and concluding that policy makers should demand energy efficiency standards more akin to the German Passive House rather than “cheap quick ‘green’ solutions.”

Interestingly, in the preface, Murphy observes that “[w]e are now faced with a movement to adopt LEED as part of our building codes. An over-marketed standard that is under serious attack for its poor energy performance is now being proposed and accepted by cities as a requirement for our buildings. The idea of accepting as law an inadequate standard that has been developed by the building industry – thereby allowing that industry to usurp the long-established methodology of setting building standards by government policy- is absurd and dangerous.”

In addition to their significant legal implications, these remarks resonate with the conclusions of the recent NIBS report and, in my opinion, portend the types of critiques I believe we will see more forcefully in 2010 if LEED buildings do not perform at a statistically higher level under Version 3.0. Mr. Murphy’s book is available here, and I look forward to continuing the robust discussion that emerged after we noted Part I here at GRELJ in the comments below.

• The Green Tragedy: LEED’s Lost Decade

This comment reminded me of language in the NIBS report which noted that “[a]t an increasing rate, state and local governments and their code/regulatory agencies are adopting building rating/certification systems, intended as voluntary systems, to be their code or regulatory requirements, often without fully understanding their benefits, tradeoffs, and costs.” While the Atlanta restaurant industry seems more concerned with what it perceives to be a green building cost premium, the fact that its opposition is also grounded in the lack of sufficient input from stakeholders also echoes many of the policy issues we’ve raised here at GRELJ over the past year, particularly with respect to the rush to mandate green building requirements.

In that vein, it’s also interesting that although Atlanta’s Bureau of Buildings will enforce the ordinance, the city council has yet to determine what types of fines or other enforcement mechanisms would be imposed on buildings that fail to comply. “This is still a work in progress,” a spokesman observed, and the restaurant industry is pointing to this specific comment as one of the bases for arguing that the ordinance needs more work before the city council even considers passing it. Again, this echoes the types of observations noted in the NIBS report. While these types of details are being worked out, the restaurant industry is instead advocating for additional financial incentives (such as tax credits and building permit fee reductions); this also reflects the conclusions of the NAIOP report issued earlier this year, which called for financial incentives rather than mandates to bridge landlords’ payback period gap for most types of energy efficiency improvements.

On another note, the ordinance may present some novel green leasing implications which the restaurant industry has picked up on. Although building owners will bear the responsibility under the text of the ordinance for ensuring that the required standards are satisfied, the restaurant industry is warning restauranteurs who do not own the premises out of which they are operating to review their lease documents and confirm that they will not be responsible for executing the legislation’s required retrofits. It is not difficult to imagine the scenario where a lease includes a clause obligating the tenant to comply with all applicable codes and regulations, and the landlord pinning responsibility for any such retrofits on that tenant in the absence of affirmative language to the contrary.

Just a quick editorial note- this article will be the only new post here at GRELJ for the rest of the month as I am getting married this Saturday and then off on the honeymoon. Thanks to everyone for your support and comments since we launched this site almost a year ago (and patience over the past couple of weeks while the pace of our posts has slowed in advance of the wedding). See you on the other side!

• Operators in Atlanta Fight Forced Green Conversions (NRN)
• Costly Eco-Friendly Laws Overlook Industry’s Proactive Green Efforts (NRN)

First, with respect to building performance, the report notes that “[t]here is very limited data that correlates verifiable improvements in building performance with building rating/certification system requirements. Many people view the few data sets that do exist as controversial in terms of methodologies and conclusions drawn from them.” It also observes that “[t]here are growing concerns that the implied guarantee of building energy performance emanating from building rating/certification/labeling systems may confuse or mislead policy makers and the public.” The controversial USGBC-backed New Buildings Institute study- whose conclusions continue to be cited in support of LEED building performance claims- could certainly be the partial genesis of these remarks.

In terms of green building legislation, the report also emphasizes a number of important points, noting that “[e]lected officials and policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels only rarely understand the objectives, development, intended uses, opportunities, and limitations of rating/certification programs for buildings and accreditation programs for individuals.” Moreover, the report argues that “[a]t an increasing rate, state and local governments and their code/regulatory agencies are adopting building rating / certification systems, intended as voluntary systems, to be their code or regulatory requirements, often without fully understanding their benefits, tradeoffs, and costs.” These remarks comport with the notion that many state and local governments have rushed to legislate in knee-jerk fashion, failing to analyze or review  corresponding legal implications; the AHRI v. City of Albuquerque litigation, for example, is illustrative here.

Perhaps most significantly, the report levels a heavy-handed critique at the organizations which promulgate green building rating systems, stating that “[m]any of the building rating/certification systems and individual accreditation systems appear to place the goal of generating revenue for their development organization as a goal equal to the organization’s commitment to knowledge development and advocacy around its issue,” and that such systems “appear to certify expertise in applying the program more than improving the actual building’s performance.” With respect to that expertise, the report acknowledges “a growing concern that individual accreditation programs are not based on rigorous criteria and testing that validate competence.” Note here that no single system was identified in the body of the report, though I’m curious whether these remarks will elicit any response from USGBC or other organizations.

In terms of legal risks arising out of green building projects, the “Owner Expectations and Professional Liability” section of the report acknowledges many of the types of risks which have been discussed here and elsewhere over the past year. For example, the Task Group notes that “design and contractor liability risk may rise if performance expectations are not realized in completed projects” and that rating systems and accreditation programs “are beginning to impact the professional standard of care recognized by law and the building community. Such systems and programs may cause design professionals, owners, managers, and facilities personnel to be held to higher degrees of expertise and performance.”

A shifting standard of care being fueled by green building practices is a critical issue that we have discussed frequently at GRELJ, and it’s important for design professionals to note that NIBS specifically identified it in the report. The Task Group also discusses green building insurance claims, noting that “[t]he vast majority of insurance claims involve misrepresentation, miscommunication, and misunderstood expectations between owners and design and construction professionals.” This remark reminded me of a BIM/green building panel held here in New York City nearly two years ago where a number of insurance industry professionals warned that claims- in the green building space or otherwise- always start with violated expectations.

The Task Group concludes the report with a set of recommendations to NIBS moving forward, which include encouraging the A/E/C community to “support one comprehensive, consensus-based building rating or certification or labeling program to reduce the complexities and contradictions that currently exist” and the development of various white papers that analyze the foregoing points in greater detail. As you may know, NIBS is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1974 by act of Congress; 6 of the 21 members of its Board of Directors are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Given NIBS’ backing and the scope of the Task Group’s conclusions and recommendations to the Board, its release of this report could mark the beginning of a serious uptick in the level of analysis being performed in this area.

You can download the report through the link below. I look forward to your thoughts and reactions in the comments.

• Report on Building Rating & Certification in the U.S. Building Community (NIBS)

As you may know, among other provisions, the San Francisco green building ordinance requires commercial and residential projects greater than 25,000 square feet, or taller than 75 feet, to earn a LEED Certified rating from USGBC. The requirement for commercial projects increased this year to Silver and, in 2012, to Gold. Residential projects must earn a Silver rating beginning in 2010. Notwithstanding these phased requirements, in the Chronicle piece, the San Francisco Department of the Environment’s private sector green building coordinator Richard Chien states that “[w]e need to reconvene the task force that recommended the legislation and makes some revisions way before 2012. With the changes coming along [to LEED] we could be out of date and we need to address that.”

Interestingly, the San Francisco ordinance (No. 180-08 of September 4, 2008, codified at Chapter 13C of the local building code) states that “[w]herever specific LEED prerequisites or credits are cited, such references are to LEED-NC Version 2.2. More recent LEED . . . versions may be used, provided the credits and points achieved are as or more stringent than LEED-NC Version 2.2.” In other words, because the LEED 2009 MPRs are not referenced specifically, it’s not entirely clear whether they are included within the purview of the ordinance, particularly with respect to mid-sized commercial buildings which are only required to comply with certain LEED credits.

The introduction to the article is therefore inaccurate; San Francisco is not reconsidering whether to restructure its green building ordinance around something besides LEED based on perceived LEED building performance failures. Rather, it is evaluating if, as presently drafted, and based on the recent amendments to LEED in the form of LEED 2009, its ordinance will still (1) obligate covered projects to comply with the new MPRs and share performance data; and (2) whether the ordinance should be revised to expedite that requirement. This is precisely the type of scenario that has been suggested both here at GRELJ and elsewhere with respect to the potential consequences for state and local governments that incorporate LEED into legislation by reference. Notwithstanding its performance-related issues, LEED itself continues to be a moving target and policymakers must guide themselves accordingly when considering the merits of this type of legislative activity.

I also think the Chronicle article is noteworthy because it suggests- once again- an overarching perception that simply collecting an increased volume of building performance metrics will solve the LEED performance gap. For example, consider the following quote from architect Jennifer Devlin of San Francisco-based firm EHDD: “LEED has done an exceptional job of raising awareness. And the U.S Green Building Council recognizes that tracking energy use is vital to the sustainable building movement.” LEED has unquestionably raised public awareness about the environmental impact of the built environment and put building performance on the front page of major media outlets such as the New York Times and the Chronicle. But, as USGBC’s Building Performance Initiative and other efforts ramp up this fall, I think it is critical to keep in mind Larry Spielvogel’s thoughts from our last article here at GRELJ that the question of improving building performance is highly complex and clearly one that cannot be solved by simply compiling a longer spreadsheet.

• Green Building Standard Seen as Flawed (SFC)

The reductions are staggered between 2010 and 2013 and beyond (10 percent through 25 percent, though the benchmark against which those reductions are measured is not set forth in the pending bill); Energy Star ratings would increase from 55 in 2010 to 75 in 2013 and beyond. An independent consultant would determine whether the required energy reduction is met; if not, the contractor (or, interestingly, another entity warranting the energy use) will be responsible for reimbursing the city for the cost of the excess energy use. The amendment is BL2009-503; a vote is slated for later this month. “This would allow an alternative that focuses on the performance of the building, not on the process of how you got to that performance,” Dominy told the Tennessean.

The genesis for the amendment is a 16-classroom addition to Antioch’s middle school, which uses an HVAC and building envelope system that does not qualify for credits under LEED (though it’s unclear exactly why this is the case). The contractor which designed and installed the system- Energy Systems, Inc. of Cookeville, Tennessee- is owned by Bob Southerlan, a former aerospace engineer who is “worried about being knocked out of the Metro construction market.”

I think that this is a critical battle to watch as it may suggest that local governments are coming to view LEED as something less than the mark of building performance; Mr. Dominy’s thoughts about process versus performance are particularly noteworthy in this context. It also echoes some of the remarks in the comments to Pat Murphy’s recent article as presented here at GRELJ (i.e., Mr. Murphy himself noted that “[t]here is a crying need for accurate, verificable and reliable energy rating systems. If LEED doesn’t fill the bill, other options will come forward.”) In addition, if it is true that Southerlan’s system is somehow excluded from the purview of LEED, there may be other, more serious problems with Nashville’s legislation from an antitrust perspective, which we’ll get into in a subsequent article.

• Nashville’s Green Building Code Under Review (Tennessean)

In this first piece, Mr. Murphy concludes that “[t]here has been concern with the LEED rating system relative to energy and CO2 since its inception. . . . LEED has failed to lead in the important areas that are measurable. Initially, [USGBC] adopted a weak status relative to energy consumption. [It] did not recognize and incorporate accountability and verification, unfortunately wasting years that could have providing important feedback relative to energy use. [It] has also not clearly and honestly communicated that LEED is not an exemplary indication of energy performance.” This final thought, of course, is of particular note in the context of many green building legal issues and why Mr. Murphy’s piece will likely serve as a critical backdrop to associated risk management strategies for stakeholders moving forward.

I encourage you to print off this first article, review it, and share your thoughts below in the comments; we’ll be adding the entire series to our Resources section here at GRELJ once it’s available.

• LEEDing From Behind (Community Solutions)

The legislation does not require formal LEED certification, but owners must submit a checklist for the appropriate LEED rating system as part of the plans submittal for a new building permit. Checklists must set forth specific credits the project will pursue, briefly describe how each credit will be achieved, and (interesting to note from a legal perspective) the parties responsible for each credit. The checklist must also be signed by a LEED AP who is not an employee of the building owner at the time of submittal. Again, although certification is not required, in order to obtain a building occupancy permit from the city, at the time of occupancy permit application, project teams must submit a completed checklist indicating which credits the project met successfully, signed by a non-employee LEED AP. As we’ve discussed frequently here at GRELJ, all of these requirements could raise interesting- and novel- liability issues in the event that a project fails to receive a building permit or certificate of occupancy as originally contemplated. However, the city’s development community is calling for Baltimore’s City Council to reconsider the legislation based on perceived additional green building first costs and asking it to propose an incentive-based structure in its place.

According to Don Fry, President and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee, the new legislation “inadvertently contradicts the state’s ‘smart growth’ policy by making the counties more economically attractive to new growth and development and by impeding the city’s own efforts to grow and expand its tax base.” Specifically, Mr. Fry pointed to legislation in surrounding Baltimore, Howard, and Carroll counties that offer tax incentives for green projects rather than mandates. “This puts the city, which already has the highest property tax rate in the region, at a further competitive disadvantage,” Fry wrote in a recent op/ed piece. You may recall a similar situation unfolding in King County, Washington and Seattle a couple of years ago.

In addition, developers, many of whom have in recent years have been renovating historical structures in Baltimore’s urban core, are worried that the legislation will make such adaptive reuse projects cost-prohibitive. According to Michael Goodwin of Baltimore-based architects Design Collaborative, Inc., “[t]he reality is that right now, there is still an unknown premium to doing something green. . . . The premium, which is 4 or 8 to 12 percent on a green project, you can justify it if it’s a build and hold type of company, and in the boom we’ve been experiencing in the last four or six years, there haven’t been a lot of those.” From an engineering perspective, developers are also worried about the feasibility of simultaneously preserving historic building walls which contain glazing that will need to be upgraded in order to address LEED’s energy and atmosphere credits.

One other thought from Mr. Fry also rings salient in the context of green building policymaking: “[f]or any new policy such as this to succeed, two key things must happen. First the policy must be well-designed to achieve its intended outcome. Second, it must be well communicated to those impacted by it. Neither appears to be the case with Baltimore city’s new ‘green building’ measure.” Here, Mr. Fry is referring to the fact that the Baltimore-specific Green Building Standards that will serve as the “equivalent” to LEED have yet to be fully developed, and will not be released until the end of this year. Moreover, I would also note that, as drafted, Council Bill 07-0602 fails to include language providing for project teams to appeal a decision of the building department not to award a certificate of occupancy or building permit based on the required LEED checklists, nor does it include any sunset provision that allows the city to review the legislation’s impact and effect after a certain period of time.

It’s been a while since we’ve heard industry voice opposition to LEED-driven legislation, and the Baltimore mandate may suggest- particularly as stimulus dollars continue to flow to state and local governments to craft similar pieces of legislation, and economic conditions improve and boost construction starts- similar concerns could be raised once again in other parts of the country as well.

• Baltimore’s Green Building Standards Well-Intentioned But Flawed (GBC)
• Developers Worry About City’s New Law (TDR)
• Council Bill 07-062
• San Francisco Ordinance is “LEED on Acid” (GRELJ)

The top five risk categories that were identified during the forums were finance, standards of care and legal, building performance, project consultants and subcontractors, and green building regulations; each of these fell either in the “likely” or “moderate” risk profiles (finance, standards of care, and performance were the top three, all of which were in the “likely” profile, which translated into “likely to occur at least once every three years.”). The lowest risk category? Brand and competitive edge or reputation (which is interesting given the new product from AIG that provides coverage (in the form of a lump sum payment and counseling services) for loss of reputation if a green building project fails to achieve third-party certification).

Within each of the top five risk categories, Marsh asked participants in each forum both to identify specific risks and challenges and propose some general solutions. Many of those risks will ring familiar to you, particularly in the standard of care/legal category. However, there were several that I thought were worth repeating, particularly because we have not mentioned them explicitly here at GRELJ previously.

First, the danger that “more aggressive” design may lead to an increased risk of errors or omissions in contract documents. I think that this risk ties in with many designers having little experience with green building technologies, yet specifying certain materials or systems without performing sufficient due diligence; we’ve already heard of claims arising out of this scenario. Next, potential claims for attractive nuisance from low-rise green roofs that are easily accessible- particularly on schools- as well as graywater collection ponds. While we’ve noted insurer attitudes about green roofs generally from the perspective of potential arson, the idea of the green roof or collection pond serving as an attractive nuisance is troubling (though a quick Westlaw search did not identify any reported decisions involving a green roof in this context), and this Marsh report is the first place that we’ve seen the concept identified. Finally, the report mentions that executives were concerned about the possibility that contractors may be assuming liability for professional design services, yet not procuring professional liability insurance coverage for those efforts. This scenario may arise where a contractor performs LEED certification or building commissioning services but is not obligated by contract (or statute) to procure such coverage. Note our recent article here at GRELJ discussing aspects of this important issue.

I thought it was also interesting to note that the top categories as identified by participants in each city varied widely. In New York City, for example, the top two risk categories were performance and standard of care/legal; in Washington, D.C. they were financial and education. With respect to New York City, it was also interesting to note that the panel considered regulatory risks as low-risk; given the Mayor’s Greener Greater Buildings Plan and the pending mandate for energy efficiency benchmarking and retrofits for every building in the city, this will likely change. Moreover, I have written extensively, both here at GRELJ and over at gbNYC, about how critical it is for project teams to survey and understand the regulatory requirements that may apply to a particular project. In that respect, I was a bit disappointed to note that the report’s composite risk map ranked regulatory risks as “unlikely.” As we noted in the context of the Shaw Development litigation, the issue in that particular lawsuit was the parameters of an applicable green building tax incentive program. As the Marsh report points out, most insurance policies will exclude claims based on non-compliance with controlling laws, codes, or regulations. Although claims- at least in negligence- for failure to comply with controlling green building regulations may be asserted as negligence per se, the idea that insurance may not be available for allegations that a designer (or a contractor) failed to comply with those regulations should be considered seriously by green building project stakeholders.

Finally, I think it is also important to quickly point out that insurance risks will change drastically under the LEED 2009 system if the specter of decertification proves as sinister in practice as many have suggested.

The report is a quick read and sums up many of the key issues that the green building legal community has been wrestling with over the past two years rather succinctly. A link to the registration page on the Marsh website from which you can download the report is set forth below.

• Green Building: Assessing the Risks, Feedback from the Construction Industry (Marsh- Register)

Specifically, while the new Stadium was projected to more or less play the same as the old one across the street, a number of factors that the Yankees and their design team may not have considered, underestimated, or were outside of their control all along have resulted in a drastically different performance than the club anticipated. For example, the new Stadium stands sixty feet taller and concourses on each level of seating are exposed to the building’s exterior, which may be creating a wind tunnel effect that is blowing baseballs out towards the fences. Interestingly, the Yankees and their engineers are not entirely certain about what will happen to these wind patterns once the old Stadium is razed as demolition has yet to start in earnest.

The analogy here, of course, is where policymakers, owners, or other stakeholders make legislative or project-related choices that are based on projections which do not accurately reflect actual performance once a structure is brought online; these dangers are even more acute where contract documents obligate a project team to achieve a certain level of performance or fixed reduction in operating expenses that are based on a predictive model. The reasons why a building’s performance could diverge may be complex and entirely unanticipated by stakeholders; building science is complicated and buildings themselves are complex systems for which modeling does not always reflect reality. The experience at New Yankee Stadium to date may be a rather simplistic example, but I do think it helps make the point that predicting performance and evaluating performance based on actual data are two very different ballgames.