A Codes Retrospective: With IgCC’s Arrival, Jurisdictions Can Now Raise the Floor with this Important New Regulatory Tool

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

Today is an important day for USGBC and for green building. It marks the culmination of more than six years of work to turn a crazy idea into a tangible, attainable reality.

Today, the nation’s leading code developer, which emerged from the legacy regional code bodies, has published a model green building code. The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) was developed by almost everybody and, importantly, approved by the Code Council’s membership of code officials. It includes the second fully-published version of a green building standard that USGBC dreamed up with ASHRAE at Greenbuild in November of 2005.

Today we also celebrate the 12,000th LEED certified commercial building, totaling more than 8.4 billion square feet of LEED certified space, and the beginning of a final stage of development of LEED's next version. After nearly 20,000 comments during three rounds of public review, today begins the effort to respond and fine-tune LEED 2012 prior to member ballot this summer.

I’d like to travel back to that early moment in 2005 when the crazy idea of a green building code was first conceived. At that time, dozens (soon-to-be hundreds) of local governments were searching for a prescriptive, code-intended tool that could extend protections from the human and environmental health risks illuminated by greener building practice. LEED was taking off at an amazing trajectory, and new rating systems were under development for both homes and core & shell buildings to add to the LEED suite of new construction, existing buildings and commercial interiors rating systems.

14 Years Later, The Codes Begin to Follow Eisenberg’s Lead

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

Just yesterday, the International Code Council’s membership of code officials put the final touches on the 2012 version of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). For David Eisenberg – Executive Director of the Development Center for Appropriate Technology (DCAT), former USGBC Board member, and long time chair of USGBC’s Codes Committee – it was a very clear culmination of a chapter in his life story, and the product of nearly two decades of work.

“I've spent the last 17 years trying to get people to notice that there are other hazards that may dwarf the ones that we're focused on,” David said to me over dinner last week in Phoenix after a full day of public hearings on the IGCC. “These hazards,” he continued, “will do major harm in the long run, and will affect – in overwhelming ways – our children and our children's children.”

We were in Phoenix reflecting on, as Jerry Garcia would surely have said, what a long, strange trip it’s been in the evolution of code guidance for better, healthier, safer, greener building practice. David, a Tucson native and a self-described “recovering contractor,” has made it his life’s work to understand and communicate a far more comprehensive picture of what risks each of us should understand about our built world as we know it. His work with code officials began in Phoenix 14 years ago.

In the fall of 1997, David was already three years deep into this new work and passion. He was invited by Bob Fowler - Pasadena building official, friend, and visionary in the building safety profession - to present alongside him at the annual convention for the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in Phoenix. It would be David’s first time addressing a group of code officials with his revolutionary message. Fowler had invited Eisenberg to call his community of code officials to a higher purpose – to discover the full potential of their charge to “safeguard public health, safety and general welfare from fire... and other hazards attributed to the built environment” as one of the most honorable roles in society.

David Eisenberg, Executive Director of DCAT, former USGBC Board member, and chair of USGBC’s Codes Committee

He asked a question of the gallery of a thousand or so code officials. “What goes through your mind when someone comes into your jurisdiction seeking to do something crazy like build a house out of bales of straw? Or… harvest water off the roof and drink it…?

“…My guess is,” he continued, “that your first thought is: ‘These people need to be protected from themselves.’ Your next thought is probably: ‘Not in my jurisdiction!’”

David then challenged the audience of code officials to think differently about the risks they were managing for the public good by illuminating that, “The vast majority of the people who come in wanting to do these things have made a critical discovery. They have realized that their lifestyle choices have consequences, many – if not most – of which are negative. Not negative for themselves, but negative for their children and grandchildren… and my children… and your children. These people are trying to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices.”

“Is there anyone in this room who thinks this is a bad thing?” he asked.

Fourteen years later, most of us in this country still do not have this clarity of view. For the building safety professionals in Phoenix last week, it was clear that this recognition of purpose is still struggling to take root.

David’s final question to that audience in 1997: “So what is your job as a building official? Is it to keep those people from pursuing their goal of taking responsibility for what they do? Or is it to help them find a way to do it well and safely?”

His ’97 remarks were recognized by a loud and prolonged applause - an applause that I could still hear last week in Phoenix as this extended community of code officials brought in their first green construction code. This code will provide communities the opportunity to define minimally acceptable construction practice for commercial (unfortunately, not low-rise residential) buildings through a code framework that embraces the many tenets of green building. It is a watershed event that a national model code (and its Standard 189.1 compliance path) now explicitly charges designers, builders and code officials alike with a certain degree of responsibility to safeguard human and environmental health, and our collective future, too.

Congratulations, David. And thank you, Mr. Fowler, for enabling one of our movement’s most prolific visionaries. There’s good reason to celebrate, and yet still so much work left to do.

You can read David’s full account of his first formal experience with ICBO (a legacy code organization that merged with others to found the International Code Council) in the August 2003 edition of Building Safety Journal. David’s column was appropriately titled, “Building Codes for a Small Planet.”

For more information on Bob Fowler, read this powerful January 2000 interview of Bob Fowler by David Eisenberg in Building Standards magazine. For more information on USGBC’s work with DCAT and the USGBC Codes Committee, read Greening the Codes.

Code Guidance for Greener Homes: One Last Shot for the 2012-IGCC

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

If you’ve followed the development of the International Green Construction Code, you’d know that the code’s coverage of low-rise residential buildings has been knocked around like a punching bag. First it was in. But since it was incorporated by reference and the development committee couldn’t touch it, the residential content meshed neither with the new code’s intent nor with its technical elements. Then it was pulled out. Then, most recently, it was not voted back in… and with this current, last round of opportunity, there’s one final chance to put it back in, and do it right.

For state and local governments that are looking for a code to provide oversight of minimum greener building measures and practices in their jurisdiction, it’s been a shame not to have an answer for low-rise residential. Neither the IGCC nor the Standard 189.1 compliance alternative covers these residential occupancies. Certainly our current environmental, economic and human health challenges demand that we provide such an answer for jurisdictions that want to extend the benefits of healthier, safer and more efficient buildings to the structures where we live, sleep and play.

If you’ve ever toured the Solar Decathlon – especially this year with its emphasis on affordability – you might even better appreciate that we deserve more from our homes.

A study released earlier this month reveals that buildings built to a building energy code saved energy (and thus money) compared to homes not built to such codes. This may come as no surprise, but it’s important validation that codes can do a good job of delivering minimum performance. Codes may never be the silver bullet approach to achieving truly sustainable buildings, but we do need them to keep pushing us all along (watch the webinar).

This need for code-intended guidance to govern greener low-rise residential buildings is a product of a a growing comfort with raising floor for minimum acceptable practice. Much like the history of greener commercial building codes, local governments have been pioneering home-grown programs and adopting rating tools like LEED for Homes, and are now increasingly looking for a code that will give them ownership and oversight over better, greener residential buildings. Some point to the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), but it’s a rating system, and not written for use as a mandatory, minimum code (even though it also carries a code-like nick-name, ICC-700). LEED for Homes demands a far more substantial minimum entry point beyond business-as-usual, but rating systems do not a useful, enforceable code make (see the USGBC policy brief).

Despite the way it may have appeared, the recent decisions at the IGCC hearings in May to disapprove proposals to reinsert residential into the scope of the code were not a vote against including low-rise residential in the IGCC. They were merely votes against a few proposals that were not perfect for inclusion as written. Clearly a new approach was needed.

After the hearings, I worked with the Green Builder Coalition and Chris Mathis (of Mathis Consulting Company) to convene a group of experts to devise a new plan. The comments we submitted were made public last week on the Council’s IGCC development web site (our comments are on pages 43-49, but be careful, it’s 1200+ pages).

I’ve extracted the comments here. We proposed that a short chapter be added to the code that would pull a handful of commonly-agreed-upon practices across all category areas from the existing language of the IGCC. These 20 items – a refreshing number contrasted with the code’s nearly 250 pages of code language for commercial buildings – can provide a reasonable and significant push for residential buildings.

It’s two comments, really. One to make the chapter elective to the adopting jurisdiction (more palatable to some), and one to include it in the core text of the code (preferred).

What do you think? I hope you’ll join us in Phoenix on November 2nd to fix this major shortcoming of the IGCC with a smart, compact, and remarkably significant solution.

Code Cracking 101: Yes, You Can Help Update Standard 189.1

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

As I mentioned in my last post, it’s public review season for green building codes, standards and rating systems! Released in early 2010 as a fully-published ANSI standard, Standard 189.1* has been something of a constant amidst the past year’s public review process for the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). But to better coordinate the technical development and alignment with the IGCC, ASHRAE is currently targeting a release date of the Standard’s next version before the end of the year. We need your expertise and input in the development process. Let me introduce you to how it works and how you can help.

As a matter of policy, ANSI standards keep the door permanently open for proposals to change the requirements of any standard. So ASHRAE is always collecting proposals for Standard 189.1, and your input is always welcome.
The project committee overseeing the maintenance of the Standard meets regularly throughout the year to review these proposals and take a close look at any additional areas of the Standard that may need revision. As revisions to the Standard (including approved proposals and committee recommendations) are approved by the Committee for public review, they are posted on the ASHRAE web page for free download and solicitation of constructive comments by any member of the public for a period of 30-45 days.

The project committee overseeing the maintenance of the Standard meets regularly throughout the year to review these proposals and take a close look at any additional areas of the Standard that may need revision. As revisions to the Standard (including approved proposals and committee recommendations) are approved by the Committee for public review, they are posted on the ASHRAE web page for free download and solicitation of constructive comments by any member of the public for a period of 30-45 days.

You’ll find it easier to keep track of these opportunities for review and comment if you sign up for the Committee email distribution list. You may also find that you get a better sense of how it all works if you attend one of the two annual public meetings of the 189.1 committee, held at the ASHRAE winter and summer meetings. The more frequent interim meetings (typically virtual meetings or phone calls) may be easier to join as an observer. At any meeting you may address the project committee and participate in discussions with permission from the chair.

All of this information and more is available on the Standard 189.1 portion of ASHRAE’s web site. There, you can also preview the Standard. So get out your red pen and consider drafting your own proposal. If you’ve never written a proposed change for an ASHRAE standard before, here’s how. You may also consider simply commenting on the committee-approved changes that are currently out for public review (and you’ll be notified of when these are released if you sign up for the email list I mentioned above). If you’ve never commented on an ASHRAE standards committee-approved change before, here’s how.

Of course, ASHRAE staff is always available to assist you as needed. Email ashrae1891faq@ashrae.org with any further questions.

When you take a look at Standard 189.1 through your lens of professional expertise and interest, we hope that you will keep in mind what green building rating systems are good at, and in that context, what a good green building standard should offer. Wherever possible, we hope you will help us to coordinate the technical content of Standard 189.1 with the most appropriate, “street-ready” ideas from LEED, and also with the best “code-appropriate” ideas currently in the public versions of the IGCC.

If you’re left confused about the similarities or differences between codes, standards and rating systems, watch this free webinar (available for AIA and GBCI continuing education credit). Additionally, note several of my recent posts dig deeper into this topic of code, standard, and rating system development:

• Green Building Codes: New Regulatory Approaches Set Sights on Compliance for the Future
• As Green Building Codes and Standards Emerge, Where Do We Go from Here?
• Pinpointing the Best Stringency Level for a Green Construction Code
• How Stringent Should a First-Ever Model Green Construction Code Be?

*Note: the Standard’s full name is ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2009, the Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Most people call it Standard 189.

It’s Green Building Code, Standard and Rating System Public Review Season!

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

Sharpen your #2 pencils and get out your thick red pen. There’s a lot going on this summer in the technical development of green building codes, standards and rating systems, and we need your input.

We’ll put up some more detail about each of these processes in the near future, but here’s a quick overview of what’s to come:

LEED: USGBC will re-open the LEED green building rating systems for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. A date has not been set, but expect it soon. For more information, visit the LEED technical development page. To learn of LEED technical developments as they happen, sign up for the LEED Update or the free email updates on BuildingGreen’s LEED User.

189.1: As an ANSI standard, proposals to change the requirements can be submitted at any time, and all approved changes are always open to public comment, but the 189.1 project committee is meeting in July to develop a series of revisions that will need your input. To keep up to date with the Standard’s technical development, sign up for the Standard 189 Listserv.

IGCC: following its May development hearings, the ICC has published the results from the public hearing that are open for written comment from now until August 12. For more information, see the IGCC Development Schedule page.

When you take a look at these documents through your lens of professional expertise and interest, we hope that you will keep in mind what rating systems, codes and standards are good at, and that your comments will guide each of them towards achieving their best and most productive outcomes.

Several of my recent posts dig deeper into this topic:

• Green Building Codes: New Regulatory Approaches Set Sights on Compliance for the Future
• As Green Building Codes and Standards Emerge, Where Do We Go from Here?
• Pinpointing the Best Stringency Level for a Green Construction Code
• How Stringent Should a First-Ever Model Green Construction Code Be?

Green Building Codes: New Regulatory Approaches Set Sights on Compliance for the Future

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

First printed in the spring 2011 issue of Living Architecture Monitor
(Volume 13, No. 2)

Now that summer is in full swing, we are all hoping for a bit of calm and relaxation. But kicking off your shoes now may put you behind in the fast-paced green building policy race that has – month after month – continued to increase in speed and momentum since last year’s exciting launch of a new set of regulatory tools.

The International Green Construction Code (IGCC) – which includes similarly intended Standard 189.1 – establishes a previously unimaginable framework for a code and regulatory approach to better building design, construction and renovation. The set of codes and standards address energy, water and resource efficiency; materials use and indoor air quality; and also provides code-intended language to address issues at the nexus of a building and its built and natural contexts. Importantly, this first-of-its-kind set of tools leverages the previously untapped code enforcement infrastructure to achieve greener building outcomes.

In truth, the shift is actually quite powerful. When multiplied over and over in nearly every building across the land, the seemingly minute human and environmental health risks that green building rating systems – and now green building codes – intend to address are staggering: pollution of all types, escalating emissions from greenhouse gases, depletion of scarce resources, destruction of habitat, human health risks of inactive or at least indoor lifestyles—and the list goes on. These risks are large not only because they spawn from between the cracks of the very fabric of our built world, but also because they are cumulative and aggregate over time.

This natural next step for codes and regulations is modern-day recognition of the code official – alongside licensed professionals – as a line of defense against some of the world’s greatest emerging threats to public health and safety. But as game-changing as that sounds (and it is), we need all the right levers working simultaneously to enable truly sustainable buildings and communities.

Read the full article »
Access a free webinar on this subject (eligible for AIA and USGBC continuing education units) »

Pinpointing the Best Stringency Level for a Green Construction Code

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

In my last post I gave a very simple answer to the question, “How stringent should a first-ever model green construction code be?” In sum, the answer is that it should be above current code (but not too far), fully recognizing that these decisions will be the result of important community discussions (like this very in-depth and continually evolving conversation in New York City).

But before you consider dropping everything to start from scratch, remember that’s where we started. Without a national model, fragmentation and regulatory dissonance will only grow. If you’re a developer or building owner who builds or manages real estate in more than one jurisdiction, you’re already familiar with how challenging it is to comply with a different set of rules nearly everywhere you go. The International Green Construction Code and the Standard 189.1 compliance option are working together to offer uniformity, consistency and a focused forum for deliberation of what to leave in, what to leave out, and… how stringent it should all be.

Beyond the simple answer listed above, there are a lot of smart people working hard to figure out how to answer this question within the text of the national model codes and standards. If you map the current technical content, its trajectory and the development schedule of the base building codes (including fire, plumbing, mechanical, zoning and other codes) you’ll get a sense for where “the floor” is.

The so-called “floor” is today’s minimum acceptable safety codes and standards that draw a line between legal and illegal building design and construction. You can trace all the way back to the federalism vs. anti-federalism debates of the late 1780s to explain why a simple one-size-fits-all “floor” does not exist in this country¹ – neither in theory nor application – but the International Code Council’s I-Codes may provide the best-available starting point. No matter the threshold, there isn’t much about a regulatory line in the sand that galvanizes excitement about moving above and beyond, so that’s where beyond-code green building rating systems come in.

If you map the current technical content, its trajectory and the development schedule of beyond-code rating systems like LEED, Energy Star and the Living Building Challenge, you’ll get a sense for where “the ceiling” is. The so-called “ceiling” is today’s upper limits of what the building community is striving to build for the reward of a beyond-code label, like a LEED plaque. Naturally a LEED Platinum label describes a more vaulted ceiling than a LEED-certified label. Even still, you get the idea that beyond the “push” of minimum regulation, rating systems are pulling building practices and technologies into a space beyond the base codes, but at a level at which most firms can participate and compete.

Map all of these points and graphs against increased demand for minimum code protections as well as geographic, climate and ideological diversity and you’ve pretty much got your answer of where – on the stringency continuum – this next generation of regulatory minimums should be. But there’s more.

Take a very close look at green building rating systems and credit-by-credit compliance to determine achievable thresholds, methods and technologies that have been tried-and-tested enough to be code worthy, and plot those on this same graph. If the data tells us that certain measures in rating systems are commonly avoided or that compliance has been somewhat challenging, it would be difficult to argue that these measures are “street-ready” for codes that will serve as a new mandatory minimum for all buildings. If compliance with rating systems looks good and cost-effectiveness is a no-brainer, let’s put it in code language and get it out there.

But relinquishing even simple ideas and credits from rating systems to codes without an understanding of what compliance will look like through the codes may not be in anyone’s best interest. As jurisdictions begin implementing first-generation green building codes and standards we’ll have a better idea of what ideas that LEED pioneered can be left to code enforcement alone.

USGBC is currently working on parts of this analysis that will help to inform these types of decisions. Through the emerging Green Building Information Gateway we expect to unlock the potential for data- and outcome-based decision making, resulting in a smarter LEED, better codes, and a better informed building industry.

¹Here’s a topic better suited for another day: if a 2009 McKinsey report tells us that 23% of the potential energy efficiency savings is available through the effective application of energy codes and standards, it seems a bit ludicrous that state and local jurisdictions have almost absolute authority to effectively direct a major piece of our national energy policy – let alone the consequences to owners and tenants of inefficient buildings.

How Stringent Should a First-Ever Model Green Construction Code Be?

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

You can probably guess that the question of “how far to go?” with this first-of-its-kind national model green construction code attracts a lot of varied answers. In fact, this may be the biggest and most unanswered question surrounding green building code development. The question of where the green building code should fall on the stringency continuum (originally posed in a previous post) should be considered against the outcomes of similar code and standard processes that have asked the same, seemingly simple question.

USGBC, ASHRAE and IES started this conversation in late 2006 and resulted in today’s Standard 189.1, a strong compliance option within the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). And while everyone knows that that precedent doesn’t necessarily make it right, it should be helpful that a compliance option of the IGCC already sets certain targets.

No matter the complexity of the debate (and debate it they did at the IGCC hearings last week in Dallas), it comes down to a choice between a green building code that takes either (what I’ll call) a big leap or a small step. The current versions of the IGCC and the Standard 189.1 compliance option provide more than sufficient fuel for a local conversation about what is best for your community. Every community should take a look and see how these better building practice ideas (written in the form of building codes and standards intended for increasing fundamental protections from the hazards of our built world) can be woven into your master plan – even if only to take action next year or even later.

So, big leap or small step? On the one hand, it’s a lot easier to winnow the code down to your comfort level than to figure out how to ratchet it up – but even ratcheting down can be a tricky exercise. People who have been in code development for decades longer than I have will tell you that given the amount of thought that’s put into every last interrelated detail, it’s better not to change a thing.. On the other hand, if the code is unreachable (or is perceived to be so), it may not be used at all, or at least not like a code – the way it is being very carefully written to be used. In this second scenario, it is argued that the code may not achieve its maximum potential of giving everyone a little push (rather than giving very few a big push).

As logic would have it, it’s neither a big leap nor a small step, but it’s very likely somewhere in between. There are a couple of ways to pinpoint the best stringency level, but the truth of the matter is that green building has always been the product of community dialogue.

So fear not what you hear about technical development schedules and degrees of “completeness.” By their very nature, these tools will always be under development and maintenance, but the tools are here today and the time for action is now. Has your community commissioned a task force to review how it will broaden fundamental protections by greening its codes?

See related post: What is a Green Building? California’s 2011 Building Codes and LEED »

IGCC Undergoes Second Round of Public Hearings

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

I spent a little more than two days in Dallas this week at the public hearings for the International Green Construction Code. You, too, can tune in and watch them online. You may want to have the reference material handy and – unless you find this stuff as interesting as I do – some toothpicks for your eyelids and a big cup of coffee.

The hearings run from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily and are scheduled to last through Sunday. The debate has been split into two concurrent groups – energy & water and everything else. If you’re more casually interested in diving into some of the code’s subject matter in greater depth, tune into the Green Building Law Update’s series on the IGCC.

The International Code Council’s code development process allows any I-Code to be publicly scrutinized and debated. This week’s hearings are battling some very tough questions as the second version of the IGCC is revised one last time prior to November where the ICC’s government membership will have the final say.

The good news is that by and large the Committees (General and Energy/Water) are honing in on a more finalized version of the code’s content. Their decisions seem to be generally following both the momentum of previous IGCC development decisions and reasonable written and verbal testimony from the building community. This means the outcome at the end of this week should be (in theory) even more buttoned up and increasingly responsive to the community’s input. [See here for a running list of results, but be forewarned: it’s code… in code].

The challenge with hearings like these is that the process lends itself to siloed and sequential up or down decisions about a code that necessarily needs to be integrated. ICC staff will clean up many of the loose ends, but it’s very clear that a set of much bigger philosophical questions is still yet undecided:

• If the IGCC is to provide regulatory language that raises the floor for all buildings, what should or should not be included in its scope?
• How do we define and address the many attributes of green buildings that are still foreign territory for the majority of the audience of this code?
• And the biggest elephant in the room: How stringent should a first-ever model green construction code be?

How would you answer these questions? I’ll explore them in my next few posts.

Maryland Legislation Enables Broader Fundamental Protections through Green Building Code

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

When Governor Martin O’Malley signed MD HB 972 into law today, Maryland took a critical step toward completing the backbone of the green building policy puzzle. Put simply, Maryland now has three critical policy levers working in tandem (note the LEED and Green Building Codes policy brief): leadership by example commitments to building beyond code to greener building standards (existing in Maryland), incentives for beyond-code green building leadership (a patchwork exists in Maryland), and improved code minimums for all (new in this law).

This act makes Maryland the first state in the nation to enable the adoption of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) by all local governments across the state – the first state in the nation to really get it right¹ – and the second state in the nation to enable a framework for statewide adoption of green building codes.

This victory is a testament to the sophistication and active engagement of USGBC’s green building community in the Old Line State – largely coordinated by USGBC’s Maryland Chapter. But even so, the majority of our community’s agenda in Annapolis did not survive the legislature amidst this year’s challenging political winds. Significant losses included sensible policy initiatives with broad support, such as the expansion of the State’s existing High Performance Buildings Act to include state-funded buildings greater than 100,000 sq. ft. and also building energy disclosure for certain commercial buildings.

Maryland’s code adoption is not a mandate from on high, but instead an endorsement and a strong nudge for both the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (MDHCD) and local jurisdictions to strongly consider mandatory adoption of the code (note that the enactment date of March 2012 targets the launch of the fully-vetted 2012 version of the IGCC). The nature of this policy outcome is significant, given that town halls and county commissions were the first public forums for green building policymaking. Sustainability planning has always been a local conversation, and few states are better positioned to have a healthy dialog based on experience and results than Maryland.

Governor O’Malley’s leadership on green building makes us proud to have him in Washington, DC tomorrow to keynote the closing session at USGBC’s Government Summit. The Government Summit is the green building community’s premiere forum for the implementation of the myriad government green building programs that have catalyzed the market uptake of green building technologies, materials and methods.

So in this next phase of consideration, what can we say about green building codes and the value they bring to the regulatory fabric of a state or local jurisdiction?

Fire safety, structural safety and fundamental access to sanitary conditions are comprehensively addressed in the scope of the codes (fire codes, building codes, electrical codes, plumbing & mechanical codes, etc. and the many standards on which they each rely). Even building energy efficiency is an area that is being increasingly addressed in the codes, and a lot of research and publications are being developed by the National Labs to improve energy code compliance.

Of course, as I mentioned in an earlier post, green building rating systems such as LEED pull much of this conversation along and continue to raise the bar for realizing building efficiency potential (for both new and existing buildings), as my colleague Lane Burt points out in his recent entry. USGBC’s next phase of work includes stepping farther still as our community of experts revises and improves LEED’s next version.

Green building policy introduces a broader scope of building-related activities that deserves attention beyond the altogether important increases in stringency of existing activities that are being regulated (note that even building energy codes are certainly not yet universal). New categories of risk introduce a deeper dimension of protections to human and environmental health.

Green building codes offer a means for state and local governments to introduce these fundamental protections and empower local building/planning/zoning departments as a critical force in tapping the potential of the built environment to help us achieve a safer, healthier, more efficient and environmentally responsible world. For more information on USGBC’s work on codes and standards, see USGBC’s white paper and policy briefs on LEED and the codes.

¹ – Note: The State of Rhode Island’s 2010 reference to the IGCC, while an important recognition for the document as a tool for state policymaking, confuses the role of rating systems and codes. USGBC supports the mandatory adoption of the code for all buildings in a jurisdiction alongside complementary beyond-code leadership initiatives for government buildings (benchmarking with rating systems like LEED) and private sector incentive programs (also based on rating systems like LEED). USGBC explores this in a policy brief, entitled LEED and Green Building Codes. Thus, as has always been the case with codes and regulations, all buildings are subject to minimum code requirements, and as a complement, voluntary, beyond-code leadership is recognized through third-party verified green building rating systems. There are a handful of other instances of this “adopting code as voluntary” oxymoron that I will explore in a later post.

USGBC Updates White Paper and Introduces a New Policy Brief

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

The green building code conversation has gathered some impressive momentum since last year’s joint release of the International Green Construction Code and Standard 189.1. A handful of jurisdictions have already committed to study how they might implement this set of codes and standards (in the IGCC’s Public Version 2.0, Standard 189.1 is included as a jurisdictional compliance option of the IGCC). So amidst this growing interest, we are responding to the demand from our community for more clarity and guidance on this subject – hence the following two resources.


LEED and Green Building Codes: Distinct & Complementary Policy Tools
This two-page policy brief is an extension of the Greening the Codes white paper that intends to more succinctly answer the question that policymakers so often ask; “How are green building codes and LEED intended to be used as policy levers?” That we’ve seen a series of “voluntary adoptions” of the IGCC adds more confusion than clarity, since codes by their very nature are mandatory minimums. USGBC actively promotes that jurisdictions consider weaving green building codes into existing regulatory minimums. But a raised floor is still a floor all the same, and beyond-code leadership with LEED remains an important piece of the green building policy puzzle. This leadership is best demonstrated by commitments for public buildings and incentives for the private sector to step above and beyond.

Click here to view all USGBC fact sheets and policy briefs, including LEED and Green Building Codes.

Greening the Codes: An Updated White Paper
May 2011 Update: A lot has happened since the first publication of this white paper in June of 2010. Since then, the nation’s first statewide green building code has gone into effect in California, ASHRAE has developed and published addenda to Standard 189, the International Green Construction Code has undergone two rounds of public comment, and LEED’s next version also began its public review. State and local jurisdictions have also begun seriously considering green building code adoption, and – with varying degrees of commitment – some communities have embraced these new codes. Amidst all the technical development, the government adoptions of these tools and the media that has been tracking the progress, the underlying vision of this white paper, the direction of USGBC’s work, and USGBC’s commitments to a collaborative, sustainable future are still very much constant.


Click here to read the updated white paper, Greening the Codes.

Real Progress: Solving the Green Building Policy Puzzle

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

Welcome to another extremely busy season for state legislative activity. If you haven’t started paying attention, the action in most states is in high gear, as most state legislatures meet in the first quarter of the year. Some states are even finishing their 2011 sessions and are already closing their doors until next time around.

In nearly every state we’ve seen some real positive ideas drafted into bills, introduced to legislatures, and discussed and debated on the floor—with varying success. While we may expect waning support for the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) in state legislative sessions this year compared with previous sessions –the far narrowed view of the single bottom line has captured much of the limelight – but there are certainly several successes to celebrate along the way:

• The Florida Legislature is considering a bill that would recognize green building as part of the scoring system for competitive loans offered to affordable housing developers in the state. (A similar attempt was made in Mississippi, but the bill died in committee). Green affordable housing is one of the core areas of USGBC’s advocacy and we strongly support policies that lead to better affordable housing.
• Several states are considering the use of LEED as a tool for state-owned and -funded building construction – a leadership by example policy that has been adopted by 26 state governments to date.
• Other states are considering bills that would prioritize permitting for building projects that commit to building green, or invest in retrofitting school buildings to be healthier and more resource- and energy-efficient.
• And despite the down economy, a few states are considering outlays for tax incentives for green homebuilding and retrofits. (See here for a healthy list of green building incentive strategies.

One particular bill in Maryland is worth highlighting, one that would make Maryland the first state to adopt the International Green Construction Code on a large scale. The revised bill is sophisticated in recognizing the distinct and complementary roles of green building codes and green building rating systems (a topic we reviewed in a recent educational webinar with AIA, ASHRAE and ICC). This approach mirrors what I wrote in a previous post and what was spelled out in USGBC’s “Greening the Codes” white paper: We need mandatory codes and standards to improve all buildings on a massive scale, and beyond-code rating systems to continue to encourage and reward leadership in green building. Maryland continues to be a leader in green building policy at both the state and local levels.

The solution to the green building policy puzzle is in both pushes and pulls. We must continue to raise the minimum expectations we have for all buildings. In addition, as clearly stated by this one-sentence bill in California, state lawmaking bodies must “…enact legislation to encourage innovation in green building design and natural building that meets or exceeds all existing health and safety requirements.”

This message is all the more compelling when you realize that this bill is being considered in a state where minimum statewide requirements are already the highest in the country, by way of the California Green Building Standards Code.

The many successes we’ve seen this year already are a testament to the productive partnerships that are growing between green building community members and their lawmakers. USGBC and our chapters will continue to push forwards. Let’s keep up the good work.

What’s Holding Us Back From the Global Efficiency Opportunity?

Hope Lobkowicz
Manager, Policy
U.S. Green Building Council

What if you were told that the United Nations, scientists, and economists had already identified the biggest opportunity for greenhouse gas emission reductions? That the key strategies for pursuing that opportunity were also the least costly to society?

And finally—what if these greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies worked in tandem with successful economic development of emerging economies, and to the long-term resiliency of communities?

Are you on the edge of your seat yet? Maybe you know where we’re going with this. The opportunity that the U.N., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the World Economic Forum, and countless other climate and economic experts are talking about is none other than the world's building stock.

Experts have identified the building sector as having the single greatest potential for greenhouse gas emission reductions worldwide, with efficiency holding the key to slash emissions from homes and office buildings by nearly 30% by 2020, at no net cost. They have also determined that this strategy can be highly profitable, with economic benefits for whole societies.

Despite this golden nugget of knowledge we have about the impact of the building sector, the international community has a long way to go before we begin to capture the opportunity before us. That’s why USGBC, together with over 40 other environmental organizations, businesses, and green building councils around the world are calling for Global Leadership in Our Built Environment (GLOBE). The recently launched GLOBE Alliance is a group of like-minded organizations from 18 countries that will advocate for policies, technologies, and financial instruments for sustainable buildings and transportation infrastructure.

An immediate attention to buildings and infrastructure is particularly important in the developing world, for both the planet and for the economies of growing nations. The IPCC estimates building-related greenhouse gas emissions will nearly double by the year 2030 under a high-growth development scenario, with this increase concentrated largely in poor regions of the world. But while the U.S. and other industrialized states must work with poor countries to develop strategies for sustainable new construction, we must at the same time lead the way in retrofitting our own energy-sucking, water-gobbling, money-burning existing building stock. The financial benefits of doing so aren’t chump change – the efficiency gurus at McKinsey & Company estimate that the U.S. could save $1.2 trillion in the next decade by investing in building efficiency measures.

The question of how we pair economic growth with sustainability—both here at home and around the world—is intricately tied to the concept of the ‘green economy.’ This conversation is already underway at the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), which will be discussing buildings and sustainable production and consumption at its next meeting this May, and again in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 (known as the Earth Summit or Rio +20). In the meantime, Congress and the Obama Administration can do their part to make headway on energy efficiency policies here in Washington, and assist other countries in doing the same. A combination of U.S. leadership and international political will can go a long way in unlocking the energy savings, economic savings, and emission savings that buildings present.

Related:

• From Cancún Compromises to Concrete Action: We Don't Need a Binding Deal to Act Now on Efficiency
  (Huffington Post)
• The 'Green Economy' and Earth Summit 2012: Why fast-growing mega-cities with challenges of poverty and hunger may hold the key to a sustainable future
  (Natural Resources Defense Council)
• Green Building as a Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy: Who Made the Case At COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico?
  (USGBC)

From Cutting Edge to Common Practice: How Green Building Rating Systems Contribute to Energy Efficient Building Codes

Jeremy Sigmon, LEED® AP BD+C
Manager, Building Codes Advocacy
U.S. Green Building Council

2010 was a big year for building energy efficiency and state and national codes. The success of the year can be directly traced to decades of familiarity with green building programs as well as nationwide uptake of LEED. After more than 40 years of mere modest improvements in building energy efficiency (looking specifically at the predominant national model energy codes, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the IECC), we achieved an approximately 30% efficiency improvement in the last six years and got a first-in-the-nation green building code in our most populous state. Note the U.S. Department of Energy chart below mapping improvements in commercial building energy efficiency since 1975:


It's easy to argue that these efficiency improvements (which are mirrored in comparable efficiency improvements in residential building energy codes) are a product of the natural course of time. But these leaps would have never come to be without the huge groundswell of support from energy efficiency advocates across the country, the organizations coordinating their efforts, and above all a growing vision that we can do better: A lot better.

Bipartisan coalitions and businesses big and small have found common ground in the achievability and affordability of such leaps in efficiency. A closer look reveals a growing consciousness of the ability of buildings and communities to achieve levels of performance beyond the minimum thresholds set in even the most recently updated base building codes and standards. Minimizing pollution and toxicity, reducing vehicular miles traveled, improving water efficiency and incorporating on-site energy from renewable sources are now seen as not only viable but increasingly standard practice in the building industry. In many cases, all of these benefits are realized at no extra cost (especially for the seasoned project team).

Green building rating systems – both the locally developed programs like the nation's first in Austin, Texas or like California-based GreenPoint Rated program and nationally developed and recognized programs like LEED – have had major successes in driving the market to demand better buildings. As early as 2000, LEED building owners were realizing the benefits of higher occupant satisfaction, decreased water and energy use, and the improved marketability of a recognized brand that provides meaningful third-party verification for better building design and construction.

As consumers drove the demand for more and more green real estate, states and local jurisdictions took advantage of the opportunity to showcase the feasibility of these next-generation technologies and methods by demonstrating leadership on public buildings or providing incentives for the private sector to do the same. The climate was right for a handful of jurisdictions to even take the next step and incorporate these rating systems directly into their codes.

And while these intentionally beyond-code, voluntary, third-party verified certification programs were not designed to function like mandatory building codes, the increasing interest in applying them as such initiated the development of a complementary tool intended to raise the floor. By the end of 2006, ASHRAE Standard 189.1 was under development and so was the massive overhaul of the LEED Green Building Rating System, in response to the demand for rating system standardization and a more differentiated value attribution for building measures with greater environmental benefits.

The 2010 release of the International Green Construction Code (jointly released by ICC, USGBC, ASHRAE, AIA, IES and ASTM and including Standard 189.1 as a jurisdictional compliance option) now provides jurisdictions with an adoptable, usable and enforceable code to raise the floor for all buildings. This set of codes and standards is a critical complement in the policy toolbox to green building rating systems, like LEED, that are often adopted to demonstrate leadership in public buildings and for projects seeking government incentives. And while the IGCC was released as a fully published code in March of 2010, later this year we will welcome its 2012 version, and the next version of LEED not long after. We will then look forward to ushering in a new age of improved base codes, integrated green building codes, and next-generation beyond-code green building rating systems like LEED, each working with one another in an important, distinct and complementary manner.

On the road to truly sustainable buildings and communities, it's not a choice between minimum green building codes and beyond-code green building programs. We need both.

The cycle is virtuous. We need rating systems like LEED to continue to serve as the proving ground for technologies, methods, verification protocols, and more aggressive levels of efficiency. As those practices are adopted by market leaders, innovators and building industry pioneers, they too will be incorporated into code books of progressive jurisdictions, which will in turn inform the base codes – the building code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code, the fire code, the zoning code, and so on. Rating systems and green building codes play distinct, complementary and ultimately vital roles on the road to sustainable buildings and communities, and when applied on a broad scale, speed up the conveyor belt of green building information – from groundbreaking and leading-edge to common practice.


We hope you'll join us in embracing both rating systems and codes, both carrots and sticks. We need every tool in the toolbox – particularly the push and pull forces of these separately-intended, but equally important rating systems and codes – to carry out our mission and achieve our vision.

For more on USGBC's work on green building codes, read USGBC's white paper, Greening the Codes.