[Senate Hearing 110-1088]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1088
GREEN BUILDINGS: BENEFITS TO HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE BOTTOM
LINE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-930 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov For more information, contact the GPO
Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office, Phone
202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800 (toll free), E-mail, [email protected]
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 15, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 3
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 5
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 5
WITNESSES
Fox, Robert F., Jr., partner, Cook+Fox Architects................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Templeton, Peter, vice president of Education and Research, U.S.
Green Building Council......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Barnett, Claire, executive director, Healthy Schools Network..... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Tonjes, Ray, chairman, Green Building Subcommittee, National
Association of Home Builders................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Sanders.......................................... 44
Senator Inhofe........................................... 44
Hubbell, Ward, president, Green Building Initiative.............. 48
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Supporting Documentation..................................... 59
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Sanders.......................................... 89
Senator Warner........................................... 89
Senator Inhofe........................................... 90
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters from:
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America...... 100
The North American Coalition on Green Building............... 103
MCS Beacon of Hope Foundation, Largo, FL..................... 105
The American Institute of Architects......................... 107
Alliance for Sustainable Built Environments.................. 109
National Education Association............................... 110
Johnson Controls, Inc........................................ 111
Environmental and Energy Study Institute..................... 112
Child Proofing Our Communities, Project of the Center for
Health, Environment & Justice.............................. 114
Collaborative for High Performance Schools................... 116
Statement, Stockton Williams, senior vice president/managing
director, Enterprise Community Partners........................ 117
Reports:
Lessons Learned.............................................. 123
New York State School Facilities and Student Health,
Achievement, and Attendance................................ 190
GREEN BUILDINGS: BENEFITS TO HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE BOTTOM
LINE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara
Boxer (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Alexander,
Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everyone. Just to give you the
lay of the land, I am really pleased that we are having this
hearing today. We have two members of this committee who have
been real leaders on green buildings. One of them has been
Senator Lautenberg and the other has been Senator Warner. So we
have had great bipartisan interest in this.
I am going to, if there is no objection, place my statement
in the record and just be clear about my intentions with this
bill, and say to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Warner's staff
if they are here, my intention, working with Senator Inhofe I
hope in a cooperative way--we will see where it goes--is to
bring a green buildings bill up for a markup very soon.
What we have already started doing here is making the
Federal Government a model of energy efficiency. I am very
proud that we passed our first such bill which would retrofit
Federal buildings, and we did this with the Administration,
with Republicans and Democrats working together. We also added
as a piece of that legislation a grants program to cities and
counties so that they could do the same with their government
buildings. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
government buildings, and buildings use a lot of energy. If you
look at just greenhouse gas emissions, they are responsible for
about 40 percent of those emissions.
So I am very pleased that we are doing this. Senator
Lautenberg, I love you for your efforts and I do, as well,
Senator Warner. I am excited about this.
Just one last point, over at the Commerce Committee, on
which I serve, we were able to get another piece of legislation
through which would have the Federal Government now to the
greatest extent practicable purchase the most fuel efficient
vehicles. So if we do the retrofits of the buildings and, of
course, green buildings looks forward, and part of your bill,
which I strongly support, are grants to schools to do the same.
We are beginning to make a dent in this issue and we are
showing leadership.
My schedule is such that WRDA is on the floor today. We are
very anxious to finish work on that bill. I know a lot of you
want us to. So I am going to be leaving now. Senator Inhofe, I
know, is going to follow after his statement. We are going to
meet on the floor and try to get these amendments to WRDA down
to a reasonable number, and do our best to do our magic and get
this done tonight. If we could get this WRDA bill done tonight,
it would be a tremendous accomplishment for both sides.
So with that, I am going to call on Senator Inhofe. I am
going to hand the gavel to my good and dear friend, Senator
Lautenberg, who has it.
Senator Inhofe, the floor is yours.
And thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg [Presiding]. Thanks very much, Senator
Boxer. We will try to move this along. It is a very important,
as you have acknowledged, piece of legislation, something that
needs attention that is almost harmless if we pay attention to
it, in helping us achieve a better greenhouse gas record.
Senator Inhofe, I am reminded, the former Chairman,
presently just a would-be Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No, will be.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that starts the morning off
freshly.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we went through this exercise a year ago, and
we worked things out with Senator Jeffords. There are some good
things to come from this that I support. There are some things
that I want to watch out for.
Let me do a couple of things. First of all, I would like to
submit for the record at the conclusion of my statement the
letters from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the North
American Coalition on Green Building.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Inhofe. Then also I do want to submit my statement
in its entirety for the record. But I want to say that as this
moves along, I want to be a little bit cautious of a couple of
things. One is what we are prescribing in the way of grants to
school districts or to schools. I want to be very careful, Mr.
Chairman, on how we treat the local communities and the zoning
regulations. I spent four terms as Mayor of a major city. I can
tell you there is nothing more offensive than having the
Federal Government come in and say what you can and can't do
with your community. So I think we need to have some sanity
there and look at it very carefully.
So with those things in mind, I am hoping that we will be
able to get something out and get it on the floor for a good
debate. I submit my entire statement for the record, and I
thank the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State Oklahoma
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing
today to discuss some of the issues relating to green buildings.
Today we will hear from our panel of five green building experts
about some of the benefits that can be realized through following the
principles of so-called ``green building.'' Two of the goals of green
building that are of particular merit are increased energy efficiency
and improved water management.
Increased energy efficiency--along with developing new domestic
sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply--is a key
component of improving our nation's energy security. Just a few weeks
ago, Madam Chairman, we unanimously passed a bill out of this
committee--the Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act--that is a sensible,
effective step toward improving energy efficiency in public buildings
at both the Federal and local levels.
Effective use of green building design can also be used by
communities across the country struggling to comply with the federal
stormwater management program. These communities within metropolitan
districts must take measures to reduce rainwater from coming into
contact with pollutants. Green roofs filter, absorb and detain
rainwater, reducing the amount being discharged into the municipal
stormwater system and thus reducing the burden on the local community.
I look forward to hearing more about these topics from our
witnesses today.
I am also interested, Madam Chairman, in learning more about some
of the concerns with current green building practices and what we can
do to address those concerns in any legislation we may consider in this
committee.
One concern I have heard expressed repeatedly by a number of groups
and industries is that of establishing a mandate or endorsement for any
one particular green building rating system. To date, numerous State
and local governments have put in place various mandatory measures that
call for the adoption of LEED standards [--the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system
for green buildings--] and there is legislation before this committee
that specifically refers to LEED. The LEED system, however, was
intended to be a voluntary program; additionally, there are other green
buildings rating systems on the market. Promoting one system over
others in legislation essentially amounts to brand endorsement by law.
At this point, I would like to submit for the record letters from
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the North American Coalition
on Green Building stating their concern with referencing only the LEED
system in green building legislation.
I am pleased to welcome Mr. Ray Tonjes from the National
Association of Home Builders today. I look forward to hearing your
perspective on this matter, in addition to learning about your
involvement in green building programs. I also look forward to hearing
from Mr. Ward Hubbell, president of the Green Building Initiative,
about the Green Globes rating system and what your organization is
doing.
We should pursue the goals of energy and resource conservation.
During our consideration of green building legislation, however, we
need to bear certain questions in mind.
It's my understanding that buildings built ``green'' don't always
perform as intended--what research still needs to be done on the actual
benefits of green buildings? What standards and benchmarks are
currently being used for various aspects of building design and
certification? What mandates might we be creating, and what would be
the consequences of those mandates? While many of the goals of green
building are worthwhile, I am concerned about the possibility of
legislating mandates--intended or otherwise--that would be costly and
burdensome to our taxpayers and communities.
I look forward to our panel addressing these issues today. Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
[The information referred to follows on pp. 100-104.]
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Inhofe.
While there is nothing more offensive to communities than
getting mandates from Washington, I don't hear that same
objection when it comes to grants from Washington, but I guess
that is understandable.
I take the Chairman's gracious gavel turnover, and I
therefore assume the status of Chairman and I welcome everyone
to today's hearing.
When most people consider what hurts the environment and
harms public health, they don't consider buildings. Our
thoughts immediately turn to transportation, which is
responsible for about one third, it is believed, of greenhouse
gases, but buildings have an impact on the health of the
environment and the health of nearly every American. That is
because buildings from single family homes to skyscrapers are
responsible for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse
gases.
Those emissions advance global warming and threaten the
health of our planet and our children. Poorly designed schools
can have an unhealthy air quality. This poor air quality can
cause an increase in childhood asthma. More than 67 percent of
schools have at least one building design condition that
contributes to asthma, according to a recent study. The Health
Schools Network ran this study, and I look forward to their
testimony on their report.
In comparison to standard buildings, the average green
building uses 30 percent less energy, emits nearly 40 percent
fewer emissions, and has far better air quality. Green
buildings also have smaller electric bills, which save owners
and tenants on the cost on their bottom line. But if we want
the private sector to go green, the Federal Government needs to
take a leadership role and go green also.
The Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of
buildings in the Nation, and one of the largest emitters of
greenhouse gases in the entire world. So I have a bill that I
first introduced with Senator Jeffords in the 108th Congress,
and have recently reintroduced to get government to lead on
this issue, the High Performance Green Buildings Act.
So I appreciate the support that Chairman Boxer, and
Senators Snowe, Cardin, Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, Menendez,
Sanders, Klobuchar and Whitehouse have shown by cosponsoring my
bill. This legislation would blend sustainable design into
Federal buildings, help our buildings on the course to earn
leadership in energy, environment and design. The acronym is
LEED. They issue a silver rating.
It would also provide grants, as Chairman Boxer noted, that
model development guidelines to schools to improve the quality
of the air that they breathe there. Tom Friedman, noted author
and journalist, wrote in The New York Times, ``Green is the new
red, white and blue.'' Many private companies are doing their
part to show this new patriotism. We will hear from the
architect of a new Bank of America green building today.
The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other
States have signed bills similar to my legislation and it is
time for the Federal Government to show its new colors. So we
want to promote the environment and public health by working
toward green buildings.
Senator Alexander, please, if you want to, make a statement
within a 5-minute period. Please do so.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate
Senator Lautenberg on his leadership on this piece of
legislation. I simply wanted to come by and say that.
One way to create a green building is through solar
photovoltaic cells, which produce electricity at the building.
That is important to us in Tennessee because we have pretty big
clean air problem. We have problems with sulfur, nitrogen and
mercury. Solar energy doesn't produce any of that.
On the other end of our State in Memphis, Sharp, which came
to Tennessee to make television sets when I was Governor 20
years ago, is now the leading manufacturer of solar
photovoltaics and the market leader in the United States. Its
manufacturing facility is that old television factory. They
build the television sets now in Mexico, but they have employed
even more people building solar photovoltaics. So I hope
Tennessee will become the center of solar cell manufacturing in
the United States.
Another point, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people assume that
only places like Arizona or similar locations can be useful
places for solar. Germany, which has about 40 percent less
solar energy available than the Tennessee Valley region, is the
world's leader in the use of solar power. So we believe that
technology is likely to show us that in buildings and in other
ways that solar energy can be very helpful.
As far as renewable power, I myself prefer it to the huge
300-foot giant wind turbines with flashing red lights. I like
the solar energy better and I am very hopeful that it works.
Oak Ridge National Lab, TVA, Habitat for Humanity, the
Department of Energy, are building zero-energy houses in Lenoir
City. The John J. Duncan Federal Building in Knoxville is a
great example of creative retrofitting of an 18-year-old
Federal building that is making an extraordinary environmental
impact.
So Mr. Chairman, your legislation and this hearing are very
helpful in helping us in the Tennessee Valley look for new ways
to have clean air, produce more of our own renewable energy,
and create jobs, especially in Memphis at the Sharp
manufacturing plant. I thank you for the chance to make these
opening remarks.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Alexander, it is encouraging to
have your positive view on this. I appreciate it.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask that my
entire statement be put in the record.
First, let me just congratulate you for your leadership on
this issue. This is a very important subject dealing with green
buildings, particularly with the Federal Government exercising
leadership. As you pointed out, I am a cosponsor of your bill
and I think we need to move legislation in this area.
I am going to suggest that we modify your proposal with two
additional provisions to strengthen green buildings, with the
Federal Government exercising the leadership. I think as was
pointed out by Senator Boxer and yourself, the Federal
Government really needs to step up to the plate and provide the
national leadership for green technology and for energy
savings.
We need to become energy independent. We need to do that
for the sake of our security, as well as the sake of our
environment.
Buildings consume, as you pointed out, such a large amount
of our energy needs. The LEED-certified buildings in the United
States are an aggregate savings of 150,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent to 30,000 passenger cars
not driven for 1 year. So as you can see, there is a
significant advantage if we have green buildings in this
country.
I have introduced S. 1165 that would require new Federal
buildings to meet the LEED's silver standard, which I think we
should do. We have that technology and it is the right policy
and it shows the right leadership.
My legislation would also add one additional area of
concern in Federal buildings, and that is to deal with the
runoff issues. Let me just give you one example in the
Chesapeake Bay. Development is increasing faster than the
population. Population growth in the Chesapeake watershed, for
example, increased by 8 percent during the 1990's, but the rate
of impervious service increased by 42 percent. Putting
pollutants into our streams, rivers and oceans imposes a
significant problem for the Chesapeake Bay.
So my suggestions would be that we have the Federal
Government really exercise leadership in this area by a
commitment for new construction to meet the LEED's silver
standard and that there be standards in our Federal
construction that deal with the runoff issues. I think if we
did that, we would really be sending the right signal to the
private sector that we really can make a significant reduction
in the use of energy, which will help us with energy
independence, and a significant reduction in carbon dioxides
which will help us with the global climate change issue.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this
hearing, and I thank you for your leadership in bringing this
issue to the attention of the U.S. Senate.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. We need to
make this country energy independent, and to enact a comprehensive,
long-term energy policy that will give Americans the energy they need,
while protecting our environment and our national security.
Senators Lautenberg and Warner have both introduced legislation
that I support, and I have introduced legislation that compliments
these bills--the American Green Building Act, S. 1165. We can do more.
Our Federal Government is the largest single energy consumer in the
world.
Buildings account for over a third of America's energy
consumption.--Buildings also account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions, 25 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 10 percent of
particulate emissions, all of which damage our air quality. Buildings
produce 38 percent of the country's carbon dioxide emissions--the chief
pollutant blamed for global warming.
Federal buildings are a large part of this problem.
Energy used in Federal buildings in FY 2002 accounted for 38
percent of the total Federal energy bill.--Total Federal buildings and
facilities energy expenditures in FY 2002 were $3.73 billion.
The American Green Building Act would require all new Federal
buildings to live up to green building LEED (Leadership and Energy in
Environmental Design) Silver standards, set by the United States Green
Building Council. These standards were created to promote sustainable
site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials
selection, and indoor environmental quality.
The average LEED-certified building uses 32 percent less
electricity, 26 percent less natural gas and 36 percent less total
energy.--LEED-certified buildings in the United States are in aggregate
saving 150,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide reduction equivalent to
30,000 passenger cars not driven for one year. A single LEED-certified
building is designed to save an average of 352 metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions annually, which is equivalent to 70 passenger cars
not driven for one year.
In the American Green Building Act, the LEED Silver standard would
only apply to federal buildings for which the design phase for
construction or major renovation is begun after the date of enactment
of the provision. The General Services Administration or relevant
agency may waive this requirement for a building if it finds that the
requirement cannot be met because of the quantity of energy required to
carry out the building's purpose or because the building is used to
carry out an activity relating to national security.
My bill will also require that significant new development or
redevelopment projects undertaken by the Federal Government plan for
storm water runoff.-- The hardened surfaces of modern life such as
roofs, parking lots, and paved streets, prevent rainfall from
infiltrating the soil. Over 100 million acres of land have been
developed in the United States. Development is increasing faster than
population: population growth in the Chesapeake Watershed, for example,
increased by 8 percent during the 1990s, but the rate of impervious
surface increased by 42 percent. Development not only leads to
landscape changes but also to contamination of storm water runoff by
pollutants throughout the watershed. Storm water runoff can carry
pollutants to our streams, rivers, and oceans, and poses a significant
problem for the Chesapeake Bay.
Every other pollution source in the Chesapeake is decreasing, but
pollution from storm water runoff is increasing.--In urbanized areas,
increased storm water runoff can cause increased flooding, stream bank
erosion, degradation of in-stream habitat and a reduction in
groundwater quality. For these reasons, as the Federal Government moves
forward with development, we need to plan for how to manage storm water
runoff. The storm water provisions in the American Green Building Act
will be used to intercept precipitation and allow it to infiltrate
rather than being collected on and conveyed from impervious surfaces.
The Federal Government must take the lead if we are to achieve our
energy and environmental goals.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Now we have a panel of witnesses, all with whom have
expertise on different elements of green buildings, including
residential, commercial and schools. I welcome them to the
table.
Bob Fox, Peter Templeton, Claire Barnett, Ray Tonjes, and
Ward Hubbell, I thank all of you for joining us. I would, as
the witnesses take their seats, mention that Mr. Fox is the
architect who led the development of the Bank of America
building in midtown Manhattan. It is a fantastic
accomplishment. The building will be the first ever high rise
office building to achieve the prestigious LEED platinum
rating. Mr. Templeton is the vice president for LEED at the
United States Green Building Council.
Ms. Barnett is executive director of the Health Schools
Network. Mr. Tonjes is chairman of the Green Building
Subcommittee of the National Association of Home Builders. Mr.
Ward Hubbell is president of the Green Building Initiative.
I thank all of you for joining us. I now ask you to present
a summary of your testimony. Please do that within 5 minutes.
We will try to get through and have a chance to interact with
some questions.
I would ask you, Mr. Fox, to testify first. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. FOX, JR., PARTNER, COOK+FOX ARCHITECTS
Mr. Fox. Thank you, Senators. I consider this a privilege
and an honor to be invited here today to speak with you.
I am a partner in the architectural firm of Cook+Fox in New
York City. I have spent my 40-year career working in and around
New York City. I am privileged to have worked on buildings like
Four Times Square, the first green high rise building, the
Battery Park City guidelines, and the Bank of America Tower
that you mentioned. I also serve on the Mayor's Sustainable
Committee for the new 2030 Plan for the City of New York.
One Bryant Park is a partnership between the Bank of
America and the Durst family. It is 2.2 million square feet and
it will cost $1.3 billion. We started designing this building
as a high performance building, wanting to produce the absolute
best building we could. I was convinced when we started that we
could never have gotten LEED platinum, so we just put our heads
down and went to work. After we finished our design and then
looked at LEED, we were delighted that in fact we were a LEED
platinum building.
In terms of the energy of this building, it will consume
about one half the energy of a normal building. We are doing
that primarily with a large cogeneration plant of 5 megawatts
that we are locating in the building. It will produce 67
percent of the building's annual energy, and at night when we
don't need that energy, it will make ice, which we will melt
during the day to supplement the air conditioning system.
We also have a daylight dimming system throughout the
building. The brighter the sun, the dimmer the lights. We are
saving 50 percent of the water. I just read in the paper today
that the cost of water has gone up 40 percent in New York City
since we started the design of this project in 2003. We will
harvest all of the rainwater. We will use that water to flush
the toilets. We also have waterless urinals for the first time
in a high rise building in New York City.
We are using blast furnace slag instead of half the cement
for this building. It is a waste product of the steel industry
and it makes wonderful cement, actually better than using 100
percent cement. The ceiling in our lobby will be made of
bamboo, a rapidly renewable resource.
The indoor air environment will be second to none. It will
be like a hospital. We will have 95 percent filters on the
incoming air. Thirty-five percent is the normal. We will be
delivering the air from under the floor with individual
controls for every occupant in the building, and every employee
in the building will have access to daylight. They will all be
able to see out and see what the weather is.
We have found that LEED for us is the common language of
the green building industry. It is an amazing product because
it is the result of a volunteer effort by architects,
engineers, builders, and manufacturers that have donated to the
U.S. Green Building Council over 600,000 hours of volunteer
time creating this document. It is being revised as we speak.
If you think about the cost of that and just assign a $200 per
hour cost, that is $120 million of professional volunteer time.
That is some standard.
So I thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
Statement of Robert F. Fox, Jr., Partner, Cook+Fox Architects
Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here
today.
My name is Bob Fox, and I am a Partner at Cook+Fox Architects in
New York City, a firm known for designing beautiful buildings that save
energy and resources, While enhancing health and improving the bottom
line. This has been the focus of my 40 year career. Beginning in 1995 I
was the Architect for Four Times Square, which was the country's first
green skyscraper, and which was designed when the industry had no
common standard for defining a ``green building.'' In 1999 I led the
team that created Residential and Commercial Environmental Guidelines
for the Battery Park City Authority, a public-private entity that
controls 92 acres of Lower Manhattan. Since then, The Guidelines have
been followed by all projects built in Battery Park City, which by 2010
will result in over 5 million square feet of LEED Gold buildings.
Currently, I serve on the Advisory Council for Mayor Michael
Bloomberg's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, which in
April released PlaNYC, a comprehensive agenda for sustainable growth
over the next 30 years.
Cook+Fox is the Architect for the new Bank of America Tower at One
Bryant Park, a 2.2 million square foot, $1.3 billion commercial
headquarters, developed jointly by the Bank of America and the Durst
Organization. It is currently under construction on 6th Avenue and 42nd
Street in Midtown Manhattan. When completed in 2008, it will be the 2nd
tallest building in New York City, standing 945 feet to the top of its
roof. Most importantly, it will be the first high-rise office tower in
the country to achieve a LEED Platinum rating, the highest possible
certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I am here to speak today because buildings are leading consumers of
energy and emitters of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate
change. Nationwide, the building sector accounts for 43 percent of
carbon dioxide emissions, and buildings consume 71 percent of all
electricity generated.\1\ In dense urban areas, buildings can represent
the dominant source of emissions. When New York City recently completed
its first comprehensive Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it was
found that 79 percent of the city's carbon dioxide emissions come from
its buildings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Towards a Climate-Friendly Built
Environment. Arlington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2005.
\2\ New York City. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April,
2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States, with only 4.5 percent of the world's population,
is responsible for 25 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.\3\
Buildings represent a large part of the problem, because as currently
designed and operated, they waste enormous amounts of energy as well as
clean water and other resources. Green buildings make it possible to
create offices, homes, and institutions that perform better than
conventional buildings on all levels, saving energy and water,
improving health and productivity, and saving money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ World Resources Institute. 2007. EarthTrends: Environmental
Information. (http://earthtrends.wri.org). Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The green building industry has grown steadily, and then rapidly
accelerated over the last 10 years. Both the public and the private
sector are witnessing the benefits of green building, and momentum is
growing for the transformation of architectural and engineering
practices, real estate markets, local building codes, and building
services and suppliers. In 2006, the American Institute of Architects
challenged practicing professionals to immediately cut fossil fuel
consumption by 50 percent in the buildings they are designing. They
further challenged the industry to increase reductions over the next 30
years, resulting in carbon-neutral buildings by 2035 Cities States and
U.S. Government agencies have been among the first to experiment with
and experience the operational cost savings and superior indoor quality
of high-performance green buildings.
In large cities like New York, green buildings are being recognized
as an essential part of planning for future growth, maintaining the
urban infrastructure, and protecting health and quality of life. With
urban populations growing rapidly, cities across the United States face
great challenges, but can also benefit from urban density. Because of
the density of apartment buildings and reliance on mass transit, New
Yorkers produce 71 percent less CO2 per capita than the
average American.\4\ Cities, therefore, that invest in sustainable
growth can be an important part of the solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ New York City. PIaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April,
2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Bank of America Tower, with 2.2 million square feet of premium
office space, will consume about half the energy and water of a typical
building of its size, while creating the healthiest most productive
possible work environment for its occupants. It was designed to take
advantage of a world-class public transit system: in getting to work,
the tenants of the building will generate only \1/20\th the
energy of the average suburban commute. With 8000 workers arriving each
day, the building will have zero parking spaces.
The Bank of America Tower will earn a LED Platinum certification
through an integrated approach to green building practices and
technologies. When we began the project, the goal was to create the
most high performance building possible: one that would use far less
energy, far less water, create a high quality interior environment, use
materials with high recycled content and no Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs), and recycle all construction debris. After we had finished our
basic design we turned to LEED, the industry standard and clearly the
most advanced measuring tool, to see how well we had done. We were
delighted to learn we had the potential to earn a Platinum
certification.
Energy efficiency in buildings can be drastically improved with
today's strategies and technology. Typically, when power is generated
in our country, approximately \2/3\ of the energy goes directly up the
smokestack in the form of waste heat. After additional transmission
losses, what arrives at the typical building is only about 27 percent
of the total energy created. Instead, the Bank of America Tower will
have an on-site, 5 megawatt power plant producing clean energy from
natural gas at 77 percent efficiency. Using cogeneration technology,
this giant turbine will produce electricity, then use the waste heat to
generate even more power. It will be enough to provide approximately 67
percent of the building's annual energy needs with clean, efficient
supply.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Like most large cities, New York has an electric grid that
struggles to keep up with demand during peak times. At these times, the
power utility is forced to turn on its oldest, dirtiest ``peaks''
plants. It has been estimated that 90 percent of the air pollution in
the city comes from just 50 percent of its power plants. One of the
goals at the Bank of America Tower was to ensure the building did not
contribute to this burden on the city's infrastructure. The building
will have a thermal storage plant in the cellar, with 44 large tanks
making ice at night, when energy demand is low and the cogeneration
plant is producing more power than the building needs. During the day,
the ice melts to supplement the air conditioning system, reducing the
peak demand and creating a much more even level of power consumption.
Like most utilities, Con Edison charges its customers a rate based on
peak demand, so the building tenants will save money.
Water and wastewater are also critical issues impacted by the
building sector. New York, like Washington, DC, has a combined sewer
and stormwater system. During significant rains, sewage treatment
facilities routinely become overwhelmed by the volume of wastewater,
and discharge partially treated sewage into our waterways. The Bank of
America Tower, in contrast, will make zero stormwater contribution to
the municipal system. The building will do this by collecting all
rainwater that falls on its roofs, about four feet a year, and storing
it in four tanks staged throughout the building. Water that condenses
from mechanical equipment and drains from lavatory sinks will also be
collected, treated, and used to flush toilets and supply the cooling
towers. Nearly every office building in the United States today uses
clean, drinking-quality water for these purposes. The building is also
installing waterless urinals, a technology that alone will save three
million gallons of water every year. Thanks to these combined
strategies, the building will consume less than half the potable water
of a typical office building.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To the Bank of America, constructing a building that offered 50
percent water savings, 50 percent energy savings, drastically reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and added an iconic element to the New York
City skyline was of great interest. But what really caught the Bank's
attention was the quality of the indoor environment, and the potential
impacts on employee health and productivity. Like other organizations,
especially those in a knowledge-based industry, the Bank could expect
to spend around 10 percent of its operating budget on rent and
utilities, but more than 80 percent on salaries and benefits.\5\ Even
by rough calculations, a 1 percent increase in productivity--the
equivalent of 5 minutes a day--would amount to $10 million a year.
Fewer sick days and overall reduced absenteeism translate into real
benefits for any organization. For the Bank, enhancing the ability to
hire and retain the best talent was also extremely important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wilson, Alex. ``Productivity and Green Buildings.''
Environmental Building News 13.10, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A high-performance work environment addresses natural light,
artificial lighting, thermal and acoustic comfort, air quality, and
other design factors. The first priority for the Bank of America Tower
was to design a daylit environment that would let tenants work by
natural light as much as possible. Enclosed in highly transparent,
floor-to-ceiling glass, the workplace also provides a direct connection
to the outdoors--a complex set of environmental cues whose impacts on
human well-being are just starting to be understood by psychologists
and designers, through a field known as biophilia.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, indoor air
is often more polluted than outside air, and many people spend 90
percent of their time indoors.\6\ Whereas the typical code-compliant
building in New York is designed to filter out only 35 percent of
particulates from the mechanical ventilation system, the Bank of
America Tower will filter 95 percent of particulates, as well as ozone
and VOCs. In effect, the air that is exhausted from the building will
be cleaner than the air coming in. In addition, in virtually all U.S.
office buildings, air is ducted in through the ceiling and then blown
downward, where it mixes with all the air in a room, evenly
distributing dust, germs, and allergens. Instead, the Bank of America
Tower will have an under-floor air distribution system. Rather than
forcing conditioned air down from the ceiling, heat from occupants and
computer equipment will draw fresh air upward, at warmer temperatures
and lower pressure. Individual air diffusers in the floor will allow
workers to adjust the flow of as around their desks, minimizing the
circulation of airborne pathogens and resolving the chief complaint
among office workers of being too hot or too cold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. ``The
Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality.'' April 1995.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Other issues that have been considered include the impacts of
materials over their entire life-cycle, from cradle to grave. The
manufacture of cement, for example, results in one ton of
CO2 emitted for every ton of cement produced. This is why
worldwide, the cement industry is responsible for more than 5 percent
of CO2 emissions.\7\ To minimize these emissions, 45 percent
of the cement in the Bank of America Tower is being replaced with blast
furnace slag, a waste product of the steel industry. By using an
industrial waste product, we have calculated that this practice will
prevent 56,250 tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
Other materials-related practices include preferred purchasing of
recycled and locally-produced materials, and recycling of 83 percent of
construction and demolition debris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ``Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from the Global Cement Industry.'' Annual Review of Energy
and Environment vol. 26, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where green building practices represented an additional cost the
costs and benefits were carefully evaluated by the owner and design
team. Some ideas were abandoned, and only strategies that represented a
reasonable payback were pursued. In total, the added cost of green
technologies and practices, including cogeneration, represents
approximately 2 percent of the project budget. We have found that
building at scale was itself an opportunity to reduce the overall cost
of high performance green measures.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Building in a fundamentally different way is a challenging task.
Before an industrywide standard was created, practitioners had to
determine for themselves what practices were harmful or beneficial. As
a standard developed by a coalition representing all sectors of the
building industry, the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED system is now
a common language for measuring and validating green buildings. Every
LEED certified building must comply with certain requirements, from
eliminating Environmental Tobacco Smoke to commissioning all
mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment to ensure it operates at
the level at which it was designed to perform. This voluntary standard
is designed to evolve over time, and results from a consensus-based
process that is inherently robust and inclusive. Some 600,000 volunteer
hours have been invested in developing and improving LEED over the past
10 years (had this time been billed at $200/hr, it would add up to
$120,000,000). This level of collaboration by architects, engineers,
builders, and manufacturers is unmatched in any industry, and has
helped accelerate the current transformation of building markets. The
opportunities of high performance green buildings are not limited to
new buildings. Existing buildings are an extremely important part of
the energy equation--in New York City, it is estimated that by 2030, 85
percent of the city's energy usage will come from buildings that exist
today. Existing buildings can be upgraded through retrofits to fighting
and heating and cooling systems; the resulting energy savings typically
amount to a 3- to 7-year payback. Retro-commissioning to optimize
mechanical equipment functioning typically pays for itself within 2 to
3 years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ New York City. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April,
2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings such as the Bank of America Tower prove that it is
possible to create high-performance green buildings on a very large
scale. At 2.2 million square feet, large building budgets can afford to
make creative innovations--but what about the rest of us?
In fact, buildings at all scales can make a difference in the
health and well-being of their occupants, and in the quality of
environment we pass on to future generations. In early 2006, Cook+Fox
had outgrown its previous office and needed to find new space. Using
the same standards for beautiful design and high performance, and with
the help of creative engineers, we worked hard to create a LEED
Platinum interior space of 12,000 square feet, with a 3600 square foot
green roof. We moved in June 2006, and are already enjoying terrific
employee and client satisfaction.
The United States has always been a high-performance country and an
incubator for innovation. No landlord or developer wants to own a
building destined for obsolescence because it locked itself into the
thinking of the 20th century. As costs decline and benefits accumulate,
high-performance building will become the only way to design the places
we live and work. The question now is how to act intelligently and
effectively to set a new high standard.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. It looks like that
building ought to have an opportunity to show off its
development perhaps even become a tourist attraction, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. It is exciting to hear what can be
done.
Next, Mr. Templeton, we welcome you and ask for you to give
your testimony please.
STATEMENT OF PETER TEMPLETON, VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION AND
RESEARCH, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
Mr. Templeton. Good morning. My name is Peter Templeton and
I am vice president of Education and Research for the U.S.
Green Building Council, a nonprofit coalition of more than
9,000 private, nonprofit and governmental organizations working
to transform building design, construction and operations. Our
vision is that all buildings will achieve sustainability within
a generation.
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to talk with you
about green buildings as an important part of the solution to
the challenges of energy dependence and climate change, and the
role of the Council and its LEED green building rating system
in providing immediate and measurable results.
Every year, buildings are responsible for 39 percent of
U.S. CO2 emissions and 70 percent of U.S.
electricity consumption. They use 15 trillion gallons of water
and consume 40 percent of raw materials globally. Buildings are
more than one third of the challenge and green buildings are
the solution.
Green buildings use an average of 36 percent less energy
than a conventional building, with a corresponding reduction in
CO2 emissions. If half of our all new construction
in the United States were built to that standard, it would be
the equivalent of taking more than one million cars off the
road every year.
Green buildings make sense for both the environment and the
bottom line. Studies show that on average, LEED buildings cost
less than 1.5 percent more than conventional construction, and
the investment is paid back in full within the first year,
based on energy savings alone.
But energy savings aren't the only story. Water
conservation, reductions in construction waste, and effective
storm water management not only means savings for the building
owner, but also reduced demands on municipal infrastructures.
Health and productivity benefits are equally impressive.
Anecdotal studies demonstrate that people in green buildings
have 40 percent to 60 percent fewer incidents of colds, flu and
asthma. Patients in green hospitals are discharged as much as
2.5 days earlier, and kids in green schools score up to 18
percent better on test scores.
LEED-certified buildings have higher asset value than their
conventional counterparts. Leading institutions, including Bank
of America, PNC Bank, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Wells Fargo
have all embraced LEED. Insurance companies including AIG and
Fireman's Fund now offer premium discounts for green buildings.
Since its introduction 7 years ago, LEED has become the
nationally accepted benchmark for leadership in green building.
True to its intent, it gives projects and project teams a
concrete set of design and performance goals and third party
certification that validates their achievement.
Today, 851 buildings have been LEED-certified, and 6,500
more are in the process, totaling 1.1 billion square feet.
Every business day, $100 million worth of construction
registers with LEED. There are LEED projects in every State and
in 26 countries. Increasingly, building owners and developers
are choosing to certify their entire portfolios.
The LEED rating system addresses all building types and the
full life cycle of commercial buildings, from construction to
operations and retrofits. In addition, LEED for Homes is
currently in pilot with 6,000 individual homes and 200
builders. And LEED for Neighborhood Development opened for
pilot this year and more than 300 projects have applied.
LEED takes a holistic approach to sustainability,
recognizing performance in five key areas: site, water, energy,
materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality, with
an additional category to recognize innovation. Four
progressive levels of LEED certification--certified, silver,
gold, and platinum--are awarded based on the number of credits
or points achieved in each category.
The transformation of the building marketplace can also be
measured through the people who are part of it. More than
36,000 professionals have achieved LEED accreditation. More
than 80,000 attend USGBC-offered educational programs each
year, and 92,000 are actively engaged in USGBC programs
nationally or through USGBC's 70 local chapters and affiliates.
As green buildings are integrated into the mainstream,
costs come down, aggregate benefits go up, and the whole of the
market is driven to innovation. It is a case study for how even
a large and fractured industry, one that represents 14.2
percent of U.S. GDP, can change itself from the inside out and
how environmental achievements can be won side by side with
powerful economic results.
The public sector has demonstrated vision and leadership in
the green building movement, both by adopting LEED for their
own buildings and by creating smart incentives for the private
sector. Currently, 12 Federal agencies, 22 States and 75 local
governments have made commitments to use or encourage LEED. In
2006, GSA submitted a report to Congress concluding that LEED
is the most credible of five different rating systems
evaluated. The GSA currently requires its new buildings to
achieve LEED certification.
USGBC is committed to our mission because green buildings
save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, conserve water,
improve health, increase productivity, and cost less to operate
and maintain. Green buildings are becoming highly prized assets
and a critically important part of the solution to global
climate change and energy dependence.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today.
We commend you, Senator Lautenberg, for your leadership and
look forward to working with this committee to accelerate
transformation of the built environment to sustainability.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Templeton follows:]
Statement of Peter Templeton, Vice President of Education and Research,
U.S. Green Building Council
Thank you for providing the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
with the opportunity to testify on the benefits of green buildings. We
commend Chairwoman Boxer and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership in
this critical area.
My name is Peter Templeton, and I am USGBC's Vice President of
Education and Research. I joined USGBC as one of its first staff
members, and previously served as the Council's Director for LEED and
International Programs. It is a privilege to talk with you about the
role of the Council and the LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
SystemTM in addressing the urgent challenge of
energy efficiency and climate change, and the many far-reaching
benefits of green building.
the impact of the built environment
Buildings are an essential element of the solution to the energy,
resource, and climate issues our country is facing.
Buildings have a lifespan of 50-100 years, throughout which they
continually consume energy, water, and natural resources, thereby
generating significant CO2 emissions. In fact, buildings are
responsible for 39 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions per year.
If the U.S. built half of its new commercial buildings to use 50
percent less energy, it would save over 6 million metric tons of
CO2 annually, for the entire life of the buildings--the
equivalent of taking more than 1 million cars off the road every year.
In addition, buildings annually account for 39 percent of U.S.
primary energy use; 70 percent of U.S. resource consumption; use 12.2
percent of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year; and
consume 40 percent of raw materials globally (3 billion tons annually).
The EPA estimates that 136 million tons of building-related
construction and demolition debris are generated in the United States
in a single year. (By way of comparison, the United States creates
209.7 million tons of municipal solid waste per year.)
Green buildings are a significant part of the solution to the
problems of energy dependence and climate change. The average LEED
certified building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less
natural gas and 36 percent less total energy than a conventional
building. LEED certified buildings in the United States are, in
aggregate, reducing CO2 emissions by 150,000 metric tons
each year, which equates to taking 30,000 passenger cars off the road.
Of the various strategies that have been proposed, building green
is one of the most effective for meeting the challenges of energy
consumption and climate change. The technology to make substantial
reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions in buildings
already exists; modest investments in energy-saving and other climate-
friendly technologies can yield buildings and communities that are
significantly more environmentally responsible, more profitable, and
healthier places to live and work.
By addressing the whole building, from construction materials to
cleaning supplies, LEED generates opportunities to reduce emissions and
environmental impact throughout the supply chain and the complete
building lifecycle. 65 percent of the credits in the LEED Rating System
reduce the CO2 footprint of the building. The avenues by
which LEED mitigates climate change include:
Energy
LEED awards credits for reducing energy use in buildings through
such means as installing energy efficient heating and cooling systems;
using renewable power (e.g., daylight, solar heating, wind energy);
requiring building commissioning; and purchasing green power.
Water
On average, a LEED certified building uses 30 percent less water
than a conventional building, which translates to more than 1 million
gallons of water saved per year. Reducing the amount of water that
needs to be conveyed to and treated by municipal wastewater treatment
facilities also reduces pumping and process energy required by these
systems. LEED also promotes on-site treatment of storm water to
minimize the burden on municipal treatment systems.
Materials
LEED buildings use fewer materials and generate less waste through
measures such as reusing existing building structures whenever
possible; developing a construction waste management plan; salvaging
materials; using materials with recycled content; using local
materials; and implementing an on-site recycling plan. Reduced
materials consumption lowers the overall embodied energy of the
building, which has a direct impact on the building's carbon footprint.
Transit- & Density-Oriented Development
LEED buildings earn credits for being located near public
transportation. LEED also rewards car pooling; using hybrid or electric
cars; and bicycling or walking instead of driving. In addition to the
emissions produced by the cars themselves, the infrastructure required
to support vehicle travel increases the consumption of land and non-
renewable resources, alters storm water flow and absorbs heat energy,
which exacerbates the heat island effect.
green building trends and market transformation
Just a few years ago, green building was the domain of a vanguard
of innovative practitioners. Today, green building is being rapidly
adopted into the mainstream of building practice in both the
residential and commercial sectors. McGraw-Hill Construction forecasts
that the combined annual commercial and residential green building
markets will total $62 billion by 2010.
USGBC's LEED Green Building Rating System serves as an essential,
proven tool for enabling this market transformation. Equally as
important as recognizing leading practice through third-party
certification, LEED has given the community of building design,
construction, and management professionals a concise framework for
best-practices in high-performance green building design and
operations.
To date, there have been 851 LEED-certified buildings worldwide,
with the majority in the United States. In addition, more than 6,500
building projects have enrolled with USGBC and are pursuing
certification. In total, 1.1 billion square feet of construction space
is being built to meet LEED, and that figure grows daily.
The growth is manifest in USGBC's green building professional
accreditation program as well. Since the program's launch in 2002, more
than 36,000 professionals from all disciplines have become LEED
Accredited Professionals (LEED APs).
The LEED Rating System was originally developed for new commercial
construction projects, and the rapid uptake of the program demonstrated
that the market needed additional tools to address different building
types and lifecycle phases. USGBC released rating systems for the
operations and maintenance and commercial interiors markets in 2006,
and is currently pilot-testing rating systems for homes and
neighborhood developments. Already, more than 6,000 homes and 200
builders are participating in the LEED for Homes pilot test; nearly 200
homes have been certified to date. LEED for Neighborhood Development,
which integrates principles of smart growth, urbanism, and green
building at the neighborhood level, is also being pilot-tested. More
than 350 projects have enrolled for consideration for the pilot. USGBC
recently launched LEED for Schools, and is completing rating systems
for health care facilities, retail, labs, and campuses.
In addition, USGBC is currently piloting a new LEED program for
portfolio performance that meets the needs of large owners of
commercial real estate who are seeking to green their entire real
estate portfolios. This innovative approach provides cost-effective
solutions to improve building performance across entire companies and
organizations. The goal is to facilitate immediate and measurable
achievements that will contribute to long-term sustainability. The
portfolio program focuses on the permanent integration of green
building and operational measures into standard business practice.
USGBC is working with 26 market leaders as a part of the pilot,
including American University, Bank of America, California State
University--Los Angeles, Cushman & Wakefield, Emory University, HSBC,
N.A., PNC Bank, State of CA--Dept. of General Services. Syracuse
University, Thomas Properties Group, Transwestern, UC--Merced, UC--
Santa Barbara, University of Florida, USAA Real Estate Company.
costs and benefits of green building using leed
Projects enroll in LEED by registering their intent with USGBC and
paying a fee of $450. Project certification fees are approximately
$0.03 per square foot, and average about $4,500.
According to third-party studies published and updated by Capital E
and by Davis Langdon in the past 24 months, the average total
additional cost for using LEED on a project (including professional
fees, materials, and systems) is 1.5 percent or less. That cost is
typically repaid in the first 10 months of building operation based on
energy savings alone.
For example, according to U.S. Banker Magazine, the greening of the
Bank of America Tower, being constructed in Manhattan, is adding less
than 2 percent of its projected cost. The project expects to recoup any
investments through reduced electricity usage and water-saving
techniques.
Harvard Business Review cites the DPR building in Sacramento,
California as having invested 1.4 percent upfront additional costs to
implement green measures. The project is expected to more than make up
the investment by generating over $400,000 in operations savings.
about the u.s. green building council
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a nonprofit membership
organization with a vision of sustainable buildings and communities
within a generation. Our 9,000-member organizations and 92,000 active
individual volunteers include leading corporations and real estate
developers, architects, engineers, builders, schools and universities,
nonprofits, trade associations and government agencies at the Federal,
State and local levels. Green buildings save energy, reduce
CO2 emissions, conserve water, improve health, increase
productivity, cost less to operate and maintain, and increasingly cost
no more to build than conventional structures. Because of these
benefits, they are becoming highly prized assets for companies,
communities and individuals nationwide.
As the developer and administrator of the LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
SystemTM, USGBC is a leader in green building and
green development. Founded in 1993, USGBC is a 501(c) (3) non-profit
organization, an ANSI-accredited standards developer and a newly active
participant in ISO technical working groups. The organization is
governed by a diverse, 31-member Board of Directors that is elected by
the USGBC membership. Volunteer committees representing users, service
providers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders steward and develop
all USGBC programs, including the LEED rating system, through well-
documented consensus processes. Seventy local USGBC Chapters and
Affiliates throughout the United States provide educational programming
to local communities.
A staff of more than 85 professionals administers an extensive
roster of educational and informational programs that support the LEED
Rating System in addition to broad-based support of green building.
USGBC's LEED Professional Accreditation program, workshops, green
building publications, and the annual Greenbuild conference provide
green building education for professionals and consumers worldwide.
about the leed green building rating systemTM
LEED is the nationally recognized benchmark for the design,
construction, and operations of high-performance green buildings. Since
2001, LEED has provided building owners and operators with design and
measurement tools with the reliability and integrity they need to have
an immediate, quantifiable impact on their buildings' performance.
LEED is a voluntary standards and certification program, and was
developed to promote leadership in the building industry by providing
an objective, verifiable definition of ``green.'' LEED is a flexible
tool that can be applied to any building type and any building
lifecycle phase, including new commercial construction; existing
building operations and maintenance; interior renovations; speculative
development; commercial interiors; homes; neighborhoods; schools;
health care facilities; labs; and retail establishments.
LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by
recognizing performance in five key areas, with an additional category
to recognize innovation: sustainable site development, water savings,
energy efficiency, materials and resources and indoor environmental
quality. Each category includes certain minimum standards
(``prerequisites'') that all projects must meet, followed by additional
credits that are earned by incorporating green design and construction
techniques. Four progressive levels of LEED certification--Certified,
Silver, Gold and Platinum--are awarded based on the number of credits
achieved. USGBC provides independent, third-party verification that a
building meets these high performance standards.
USGBC member committees develop the LEED Rating System via a robust
consensus process that enables USGBC to incorporate constantly evolving
practices and technologies. The key elements of the process, which
USGBC has refined over more than a decade of leadership experience,
include a balanced and transparent committee structure; Technical
Advisory Groups to ensure scientific consistency and rigor;
opportunities for stakeholder comment and review; member ballot of new
rating systems and substantive improvements to existing rating systems;
and a fair and open appeals process. Details about the LEED development
process are publicly available on the USGBC Web site, www.usgbc.org.
USGBC is continuing to advance the market with the development of
LEED Version 3.0, which will harmonize and align LEED rating systems
and versions, as well as incorporate recent advances in science and
technology. Congruent with this effort, USGBC is introducing a
continuous improvement process into LEED, which will create a more
flexible and adaptive program and will allow USGBC to respond
seamlessly to the market's evolving needs. Particular focus areas
include technical and scientific innovations that will improve building
performance; the applicability of LEED to the marketplace, in order to
speed market transformation; and the customer experience, to ensure
that LEED is an effective tool for the people and organizations using
it.
The inclusion of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is an important step in
the technical development of LEED. USGBC's Life Cycle Assessment
working group has developed initial recommendations for incorporating
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of building materials as part of the
continuous improvement of LEED.
LCA holistically evaluates the environmental impact of a product
throughout its life cycle: from the extraction or harvesting of raw
materials through processing, manufacture, installation, use, and
ultimate disposal or recycling. USGBC's long term objective is to make
LCA a credible component of integrated design, thereby ensuring that
the environmental performance of the whole building takes into account
the complete building life cycle.
In 2006, citing the qualities outlined above, the U.S. General
Services Administration submitted a report to Congress concluding that
LEED is the ``most credible'' of five different rating systems
evaluated. The GSA currently requires its new buildings to achieve LEED
certification.
Building projects are enrolled in the LEED program by registering
their intent with USGBC through LEED Online. After the building is
constructed, the project teams submit proof-of-performance in the form
of online documentation through LEED Online. LEED Online was developed
through a partnership with Adobe Systems Inc.
Expert certification teams review and verify project documentation,
and award LEED Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification based
on the number of credits the project achieves based on a sliding scale.
leed and the government
Governments at all levels have been highly influential in the
growth of green building, both by requiring LEED for their own
buildings and by creating incentives for LEED for the private sector.
From the Department of Energy's support for the initial development of
LEED, to the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the many cities and
states that have adopted LEED, the public sector has demonstrated
considerable vision and leadership in the transformation of the built
environment. Currently, 12 Federal agencies, 22 states and 75 local
governments have made policy commitments to use or encourage LEED.
The Federal Government has been a particularly strong supporter of
USGBC and LEED. The U.S. Department of Energy enabled the development
of LEED with a $500,000 grant in 1997, and has also provided USGBC with
$130,000 in grants to support the Greenbuild Conference and Expo. Staff
from the national laboratories, FEMP and other program areas have
actively shared their expertise to develop and refine LEED. USGBC has
also collaborated with DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy with BuildingGreen on the High Performance Buildings Database.
The U.S. General Services Administration--which is the nation's
largest landlord--requires its new buildings and major renovation
projects to achieve LEED certification. As mentioned previously, GSA
also submitted a report to Congress affirming that LEED ``continues to
be the most appropriate and credible sustainable building rating system
available for evaluation of GSA projects.''In particular, GSA noted
that LEED applies to all GSA project types; that it tracks the
quantifiable aspects of building performance; that LEED is verified by
trained professionals and has a well-defined system for incorporating
updates; and that it is the most widely used rating system in the U.S.
market.
Government leadership will continue to be essential to the
advancement of green building. USGBC supports targeted, viable
government initiatives that facilitate market transformation,
including:
The creation of an Office of High-Performance Green
Buildings within the
U.S. General Services Administration to coordinate green building
research, information dissemination and other activities, as provided
by S. 506, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2007.
The expansion of the Office Director's duties that would
facilitate: metering, sub-metering and continuous commissioning of
Federal buildings in order to measure energy use and to ensure that
building systems are delivering the efficiencies for which they are
designed; agency reports on their CO2 reductions using the
existing energy targets required by Federal law; establishment of green
building education and training programs for Federal Agency staff in
order to ensure that the capability exists to achieve agency
sustainable building goals.
research
In a March 2007 report, USGBC found that research related to high-
performance green building practices and technologies amounts to only
0.2 percent of all federally funded research. At an average of $193
million per year from 2002 to 2005, research spending is equal to just
0.02 percent of the estimated value of annual U.S. building
construction. These funding levels are not commensurate with the level
of impact that the built environment has on our nation's economy,
environment and quality of life. USGBC recommends that total annual
federal funding equate to 0.1 percent of annual construction value, $1
billion.
Furthermore, USGBC has identified the following eight research
program areas toward which such funding should be applied: Life Cycle
Assessment of Construction Materials; Building Envelope and HVAC
Strategies; Lighting Quality; Transportation-Related Impacts of
Buildings; Performance Metrics and Evaluation; Information Technology
and Design Process Innovation; Indoor Environmental Quality; and
Potable Water Use Reduction in Buildings.
high performance schools
In the United States, more than 55 million students and more than 5
million faculty, staff, and administrators spend their days in school
buildings. These buildings represent the largest construction sector in
the U.S.--$80 billion in 20060-2008--which means that greening school
buildings is a significant opportunity to make a major impact on human,
environmental, and economic health.
Most important, children in green schools are healthier and more
productive. Design features including attention to acoustical and
visual quality, daylighting, and color have a profound impact on
children's ability to learn. Green schools also have superior indoor
air quality and thermal comfort, and expose children to fewer chemicals
and environmental toxins--which has been linked to lower asthma rates,
fewer allergies, and reduced sick days.
Green schools cost less to operate and greatly reduce water and
energy use, which generates significant financial savings. According to
a recent study by Capital E, if all new school construction and school
renovations went green starting today, energy savings alone would total
$20 billion over the next 10 years. On average, a green school saves
$100,000 per year--enough to hire two new teachers, buy 500 new
computers, or purchase 5000 new textbooks. The minimal increase in
upfront costs--on average less than $3 per square foot--is paid back in
the first year of operations based on energy savings alone.
To further this effort, USGBC supports federal authorization and
funding of K-12 green school demonstration projects in targeted school
districts throughout the country. Such a directive must also include a
requirement that the buildings are constructed so that they can serve
the students as teaching tools on green building design, construction
and operation.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. Green Building Council is a coalition of leaders from
every sector of the building industry working to transform the way
buildings and communities are designed, built, and operated through
market-based tools. USGBC's LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
SystemTM has become a nationally accepted
benchmark for high-performance green buildings.
In just seven years, LEED has had a significant, positive impact on
the building marketplace. LEED was created to establish a common
standard of measurement for what constitutes a ``green'' building, and
provides independent third-party validation of a building's green
features. LEED provides building owners and operators with the tools
they need to make an immediate and measurable impact on their
buildings' health and performance, which is why more than 1.1 billion
square feet of construction space is being built to LEED standards. The
impact is growing: Every business day $100 million worth of
construction registers with LEED; 50 people attend a USGBC training
course; 20 people become LEED Accredited Professionals and four
organizations join USGBC as members.
Green building is essential to environmental, economic, and human
health. Annually, buildings account for 39 percent of U.S. primary
energy use; 70 percent of U.S. energy consumption; use 12.2 percent of
all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year; and consume 40
percent of raw materials globally (3 billion tons annually). The EPA
estimates that 136 million tons of building-related construction and
demolition debris is generated in the U.S. in a single year.
Buildings are an essential part of the solution to mitigating
climate change and establishing energy independence. The average LEED
certified building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less
natural gas, and 36 percent less total energy than a conventional
building. LEED certified buildings in the United Staates are in
aggregate reducing CO2 emissions by 150,000 metric tons each
year, which equates to 30,000 passenger cars not driven. Building green
is a highly effective strategy for meeting the challenges ahead of us.
The technology to make substantial reductions in energy use and
CO2 emissions in buildings already exists, which means that
modest investments in energy-saving and other climate-friendly
technologies can yield buildings and communities that are significantly
more environmentally responsible, more profitable, and healthier places
to live and work.
Federal, State, and local governments have been instrumental in the
growth of green building, both by adopting green building themselves
and by encouraging it in the private sector. The government's continued
leadership will be essential to ongoing advancements in this area.
Significant opportunities exist in increasing Federal funding for green
building research and in Federal support for the design and
construction of green schools.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present the views of the
U.S. Green Building Council. We look forward to working with you to
facilitate the transformation of the built environment to
sustainability.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you for some of those startling
results that we can expect from green building architecture and
development. Thank you.
Ms. Barnett.
STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEALTHY
SCHOOLS NETWORK
Ms. Barnett. Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank the
committee for the opportunity this morning to speak to you
about children's environmental health and how our Nation's non-
green and very unhealthy schools actually undermine children's
health and learning, and what we can do together to promote
healthy school environments for all children.
My name is Claire Barnett. I am executive director of the
Health Schools Network. I also coordinate the National
Coalition for Healthier Schools.
Today, 54 million children, because today is a school day,
are required to be in our Nation's 120,000 public and private
schools. Yet every single day brings another report of lead in
school drinking water, schools sinking into landfills, closures
due to mold infestations, evacuations and emergency room trips
prompted by chemical spills, schools on toxic sites, chemicals
in closets literally from the 1840's, and hard-working parents
told in fact by their family doctors to keep children out of
unhealthy buildings.
It is not the right legacy. We know that children are
uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants. They breathe
more air, drink more fluids, and eat more food per pound of
body weight than adults do. Their developing systems are more
vulnerable to environmental toxins and their behaviors, like
sitting and rolling around on the floor, would put them in
touch with a different set of pollutants.
Focusing in on just one set of pollutants commonly found in
schools, EPA estimates that about half of all our Nation's
schools have problems with indoor air, which can be 5 to 100
times more polluted than outdoor air. Air pollution is in fact
a major contributor to asthma, the leading cause of school
absenteeism and the leading occupational disease of teachers.
That means they get it on the job.
Other health effects from indoor air include respiratory
problems, difficulty with concentration, rashes, headaches,
nausea and so forth. Anyone can be affected. But then think of
the escalating numbers of children with preexisting health and
learning impairments who are being enrolled in schools every
day. They may be even more affected.
One answer is to get back to basics and find an approach
that deliberately designs out common problems and designs in
solutions that restore fresh air and sunshine to our schools.
Benefits include improved achievement, health, attendance, and
productivity, as well as savings in energy and resource
conservation. One study found an 87 percent reduction in flu in
schools that had healthy indoor environments. Another found 67
percent reduction in sick building syndrome, and a 46 percent
reduction in upper respiratory problems. One health study found
a 40 percent reduction in asthma episodes taking place during
school.
High performance schools save an average of one third in
energy costs. These are really astounding numbers. How can
every child benefit from this? Communities are beginning to
make very smart choices to build healthy green schools.
Governors in California and New Jersey have issued executive
orders. New York City schools just adopted new green high
performance design standards following the lead of Los Angeles
Unified School District, as well as statewide initiatives in
New York, Washington, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
A 2006 National Research Council report called Green
Schools found that there is in fact a robust scientific
literature on indoor environments and children's health. I
would hope the Senators would take note that the Federal
Education Department has yet to report to all of you on its
similar 2004 National Priorities Study done pursuant to No
Child Left Behind.
The hard sciences show that children in fact do better in
buildings with specific qualities. The buildings should be dry.
They should have good indoor air quality. They should be quiet.
They should have well maintained systems, and they should be
clean. In fact, basic best practices in prevention such as
green cleaning and the use of less toxic pest controls are
highly cost-effective and minimize indoor air pollutant risks
to all school occupants.
So if all these things are wonderful, how does any one
school reach that? How does a volunteer school board member or
a parent or a classroom teacher or a school head figure out how
to get a high performance school? What do they do?
Fortunately, EPA has created a suite of proven school
environment best practices and has encouraged them locally over
the last few years with mini-grants, largely to school
constituency organizations. Today, in our view, the best way to
rapidly accelerate the numbers of children and communities
benefiting from healthy and high performing schools is to
encourage State activity.
Thus, we support the High Performance Green Buildings Act
that would establish a Federal Office on Green Buildings, and
authorize EPA to give grants to qualified State agencies to
build information and technical assistance systems. Within the
States, they can promote high performance school design, help
resolve environmental problems, and EPA alone is uniquely
qualified with the Federal Centers for Disease Control and
ATSDR to develop school siting guidelines.
In summary, there is absolutely no downside. Every child
and every community should have a healthy, high performance
school. It is achievable. It is doable.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnett follows:]
Statement of Claire Barnett, Executive Director, Healthy Schools
Network
introduction
Good morning. Thank you Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the other
members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for
the opportunity to present information on how the poor conditions of
our school buildings undermine children's health and interfere with
learning and what we can do to reverse that by building and operating
healthy and high performance schools.
Our children and grandchildren--yours and mine--are compelled to be
in school today. Yet, every day brings new reports of e-coli in school
water; schools sinking into landfills; closures due to mold
infestations; evacuations and ER trips prompted by chemical fumes;
schools on toxic sites; chemicals in closets from the 1840's; parents
told to keep their children away from unhealthy schools. No parent
wants that for their child and no one here would visit those threats on
anyone's else's child. But our society does. And the real shocker is
that all of those problems are easily avoided through the siting,
design, construction, and operations of our children's workplaces--
their school buildings.
School buildings can be designed and maintained in such a way that
the school facility itself promotes the health and well being of
children, and promotes and facilitates learning. A Healthy and High
Performance School dramatically improves the health and learning of
students while saving money for schools. Too often schools are
unhealthy places that impede learning, sicken children, teachers and
staff and waste public resources. The Healthy and High Performance
School combines design features that promote children's environmental
health, environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, reduced carbon
emissions and save money for education and their communities. Science-
based policy and action steps should be taken now to ``design out''
common problems and ensure that all our children have environmentally
healthy schools that are clean and in good repair.
My name is Claire Barnett. I am the founding Executive Director of
Healthy Schools Network, Inc., and the Coordinator of the national
Coalition for Healthier Schools. Healthy Schools Network is a not for
profit research, information and education, and advocacy organization
that seeks to ensure that every child will have an environmentally
healthy school that is clean and in good repair. We have successfully
shaped and secured new polices, programs, and funds for schools, at
home in New York, and nationally, while our Clearinghouse has assisted
parents and schools in every state. The national Coalition provides
``the platform and the forum'' for healthy school environments,
endorsed by over 520 organizations and individuals nationwide. My
testimony is on behalf of Healthy Schools Network and on behalf of
participants in the Coalition.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
overview
Children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants,
many of which are found in schools. Children proportionately breathe
more air, drink more fluids, and eat more food than adults. Developing
systems are more vulnerable to environmental toxins than are fully
developed adults. Yet health standards for children's exposure to
indoor environmental contaminants do not exist. An often-cited U.S.
General Accounting Office report noted that children are compelled by
law to attend school, yet these school facilities may be unsafe or
harmful to student health.
Children's exposure to environmental hazards at school contributes
to multiple health problems. Poor school indoor air is a major
contributor to causing and exacerbating asthma, which is well known to
be at epidemic proportions among school age children. Hazards in the
school environment are linked to a host of other health problems
including respiratory problems, poor concentration, rashes, headaches,
gastrointestinal problems, nervous system disorders, and cancers.
Nationally, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of children
afflicted with learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, and autism. These conditions are also linked with
environmental toxins that may be found in the school environment.
The poor conditions of America's schools are well documented (and
endured by millions of children every day), and these deteriorating
school facilities contribute greatly to harmful environmental
exposures. As noted above, there is no system of environmental health
protection for children at school. The school environment is therefore
unique, and tragically, often fails in providing its most basic
function, that is providing a healthy and safe learning environment for
students, teachers and school staff.
the ``green'' or healthy and high performance school
One answer to this complex problem is to have schools well designed
from the start. Communities across the Nation are designing and
building healthy and high performance (or ``green'') schools that
create environments that improve learning, promote good health, are
easier to maintain, and cost less to operate than traditional school
facilities. Clean air, non-toxic building materials, daylighting and
full-spectrum lighting, state of the art thermal and acoustical
engineering and energy efficiency are incorporated into a holistic
design and comprehensive construction of a school. Demonstrated
benefits include improved student performance, improved child health,
improved student attendance and substantial operational savings. High
performance schools mitigate poor indoor air quality by using materials
that do not off-gas hazardous chemicals, by utilizing properly designed
ventilation and air conditioning systems, and focusing on preventative
maintenance. In addition to superior indoor air quality, healthy and
high performance schools provide improved student performance due to
better lighting, acoustics and thermal comfort. A healthy and high
performance school also saves up to 40 percent of the building's energy
costs over the lifetime of the facility. In addition, healthy and high
performance schools can be built at the same cost as conventional
school facilities. These schools then have an added benefit, saving
districts substantial funds in decreased energy and maintenance costs
over the life of the building.
Across the country, communities are building Healthy and High
Performance (``green'', sustainable) schools. Governors of both
California and New Jersey have issued Executive Orders requiring
schools to be built in accordance with High Performance/Green design
standards. The New York City Schools, our nation's largest district,
just adopted a Green Schools Guide blending USGBC's LEED-NC rating
system with elements of NY-CHPS, the NY Collaborative for High
Performance Schools design guidelines. Indeed the CHPS design model
that began in CAL and is adopted by Los Angeles and other large
districts, has now been adapted for use statewide into Washington, New
York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. These environmentally healthy
design protocols will impact billions of dollars of school construction
and major renovations. More states can and should do the same.
Indeed, school construction and school purchasing is a $730 billion
a year decentralized market taking place in thousands of local
communities. Imagine if all 54 million children in our Nation's 120,000
+ public and private schools had environmentally healthy buildings.
What a transformation! And a ready market for green-rated product
producers.
The health and learning benefits are known to Federal agencies, as
well as to high-end real estate developers. But what are the real
benefits to our children?
A new National Research Council report ``Green Schools: Attributes
for Health and Learning'' is an excellent review of the hard sciences.
Among the findings, that 'green' has not been well defined; but that
there is a ``robust literature'' in the impacts of healthy school
environments on children, on attendance, on achievement and behavior,
and on productivity. Bear in mind the virtual epidemic of children with
asthma, autism, auto-immune disorders, visual, auditory, and other
learning challenges in school every day, then consider:
Robust body of evidence linking health to IAQ
Some evidence linking IAQ to productivity and learning
There is an association between excessive moisture,
dampness, molds in buildings and adverse health outcomes
Key factors in IAQ: ventilation rate and effectiveness,
filter efficiency, temperature and humidity control, control of excess
moisture, O&M, maintenance
Indoor pollutants and allergens also linked to linked to
respiratory and asthma symptoms (HSN note--asthma is the leading
occupational disease of teachers and of custodians)
Reduced pollutant load (through increased ventilation and
filtration) has been shown to reduce occurrence of building-associated
symptoms
Work performance decreases with higher room temperatures
Green school lighting focuses on energy, not work
performance
Control glare when encouraging daylighting
Speaking and listening are key to learning
Sufficient evidence for inverse association between
excessive noise and student learning
Infection control in densely occupied spaces requires
cleaning and ventilation
More research will be helpful
Greening school design provides an extraordinarily cost-effective
way to enhance student learning, reduce health and operational costs
and, ultimately, increase school quality and competitiveness.--Gregory
Katz, Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits, October 2006,
Capital-E.
BACK TO BASICS. No one should be surprised that children do better
with a little fresh air and sunshine and a quiet place in which to
learn.
The federal agencies like EPA and Education and CDC are aware of
the impacts of unhealthy schools on children's health, and the National
Academy of Sciences has produced a tremendous report summarizing the
peer reviewed literature on the health and learning attributes of
schools, finding that healthy indoor environments produce benefits.
What should a parent, teacher, school principal or a local school
board member or school head do?
One way to get usable information into their hands quickly and to
accelerate the number of schools taking action is to encourage states
to become active. Thus my own organization and the participants in the
national Coalition are supporting The High Performance Green Buildings
Act that would establish a federal office and advisory committee on
green buildings.
Focusing on Title II, the Healthy and High Performance Schools
section, we find that it will address many of the issues raised today.
For example,
Grants to the states.--An important effort that will protect
taxpayers and protect children is to make sure that High Performance
Green buildings, once opened, stay green, and that localities don't
``lose'' any more school facilities due to poor siting, design,
construction, operations, or ill-informed maintenance practices. This
puts a premium on rapidly disseminating U.S. EPA's best practices for
healthy indoor environments, such as IAQ Tools for Schools and Healthy
SEAT into states and cities, thence into local schools, allowing State
agencies to mix and match energy, education, health, and construction
aid formulas for efficient and effective results.
Title II authorizes EPA to make grants to qualified State agencies
to develop comprehensive school environmental quality plans that
address critical issues in design, construction, siting, maintenance.
It also would allow states to identify problems and develop and
disseminate solutions.
Title II also directs EPA to develop model school siting
guidelines. Not one parent in the country wants their child to go to
school on a toxic waste site or in a swamp. Yet report after report has
found too many schools on such sites. Model guidelines for the siting
of schools would do much to alleviate the pressure to place schools on
compromised sites and would help communities reject proposals to place
hazards adjacent to or near existing schools.
Title II also directs EPA to issue guidelines for the states to
develop and implement environmental health programs for schools in
research and in children's health protection. One feature that is
critical to protecting children caught in unhealthy conditions is
encouraging the states to collaborate with the federally designated and
funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units in on-site
environmental investigations of schools. Adults and children often have
the same exposures in schools; children may outnumber adults in schools
by ten to one and are more vulnerable to these hazards. Yet adults can
call upon contracts, unions, OSHA, NIOSH, Labor Departments,
occupational health clinics and more, while children and families have
no such system of environmental health services anywhere. In the
aftermath of September 11th, with local schools contaminated by fumes
and debris, not one agency stepped in when schools were re-opened
without appropriate, full remediation. This gap in services has a
perverse effect, depriving everyone--schools, agencies, parents and
children--of independent, full and complete assessments of hazards.
(Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children's
Environmental Health, APHA, Healthy Schools Network, Bartlett and
Petrarca, 2002).
As advocates for children's environmental health, we have worked
diligently to promote Healthy and High Performance school design in the
federal government, in the State houses, in local districts and with
parents, teachers and school personnel across the country. There is now
burgeoning interest across the country in ``green'' building and design
as an essential part of our commitment to protect our environmental
heritage.
Yet the additional benefits for our children, their health, and
their educational experience from designing in features that are
health-protective, in contrast to resource efficient, is at least as
great.
The Bottom Line.--There is no downside to healthy and high
performance school design and operations. It improves children's
health, workers health, improves our environment, saves energy, and
saves money for education. As schools across the country are built,
rebuilt and renovated, we owe it to our children, their parents, their
sponsoring communities and the taxpayers to assure that they are
designed and built to specifications representing now proven state-of-
the-art healthy and high performance architectural standards.
A vote for healthy schools is a vote for children, for environment,
for education, for health, and for communities.
Thank you.
______
Coalition for Healthier Schools: Issue Statement
issue background.--improving children's health, learning, the
environment, and communities
Each day over 53 million school children and 6 million adults--20
percent of the entire U.S. population--enter our Nation's 120,000
school buildings to teach and learn. Unfortunately, in too many cases,
they enter ``unhealthy'' school buildings,'' that undermine learning
and health. Many school facilities have been poorly maintained and
thousands of our Nation's schools remain severely overcrowded. Schools
are often sited next to industrial plants or on abandoned landfills;
new schools are built beyond safe walking or biking distance for
students. In a recent five-state survey, more than 1,100 public schools
were built with in a half-mile of a toxic waste site. Polluted indoor
air, toxic chemical and pesticide use, growing molds, lead in paint and
drinking water, and asbestos are also factors that impact the health of
our nation's students and school staff. These problems contribute to
absenteeism, student medication use, learning difficulties, sick
building syndrome, staff turnover, and greater liability for school
districts. The U.S. Energy Dept. found schools could save billions of
dollars by installing energy efficient heating systems.
32 million children at elevated risk of health problems caused by
decayed schools (Lessons Learned, 2006). According to U.S. EPA,
``Studies show that one-half of our nation's schools have problems
linked to indoor air quality. Students, teachers and staff are at
greater risk because of the hours spent in school facilities and
because children are especially susceptible to pollutants.'' Schools
are also more densely occupied and more intensively used than offices,
which contribute to the overall problem. Asthma is the leading cause of
school absenteeism and the leading occupational disease among teachers
and custodians. The increase in asthma problems is particularly acute
in urban areas with large numbers of African-American, Hispanic
American and other minority students. Children with preexisting health,
learning, or other special needs may be at greater risk.
Federal agencies, states, communities, and education officials must
improve school environmental quality. Federal agencies are well aware
that ``high performance school'' design and construction and
environmental management of facilities can produce healthier learning
environments. Key policy and program reforms include siting, design and
construction, and environmental management on issues such as ``green
cleaning'' and least-toxic pest control, as well as preventive repairs
that preserve neighborhood infrastructure and center communities on
children's needs.
At a time when this Nation is committed to raising the academic
performance of all children, it is essential that the federal agencies
provide the knowledge, leadership and technical assistance that states,
cities, and schools need to ensure that every child, every school
employee, and every community has environmentally safe and healthy
schools that are clean and in good repair.
Statement Sponsors: American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Alliance for Healthy Homes, American Lung
Association, American Public Health Association, Beyond Pesticides,
Children's Environmental Health Network, Connecticut Foundation for
Environmentally Safe Schools, Environmental Defense, Funders Forum on
Environment and Education, Healthy Child Healthy World (CHEC), Healthy
Kids: The Key to Basics (MA), Healthy Schools Network, Improving Kids
Environment (IN), Institute for Children's Environmental Health,
Learning Disabilities Association of America, Marin Golden Gate
Learning Disabilities Association (CA), Massachusetts Healthy Schools
Network, National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, National
Education Association, National Education Association/Health
Information Network, National PTA, Natural Resources Defense Council,
New Jersey Work Environment Council, New Jersey Environmental
Federation, Oregon Environmental Council, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Public Education Network, 21st Century Schools Fund,
West Harlem Environmental Action, League of Conservation Voters,
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, National Association
of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Apollo Alliance, and 500 more groups
and individuals, as of April 2007.
references
Federal Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register: April
23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 78), http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/
eo13045.htm. Renewed 4/18/2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2003/04/20030418-10.html)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/schools for an
extensive listing of EPA programs, also http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
schooldesign/introduction.html. Also see EPA's ``Healthy School
Environments Assessment Tool'' (SEAT) at www.epa.gov/schools for
assessing the conditions and practices of school buildings and
identifying priority actions based on federal laws and best practices.
Building Healthy, High Performance Schools: A review of Selected
State and Local Initiatives, Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law
Institute, 2003 (http://www.elistore.org/reports--
details.asp?ID=10925&topic=Indoor--Environments)
The Collaborative for High Performance Schools, (http://
www.chps.net/). CHPS Best Practices Manual: Volumes I-IV. http://
www.chps.net/manual/index.htm#v4, Collaborative for High Performance
Schools, CA, 2004. TO ORDER: Collaborative for High Performance
Schools, c/o Eley Associates, 142 Minna St., San Francisco, CA 94105.
Tel: (877) 642-2477.
The Green Book, 2nd ed., American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee
on Environmental Health, 2003, see http://www.aap.org/visit/cmte16.htm
Science-Based Recommendations to Prevent or Reduce Potential
Exposure to Biological, Chemical, and Physical Agents in Schools, Derek
G. Shendell, et al., Journal of School Health--December 2004, Vol. 74,
No. 10, a review of peer-reviewed publications and proceedings.
``Healthy and High Performance Schools Act'', Sec. 5414 ff, No
Child Left Behind, defines healthy and high performance school and
authorizes a federal grant program to the states to implement local
information and technical assistance program; mandates Study of
National Significance on Unhealthy School Buildings.
A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects on Indoor
Environments on Student's Health, Academic Performance and Attendance,
2004, U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Doc
#2004-06, Washington, DDDC, 2004., prepared for Congress pursuant to
HHPS/NCLB.
Healthier Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor
Air Quality, Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law Institute, Jan. 2002
(http://www.elistore.org/reports--
detail.asp?ID=56&topic=Environmental--Health
Do Indoor Pollutants and Thermal Conditions In Schools Influence
Student Performance? A Critical review of the Literature, M.J. Mendell,
G.A. Heath, Indoor Air, Volume 15 Issue 1 Page 27-January 2005
``Learning the Hard Way'', Jn 2002 cover story, Environmental
Health Perspectives, Journal of the Natl. Inst. of Env. Health
Sciences, online at http://www.healthyschools.org/
Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children's
Environmental Health, Sarah Bartlett and John Petrarca, American Public
Health Association and Healthy Schools Network, 2002, 300 pp. Order
through Healthy Schools Network or APHA.
Creating Safe Learning Zones: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions,
Center for Health, Environment and Justice, 2001, for sample policies
and GIS maps on schools built on or near Superfund and other hazardous
site. http://www.childproofing.org/cslzindex.html
Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, Mark Schneider,
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2002, at http://
www.edfacilities.org or call 888-552-0624.
Lessons Learned, 32,000,000 Children: Victims of a Public Health
Crisis, Healthy Schools Network, Inc., April 2006. http://
healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html
New York State School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement,
and Attendance: A Data Analysis Report, Healthy Schools Network, Inc.,
2005. http://healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html
Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, National
Research Council of the National Academy of Science, 2006. http://
books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record--id=11756
Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits, Gregory Katz,
Capital E, October 2006. http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/
O59F9819.pdf
Who's Sick at School: Linking Poor School Conditions and Health
Disparities for Boston's Children, MassCOSH, March 2006. http://
www.masscosh.org/SchoolsReport.pdf
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Barnett.
Shocking results on the plus side can result from these
changes, from these improvements. If we want to look at this in
an appropriate way, we look at our children and see what we
want for them. Pretty simple.
Mr. Tonjes.
STATEMENT OF RAY TONJES, CHAIRMAN, GREEN BUILDING SUBCOMMITTEE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Tonjes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ray Tonjes, and I
am a custom builder from Austin, TX, and I am chairman of the
Green Building Subcommittee of the National Association of Home
Builders.
NAHB represents over 235,000 members who employ millions of
individuals in the homebuilding, remodeling, multi-family, and
light commercial construction industry. I am here to talk about
the success that I and my fellow builders have had in
cultivating the progressive green building program that
produces sustainable energy and resource-efficient homes
throughout the Country.
NAHB members build more than 80 percent of all new homes,
and by the end of 2007, more than half of NAHB members will be
incorporating green building practices into the development,
design and construction of these new homes.
Because housing represents 16 percent of our Nation's gross
domestic product, homebuilders have the potential to profoundly
affect sustainability, conserve precious natural resources, and
preserve our environment.
NAHB members are true leaders in the green building
movement. Acting with the help of over 850 State and local
homebuilders' associations, NAHB members have been implementing
green building practices since the term ``green building'' was
coined in 1991. According to McGraw Hill, about 10 percent of
the homes built in 2010 will be green homes, which is a major
jump from just 2 percent in 2006.
Being green means more than a tankless water heater or a
little extra insulation in the attic. Green building is how a
home exists on the land, conserves resources, and provides a
healthy indoor environment for its residents. Green building
means making an intentional decision to positively impact
energy efficiency, preserve resources, and to reduce and
recycle waste throughout the entire design and construction
process and for the life of the home.
How do we get there? In 2005, NAHB, along with more than 60
stakeholders, including environmentalists, builders, product
manufacturers, and designers, agreed upon a number of criteria
that can guide builders on how to construct a green home. These
model green homebuilding guidelines were developed for use by
any builder. The guidelines are free and NAHB does not profit
in any way from their use.
To date, 18 State and local homebuilder associations have
adopted programs based on the guidelines, and dozens more are
in development. Some of these have already been endorsed by
State and local governments. The net effect is thousands of
homes are being built to these green criteria.
The six guiding principles of the guidelines, which are
outlined in my written testimony, include lot development,
energy and resource efficiency, water conservation, indoor
environmental quality, and homeowner education, which includes
operation and maintenance.
NAHB has proactively adopted a policy of promoting green
building as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NAHB
has partnered with the International Code Council, the Nation's
preeminent authority for building codes, to produce and develop
the first and only national green building standard for
residential construction. The standard will be accredited by
the American National Standards Institute. It will be an
industry-wide, consensus-based, and certifiable benchmark for
all residential construction types. This includes single
family, multi-family, remodeling, and land development.
The committee that is developing the standard includes
members from the U.S. EPA, the Department of Energy, the U.S.
Navy, many State and local housing agencies, product
manufacturers, and nongovernmental green building
organizations, including those represented here today.
Finally, the committee includes small custom builders like
myself and remodelers, and one of the Nation's largest
production builders. Both members and the general public have
the opportunity to influence the development of the standard.
Once published, the standard will be periodically reviewed and
revised to ensure its rigor and integrity.
Many viable green building programs already exist and more
are likely to come as we address the challenge of climate
change. Healthy competition in the burgeoning market will only
continue to drive its growth and innovation, as well as keep
costs down for home buyers so that green homes are affordable
and people can easily make the green choice.
NAHB urges Congress to preserve competition in the emerging
green building arena. NAHB's next step is the development of a
national green building program that will not only support the
standards I mentioned earlier, but will also help State and
local governments to implement green building practices. The
housing industry's commitment to increasing energy and resource
efficiency in home construction is demonstrated by the
development of the national green building standard and a
national program based on that standard.
On behalf of the Nation's home builders, I thank you for
the opportunity to speak here today about our industry's
advances in green building and our ongoing efforts to protect
and preserve our environment.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonjes follows:]
Statement of Ray Tonjes, Chairman, Green Building Subcommittee,
National Association of Home Builders
Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). My name is Ray Tonjes
and I am the Chairman of the Green Building Subcommittee at NAHB,
representing 235,000 thousand corporate members that, in turn, employ
millions of individuals in the home building, remodeling, multifamily
construction, property management, subcontracting, design, housing
finance, building product manufacturing, and light commercial
construction industries. As a custom home builder, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about the successes that I, and my fellow builders,
have made in cultivating a progressive green building program that is
producing sustainable energy- and resource-efficient homes throughout
the United States.
introduction
NAHB members currently build about 80 percent of all new units in
the United States and, by the end of 2007, more than half of NAHB's
members will be incorporating green practices into the development,
design, and construction of these new units. This is a significant and
important fact because housing comprises 16 percent of the U.S. GDP.
The impact of housing on the economy of the United States is
substantial, and by encouraging growth in green building, our nation's
home builders have the potential to profoundly affect sustainability
and conserve precious natural resources and our environment.
NAHB members are leaders in the green building movement and were
active on this effort long before the recent media interest in climate
change and global warming. NAHB has been working on green building
alongside its 800+ State and local Home Builder Associations (HBAs) for
nearly a decade, which is longer than many other green building
advocates have even existed. In fact, NAHB will be hosting its 10th
Annual National Green Building Conference in New Orleans next year and
has consistently been ahead of the curve in promoting and developing
energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly construction techniques
for the mainstream home builder.
Based on a survey of NAHB home builders conducted last year by
McGrawHill Construction, about 10 percent of the homes built in 2010
are expected to be green, containing at least three of five green
building elements. Being green means much more than a tankless water
heater and a little extra insulation in the attic, it is a holistic
approach to how the home exists on the land with the least impact, how
conservatively it uses resources; and how it provides healthy, safe,
and decent shelter to the resident. Simply put, building greener is
building better. It means making intentional decisions that positively
impact energy efficiency, resource conservation and indoor
environmental quality throughout the entire design and construction
process. Green means doing the right thing for the builder, the
homeowner, and, most importantly, the environment.
The recent strength and growth of green building is due in large
part to its voluntary nature, which provides builders and developers
the flexibility that is essential for incorporating the principles of
sustainable design in innovative ways to construct a home that is both
environmentally sound and affordable to homebuyers. Green home building
will continue to be an important component and because of the current
flexibility in green building options, builders will be able to
successfully adjust to the shifting market demand for greener homes.
national green building standard
Working with more than 60 industry stakeholders, in January 2005
NAHB completed the Model Green Home Building Guidelines (the
Guidelines). The Guidelines are a product of a year-long, consensus-
based process involving input from architects and designers,
environmentalists, builders, research consortia, and building product
manufacturers. The shining hallmark of the Guidelines is that every
aspect of the construction industry was involved in forming these
criteria so that every builder, large and small, could easily adopt the
practices. The Guidelines truly are designed for every builder, and
they address 100 percent of America's housing stock. Most importantly,
NAHB makes absolutely no profit from the promulgation of the
Guidelines; they are entirely free of charge. I am proud to report that
all of the benefits reaped from building a green home with the
Guidelines go directly to the homeowner and, ultimately, to our
environment.
The voluntary Guidelines contain six guiding principles that offer
a variety of distinct line items from which builders (and operating
HBAs) can choose, allowing them to be customized to reflect local
geographic and climate conditions. These principles include the
following:
Lot Design, Preparation, and Development.--Resource-
efficient site design and development practices help reduce the
environmental impacts and improve the energy performance of new homes.
Siting that saves trees, incorporates onsite storm water retention/
infiltration features, and orients the home to maximize passive solar
heating and cooling are essential elements used in planning a green
home.
Resource Efficiency.--Most successful green homes start at
the design phase, which includes the selection of materials to be used
in its construction. For example, engineered-wood products can help
optimize material resources because more than 50 percent of the log is
converted into structural lumber rather than conventional dimensional
lumber.
Resource efficiency also means reducing job-site waste by
developing construction waste management plans. These waste management
plans, which includes recycling, can reduce normal average construction
waste by at least two-thirds, thus reducing the burden on landfill
space. Lastly, performing life-cycle analysis (LCA) on building
materials will help to determine a more accurate impact on the
environment, since materials can be renewable, yet can be very energy-
intensive when considering their transport to job-sites, for example.
The LCA process involves a ``cradle to grade'' philosophy and covers
how the material is recovered, the product manufacturing process, the
home building process, the maintenance and operation, the home
demolition, and product reuse, recycling, and disposal. All of these
facets combine to help builders choose the most resource-efficient
products that have the least impact on the environment throughout the
life of the home.
Energy Efficiency.--Energy consumption has profound
impacts on our environment, from the mining of fossil fuels to the
emissions of burning non-renewable energy sources. The impact of a
home's energy use over time is a significant factor in how that home
will impact the environment. Therefore, energy efficiency is heavily
weighted in any green building program. The greatest results in energy
efficiency come from a ``whole systems'' approach. Energy performance
does not end with just increasing insulation, using renewable energy,
or upgrading the HVAC equipment. Green homes must have a balance
between these features and careful window placement, building envelope
air sealing, duct sealing, and proper placement of air and vapor
barriers from the foundation up to the attic. Once these features are
incorporated into the green home, then it will truly be high-
performing, energy efficient, less-expensive to operate, and more
comfortable to live in than a conventionally-constructed home.
Water Conservation.--Implementing water conservation
measures can reduce mean per capita water usage from 64 gallons per day
to 45 gallons per day. Thus, green homes are especially welcome in
areas affected by long- and short-term water supply issues. Green homes
conserve water both inside and outside the home with more efficient
water delivery systems, native and drought-resistant landscaping, and
careful treatment of storm water and wastewater in the construction
process. In fact, some communities gain additional benefits from
builders using native species in landscaping and filtering and removing
contaminants from storm water and wastewater in a green home.
Indoor Environmental Quality.--Healthy indoor environments
are another hallmark of green building. Following energy efficiency,
the quality of a home's indoor air is often recognized as the most
important feature of a green home. Increases in reported allergies and
respiratory issues, and the use of chemicals that can emit gas from
building materials have contributed to an increased awareness of the
air that is breathed inside the home. Although no official
authoritative definition exists of what healthy indoor air means, there
are measures that green home builders can take to mitigate the effects
of potential contaminants by controlling the source, diluting the
source, or capturing some of the source through filtration.
Operation, Maintenance, and Homeowner Education.--
Inadequate or improper maintenance of a green home can defeat the
designer and builder's best efforts to create a resource-efficient
home. Failing to change air filters regularly, or neglecting to use
kitchen and bath exhaust fans in moist air, are very common mistakes
most homeowners make. Also, many homeowners are unaware of the impact
of using common substances in and around the home, such as pesticides,
fertilizers, and even common cleaning agents. By giving homeowners a
manual that explains proper operation and maintenance procedures,
includes information on alternatives to toxic cleaning substances and
lawn and garden chemicals, and directs them to water-saving practices,
a green home builder can help assure that the home functions as
carefully as it was constructed, in an environmentally-responsible
manner.
Since its publication, the Guidelines have been successfully
implemented by 18 State and local HBAs around the country, with the
demand growing each day for new programs. Working off of this
overwhelming success, NAHB agreed to collaborate with the International
Code Council (ICC) in February 2007 to establish the first and only
national residential green building standard that will be certified and
accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Based
on the NAHB Guidelines, this standard will serve as the only consensus-
based industry standard for residential green construction in the
United States.
As a national standard, ANSI requires consensus-based decision-
making, opportunity for public comment, and other processes to help
guarantee that the standard is acceptable to all members of the home
building industry, as well as to those who regulate them. This process
involves full participation from interested stakeholders who volunteer
to sit on a Consensus Committee, and who provide advice and counsel on
how to build a green home, how to verify and certify its integrity, and
how to continuously update the standard to ensure improvement and
rigor. A membership roster of the official Consensus Committee of the
National Green Building Standard is attached to my statement.
You will note on this roster the membership of the U.S. Green
Building Council, the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Energy, numerous city and State housing officials,
product manufacturers, insulation manufacturers, architects, and some
of the Nation's largest production home builders. All members provide
their insight and input into this very open and transparent process. In
fact, prior to the inaugural meeting of the Consensus Committee, on
April 19-20, 2007, the NAHB Research Center, an ANSI-accredited
research organization that is serving as the Secretariat for the
standard, had received over 250 individual comments to the first draft.
A few of the benchmarks that could go into the Nation green
building standard upon committee agreement include:
Demonstration that the home's heating and cooling units
are correctly sized, according to the Air Conditioning Contractor's of
America's Manual J, or another reference guide, to achieve minimum
energy efficiencies
Achievement of minimum requirements set by the
International Code Council's International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC)
Requirement for third-party review to verify design and
compliance with an established energy efficiency program, such as
Energy Star
Existence of many options for builders to achieve targets,
by scoring points, in order to reach various compliance levels, i.e.,
embedded flexibility
The consensus process is advanced by the activity of ``Task
Groups'' that serve the purpose of providing expertise on the specific
topical areas for the standard. There are currently seven task groups:
Administration and Points, Site Development and Global Impact, Resource
Efficiency and Owner Education, Water Efficiency and Indoor Air
Quality, Energy Efficiency, Multifamily, and Remodeling. These groups
each review drafts of the standard and provide proposed changes in
their specific areas that are then presented to the full Consensus
Committee for consideration. The Consensus Committee has already held
its first meeting in April 2007 and is scheduled to meet again in July
in Washington, D.C.
Normally, standards development processes can take one to two years
to complete, given the extensive public input that requires full
consideration. However, the need to develop appropriate strategies to
address growing environmental challenges like climate change has
motivated our industry to commit to a fast-tracked standards process
because we believe that it simply cannot be put off any longer. Because
the Guidelines were developed in concert with such a large and diverse
group of stakeholders, we can accelerate this process while still
allowing time for required public comment.
Encompassing single- and multi-family construction, remodeling, and
land development, the National Green Building Standard is expected to
be completed in early 2008, an indication of the level of urgency with
which the industry is approaching and addressing the issue. I am proud
of the continued effort of the home building community to create the
first comprehensive residential green construction standard that not
only informs builders on how to build green, but also educates
homeowners on how to operate their home in an energy- and resource-
efficient manner. Ultimately, the goal is to develop a standard that is
flexible enough to adjust to the various resource and energy concerns
in the varying climate zones around the country, while at the same time
encouraging continued innovation in green technology that is already
dramatically shifting the market. Green building should continue to
exist in its most flexible form.
national green building program
In order to address the most pressing environmental challenge of
our time, climate change, the Board of Directors of the NAHB
established policy to proactively seek to contribute to efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a national green
building program. With this charge, NAHB members have stepped up their
national campaign to inform the public about the innumerable benefits
of green building and sustainability in housing design. In this
program, there is a substantial effort to market the green building
standard as an effective alternative, and to monitor State and local
legislative and regulatory activity to ensure builders retain the right
to choose from the myriad of green building options and are not
restricted to the sole use of one branded product over another. Viable
green alternatives exist in the market today in both residential and
commercial construction.
NAHB is poised to make a substantial dollar investment in a
National Green Building Program. The NAHB National Green Building
Program will help push the green building envelope and encourage
innovation in green construction for the millions of homes that are
waiting to be built. As one architect recently stated at the NAHB
National Green Building Conference in St. Louis, Missouri, by mandating
one green building program to the exclusion of others, you create a
``race to the bottom.'' At a time when the challenge of climate change
is moving people to live, work, and function in a more environmentally
responsible way, we need to have options to force green building
technology to its limit. NAHB's National Green Building Program will
provide those options for all builders and, most importantly, will seek
to inform current homeowners about how they can improve existing homes
with green remodeling, making home occupation and maintenance just as
efficient as new home construction.
recommendations/outlook
As the committee reviews options for passing green building
legislation that will help guide the federal government towards
sustainability in design and construction principles, it is important
to consider the incredible momentum and green building success stories
that are already moving the market forward. The daunting task of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and homes is already
beginning and the stewardship of the Congress in this matter will be
increasingly important. Congress has the great opportunity to create
avenues for extensive innovation in green construction by keeping the
market fluid, free of mandates, and striving towards the greatest
energy- and resource-efficient buildings available.
The green building movement is shaping our industry in a tremendous
way. To date, there have been more than 2,000 homes certified to
Guidelines-based programs with thousands more in the pipeline. The
healthy competition in the market is driving demand. Within three
years, almost 10 percent of this nation's new homes will be green. As
consumer awareness and education increases, and as green supplies and
materials become easier to obtain, more and more builders will take
advantage of educational opportunities offered by NAHB and other
organizations.
Above all, NAHB cautions the Committee and Congress against
mandating only one green rating system to the exclusion of others.
Green practices and sustainability are incredibly important in the
battle against climate change, and we feel that builders need to have
access to as many options as possible. Many green building alternatives
already exist, and with awareness increasing every day about the
benefits of green homes, additional programs are likely to be added in
the marketplace.
conclusion
NAHB members have shown that green building is both proactive and
profitable, primarily because current programs have been allowed to
thrive and shift and mold to meet specific conservation needs in a
geographic area. Our industry's commitment to developing a rigorous
standard, with valuable input from diverse disciplines, will produce
certifiable benchmarks for measuring a home's energy and resource
efficiency for years to come. The standard will also include a green
remodeling component to address the serious needs of upgrading existing
homes, many of which were not built with energy or resource efficiency
in mind. NAHB believes that there must be a viable path to elevate the
120 million existing homes into greater environmental and energy
efficient operation. The National Green Building Standard can provide
that pathway.
NAHB supports and encourages energy efficiency and green building.
We support a national green building program that is flexible and
market-driven, encourages continued growth in green construction that
protects options for builders in all markets, as well as preserves,
protects, and promotes the health of our environment. Home builders are
having great success with the green building movement, in which they
have been engaged for years. The commitment of the home building
industry to energy and resource efficiency in construction is evidenced
by our Guidelines, the development of the first and only residential
green building standard, and our national campaign. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the National Association of Home
Builders. I look forward to any questions you may have for me.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response by Ray Tonjes to an Additional Question from Senator Sanders
Question. In your testimonies you talk about the ``green building''
work being done by the National Association of Home Builders through
the Green Building Initiative. You fail, however, to give details about
what this means, such as, how much energy has been saved, how much
water has been saved, what are the reductions in CO2
emissions, how much have you improved indoor air quality, etc. What
concrete changes can you point to from your ``green building''
practices?
Response. NAHB members construct more than 80 percent of all new
homes in the United States and have been incorporating green and
sustainable design practices into residential construction for more
than 10 years. Assisted by more than 800 State and local associations,
NAHB has been working to grow local green building programs throughout
the United States. To date, more than 100,000 green homes have been
built and more than 50 State and local voluntary green building
programs have been initiated, twenty of which are based on NAHB's Model
Green Home Building Guidelines.
NAHB does not operate its green building programs ``through'' the
Green Building Initiative (GBI), as indicated above. 0131 is a separate
entity that has promoted the Model Green Home Budding Guidelines on
behalf of NABS. NAHB's programs and leadership in green building
promotion and education are independent of GBI.
Energy Savings.--Green homes are consistently above code,
performing at energy savings criteria based on the following tiered-
achievement levels:
Bronze Level = 15 percent energy savings above the 2003
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Silver Level = 30 percent energy savings above the 2003
IECC
Gold Level = 40 percent energy savings above the 2003 IECC
At the very least, green homes are achieving 15 percent above the
most aggressive energy code available at the time of development of the
Model Green Home Building Guidelines. Homes at the bronze level use
substantially less energy for heating, cooling, and water heating,
delivering $200 to $400 in annual savings. Most likely, the energy and
dollar savings are much more significant because many are being built
at the higher Silver and Gold level.
Water Savings.--As identified in the criteria of the Model Green
home Building Guidelines, implementing water conservation measures can
save as much as 19 gallons of water per day for each green home, as
compared to an average home. These savings come from using more
efficient delivery systems, incorporating native and drought-resistant
landscaping, and careful treatment of stormwater and wastewater in the
construction process.
Indoor Air Quality.--Since there is no ``official'' authoritative
definition by which ``healthy'' indoor air can be measured, it in
difficult to quantify air quality improvements in green homes. However,
builders do use specific measures in green home construction that can
purposefully mitigate the effects of potential indoor air contaminants
by controlling, diluting, or capturing source pollution inside the
home.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions.--While a mechanism to measure carbon
reductions does not currently exist in the framework of the Model Green
Home Building Guidelines, NAHB is working with the other stakeholders
to develop a carbon calculator that will be part of the National Green
Building Standard, and will also be incorporated into NAHB's National
Green Building Program. This will give builders and consumers clear and
quantifiable data regarding CO2 emissions reductions and
will be able to verify actual reductions in CO2 emissions as
compared to an average home.
Responses by Ray Tonjes to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. What are the potential benefits to both contractors and
consumers of using the Model Green Home Building Guidelines in the
construction of new homes, and how do these guidelines compare to the
LEED system?
The first and most significant benefit to contractors using the
Model Green Home Building Guidelines is the flexibility embodied in the
criteria. Because there are no rigid limits to efficiency targets,
builders and contractors can push the envelope and modify various part
of the home's construction and performance to achieve sustainability.
There are many ways, using a number of different products and
practices, to achieve the green targets in the Guidelines. The LEED for
Home (LEED-H) program is a one-size-fits-all approach with numerous
mandatory measures, limiting flexibility and increasing costs to
homebuyers. The Guidelines are designed to assist the mainstream home
builder, whereas LEED-H is developed for ``the top 25 percent of homes
with best practice environmental features,'' according to the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC). Lastly, the Guidelines are flee and
open to public use, providing no profit to NAHB NAHB encourages
investment directly into sustainability. The LEED-H program, on the
other hand, includes documentation and verification fees that can be as
high as $3,000. That investment goes directly to the USGBC and its
providers and does nothing to improve the resource efficiency of the
home. Attached to this response is a side-by-side comparison, so that
you can more accurately compare the Guidelines with the LEED-H.
Question 2. Why is a consensus-based approach important in
formulating green building standards?
Response. A consensus-based approach is critical to formulating
green building standards because it provides for input from a broad
range of industry stakeholders--such as government agencies, academia,
builders, building owners, and manufacturers--thus ensuring success.
Also, the allowance of public review and scrutiny ensures that all
interested parties are given an opportunity to shape the outcome, so
that the integrity of the benchmarks is never in question. By allowing
the public, the government, and industry to have transparency into the
process. it is ensured that certain interests are not unfairly favored
over others. Furthermore, this transparent and consensus- based process
exists for many construction standards, both in the residential and
commercial sector. These standards, and numerous others, are accredited
by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the oversight
authority on standards development.
Question 3. What effect on Green Building innovation would
mandating a single standard at the Federal level have?
Response. A competitive market process enables green building to
continually improve by both responding to the needs of consumers and
builders and adjusting to new technology. By mandating a single
standard at the federal level, the government would effectively limit
innovation in green building and sustainable design as builders would
struggle to use mandatory products and practices that may or may not be
cost-effective, or easy to access. Mandates reduce the incentive for
green building rating systems to adapt and change to meet the demands
of the market. Choosing or emphasizing a singular rating system to the
exclusion of others virtually ensures that builders will be given only
one option for constructing sustainable homes. As one architect stated,
``mandating one green building system is a race to the bottom,''
leaving builders with no impetus to strive towards newer technologies,
greater efficiencies, or better products.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hubbell, I will call on you now, please.
STATEMENT OF WARD HUBBELL, PRESIDENT, GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE
Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the benefits of green
buildings. I am Ward Hubbell, president of the Green Building
Initiative.
Founded in 2003, the Green Building Initiative, or the GBI,
is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to accelerating the
practice of designing and maintaining more energy efficient,
healthier, and more environmentally sensitive buildings
throughout the Nation. We work in both the residential and
commercial sectors.
Our work in the residential sector revolves around our
relationship with the National Association of Home Builders to
educate builders and promote the NAHB's model green home
guidelines for residential construction. These guidelines,
developed through an inclusive and rigorous process, are fast
becoming the accepted approach for residential green building
throughout the Nation. We are proud to work with the NAHB and
commend them for their leadership in this area.
For commercial buildings, we offer state-of-the-art
interactive web-based tools to facilitate the design and
maintenance of sustainable commercial buildings. This portfolio
of tools, widely used in Canada and known as Green Globes, has
been enthusiastically received in the United States since we
introduced it in 2004. Green Globes has been officially
recognized by six State legislatures, piloted by several
Federal agencies, and is being used on more than 300 public and
private sector buildings throughout the Nation.
With Green Globes for new construction, not only can a
building achieve an environmental rating that is verified by an
independent third party, but too can also assist designers and
architects in selecting the right environmental strategy for
their particular project. By using its companion system, Green
Globes for the continual improvement of existing buildings,
building operators can monitor the performance of their
buildings to ensure that the enhanced environmental design
actually equates to better performance.
A full description of these tools, their origins, and our
third party assessment processes are included in my written
testimony.
The entrance of the GBI and the groundbreaking work of the
National Association of Home Builders not only complements the
good work of other private organizations such as the U.S. Green
Building Council, but it also creates a very healthy
competitive dynamic that has served to stimulate some exciting
advancements in the green building arena, for example, a
movement toward the development of true consensus standards for
green building.
The GBI became the first organization of its kind to
subject its ratings system to the rigors of a recognized
consensus organization and we expect to establish Green Globes
as an American national standard early next year. Other
organizations have since pursued a similar path.
Another example is the creation of practical, user-friendly
tools to allow for the consideration of the cradle to grave
environmental impacts of materials used in construction. With a
life cycle assessment tool recently developed by the GBI,
designers can now know the total energy, air, water, solid
waste, and climate change impacts of the products they use. We
are not only incorporating this data into our own rating
system, but we have also offered it free of charge to any other
rating organization or government entity that would like to
incorporate it.
We also believe our user friendly interactive platform has
made it possible for a greater number of projects to be built
to green standards and has encouraged the increasing use of
technology in other rating systems.
As this committee begins the important work of developing
policy to help green the Nation's built environment, I would
offer several observations for your consideration. First, green
design is vitally important, but it is only part of the
equation. Effective building operation and maintenance is
necessary to ensure a sustainable built environment. Just as
one can purchase a superbly designed vehicle, performance will
greatly depend on how often one changes the spark plugs,
rotates the tires, and drives it in for a tuneup. The same
principle applies to buildings.
Second, while environmental attributes such as durability,
recycle content and short-term renewability are all important
considerations, we must ultimately make decisions about the
products we use based on a sound understanding of their total
environmental impact. Good data on life cycle assessments can
help us achieve our goal of carbon-neutral buildings.
Finally, buildings are a big part of our climate problem.
Public policy should harness the powers of competition to help
solve it. Organizations such as the GBI, the National
Association of Home Builders, the American Institute of
Architects, and the U.S. Green Building Council and others are
all working in various ways to develop approaches to measure,
incentivize and promote green building. This competitive
dynamic has already stimulated improvement in the field and is
essential for the further advancement of the green building
movement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbell follows:]
Statement of Ward Hubbell, President, Green Building Initiative
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to showcase the benefits of green
buildings, as well as highlight the work of the Green Building
Initiative (GBI).
The Green Building Initiative is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) public
charity dedicated to accelerating the practice of designing and
maintaining more energy efficient, healthier and less environmentally-
impactful buildings.
Our organization was founded in 2003, initially to facilitate the
adoption of the National Association of Home Builders Model Green Home
guidelines for residential construction. These guidelines, developed
through an inclusive and rigorous process, are fast becoming the
accepted approach for residential green building nationwide. The NAHB
developed their guidelines by following procedures approved by the
American National Standards Institute--or ANSI--and now are on a path
to develop the first true consensus standard for residential green
building. We are proud to work with the NAHB and commend them for their
leadership in this area.
In addition to our work with the NAHB, we also offer systems to
facilitate the sustainable design, development and maintenance of
commercial buildings. Green Globes--widely used in Canada--was brought
to the U.S. market by GBI. It is a portfolio of interactive, Web-based
design and building performance tools that enable designers to evaluate
environmental strategies for their buildings and achieve ratings that
are verified by an independent third-party. A full description of these
tools, their origins and our third party assessment processes are
included below.
The creation of the GBI and the groundbreaking work of the NAHB not
only complements the good work of other private organizations such as
the U.S. Green Building Council, but also creates a very healthy and
competitive dynamic that has served to stimulate some exciting
advancements in the green building arena. These include:
Movement toward the development of true consensus
standards for green building. The GBI became the first organization of
its kind to subject a rating system to the rigors of an independent,
third-party, codified and consensus process under the rules of the
ANSI. Other organizations have since pursued a similar path.
The creation of practical, user-friendly tools to allow
owners and designers to consider the ``cradle-to-grave'' environmental
impact of materials used in construction. With life cycle assessment
tools recently developed by the GBI, designers can now make decisions
based on the energy, air, water, solid waste and climate change impacts
of more than 400 commonly used building assemblies. We're incorporating
this data into our own rating system, and we've also offered it free of
charge to any other rating organization or government entity that would
like to utilize it.
Stimulating the increased use of technology in green
assessment. The Green Globes interactive platform has helped make green
design and assessment both cost-effective and user-friendly. This has
made it possible for a greater number of projects to be built to green
standards and has encouraged the increasing use of technology in other
rating systems.
As this committee begins the important work of developing policy to
help green the nation's built environment, I would offer several
observations for your consideration.
1. Green design is vitally important, but it is only part of the
equation. Effective building operation and maintenance is necessary to
ensure a sustainable built environment. Just as one can purchase a
superbly designed vehicle, performance will greatly depend on how often
one changes the spark plugs, rotates the tires and drives in for a tune
up. The same principle applies to buildings. That's why the GBI offers
Green Globes tools to facilitate and certify building design as well as
building operation and maintenance.
2. While environmental attributes--such as durability, recycled
content and short term renewability--are all important considerations,
we must ultimately make decisions about the products we use based on a
sound understanding of their lifetime environmental impact. Good life
cycle assessment data can help to achieve our goals of carbon neutral
buildings.
3. Finally, buildings are a big contributor to the problem of
climate change. Public policy should harness the powers of competition
to help the building sector contribute to a solution. Organizations
such as the GBI, the NAHB, the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, ASTM International and the U.S. Green
Building Council are all working in various ways to develop approaches
to measure, incentivize and promote green building. This competitive
dynamic has already stimulated improvement in the field and is
essential for the further advancement of the green building movement.
green building initiative background
The Green Building Initiative (GBI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
education organization based in Portland, Oregon. It was established to
accelerate the adoption of sustainable design and construction
practices by promoting credible and practical approaches to green
building for both residential and commercial construction.
I serve as President at the discretion of an independent, multi-
stakeholder board of directors comprised of construction professionals,
product manufacturers, non-profit organizations, university officials,
and other interested third parties. Each board member is allocated one
vote to guide the GBI, ensuring an equal balance of influence. For a
list of board members, please visit our Web site at www.thegbi.org.
In terms of funding, the GBI has benefited from the early support
of a core group of industries that are committed to advancing the green
building movement by creating a variety of credible options for their
builder customers. Since our inception, we have also worked tirelessly
to diversify our financial base through membership, training and other
initiatives. You can view the GBI's complete list of funders at
www.thegbi.org.
We have also long recognized the power of collaboration and have
tried to foster relationships with a variety of organizations related
to the built environment to help accelerate the acceptance of
sustainable design and construction in the marketplace. Some of the
organizations that we have worked with include:
American Institute of Architects
National Association of Home Builders
Associated General Contractors of America
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Building Owners and Managers Association
the mission of the gbi
The GBI is committed to helping promote green building by offering
credible and practical solutions to make green design, management and
assessment more accessible to a wider population of builders and
designers.
For residential construction, the GBI has a unique strategic
partnership with the NAHB. Our role is to promote the NAHB Model Green
Home Building Guidelines to residential construction professionals, and
to work with NAHB chapters, called home builder associations, to
develop and populate local green building programs based on the
national guidelines. We provide technical assistance, promotional and
marketing support, host educational seminars for builder members, and
conduct market research in an effort to spur sustainable development,
as well as consumer demand for green homes. To date, in partnership
with the NAHB and their local affiliates, the GBI has helped to develop
and launch local and State green building programs in 15 major markets
across the country. For a list of these programs, please visit
www.thegbi.org.
For commercial construction, the GBI owns the rights to promote and
distribute the Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system,
which was originally developed for the Canadian marketplace. Green
Globes is a revolutionary green management tool that features an
assessment protocol, rating system and guide for integrating
environmentally friendly design into commercial buildings. It features
modules for New Construction and the Continual Improvement of Existing
Buildings and facilitates recognition of completed projects through
third-party verification. The system is successful because it is
rigorous, yet easy to use and affordable. Due to its unique, Web-based
platform, the detailed information and references users need to design
sustainable, energy-efficient buildings are embedded within the system
providing the most relevant information at exactly the time it is
needed.
Innovation and Competition
The rating systems we promote--NAHB Model Green Home Building
Guidelines for residential construction and Green Globes for commercial
construction--have helped accelerate the adoption of green building
practices by driving advancements in green building rating systems.
In addition to supporting the diversity of buildings and building
professionals, we believe that competition will continue to do for
green building what it has done in countless other areas--drive
improvements, lower costs and benefit the ultimate consumer, which in
this case, is our shared environment.
The following initiatives are explained in more detail below, but,
in the last two years alone, GBI:
Became the first green building organization to be
accredited as a Standards Developing Organization (SDO) by ANSI and is
well into the process to establish our Green Globes system, as the
first commercial green rating system to become an ANSI standard.
Began pilot testing Green Globes for the Continual
Improvement of Existing Buildings to strengthen the link between
sustainable design objectives and actual building performance,
Developed the first tool for integrating life cycle
assessment (LCA)--considered to be the most effective way to compare
the environmental impacts of building materials and assemblies--into a
green rating system, and
Chose to advance the green movement as a whole by
supporting the development of a generic version of our LCA tool--the
ATHENA Eco-Calculator for Assemblies--which will soon be available
from the ATHENA Institute, free of charge, to the entire sustainable
design community.
GBI's status as an innovator was also reinforced by the AIA's and
Architecture 2030's recent call for climate change legislation based on
energy data generated through the Department of Energy's Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). Widely considered to be
the most accurate and reliable source of energy benchmarking
information, GBI and the EPA's Energy Star program are the only rating
systems that rely on this important database. Green Globes is unique in
its emphasis on using CBECS for both its design and existing buildings
modules--where it serves as the system's benchmark for measured
reductions in energy consumption.
green globes-history and credentials
The Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system
represents more than nine years of research and refinement by a wide
range of prominent international organizations and experts.
The genesis of the system was the Building Research Establishment's
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), which was brought to Canada
in 1996 in cooperation with ECD Energy and Environment. Pioneers of
this project included Jiri Skopek, John Doggart and Roger Baldwin, who
were the principal authors of the BREEAM Canada document.
In 1996, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) published BREEAM
Canada for Existing Buildings. More than 35 individuals participated in
its development, including representatives from the following
organizations:
Bell Canada
Carrier
Canadian Construction Research Board
Canadian Standards Association
ECE Group
Environment Canada
Environmental Planning Institute of Canada
Halozone, Inc.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Natural Resources Canada
National Research Council
Ontario Hydro
Ontario Realty Corporation
Tescor Energy Services, Inc.
University of Toronto
In 1999, ECD Energy and Environment worked with TerraChoice, the
agency that administers the Government of Canada's Environmental Choice
program, to develop a more streamlined, question-based tool, which was
introduced as the BREEAM Green Leaf eco-rating program. This program
led to the development of Green Leaf for Municipal Buildings with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities later that year.
In 2000, BREEAM Green Leaf took another leap forward in its
evolution, becoming an online assessment and rating tool under the name
Green Globes for Existing Buildings. Also that year, BREEAM Green Leaf
for the Design of New Buildings was developed for the Department of
National Defense and Public Works and Government Services Canada.
In 2002, Green Globes for Existing Buildings was introduced online
in the United Kingdom as the Global Environmental Method (GEM). Work
also began to adapt BREEAM Green Leaf for the Design of New Buildings
into the online Green Globes for New Buildings. Participants in this
process included representatives from:
Arizona State University
Besto Group
Building Owners and Manufacturers Association of Canada
Canadian Construction Association
Canadian Standards Association
Department of National Defense
DST Group
Elia Sterling Associates
Energy Profiles
GWL Realty
MCMP Architects
Natural Resources Canada
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Stewart Energy
TerraChoice
The ATHENA Institute
In 2004, Green Globes for Existing Buildings was adopted by the
Building Owners and Manufacturers Association of Canada (BOMA) under
the name Go Green Comprehensive (now Go Green Plus). Since then, the
Canadian federal government has adopted Go Green Plus as a green
management tool for its portfolio of more than 500 existing buildings.
It is also integral to the Ontario Power Authority's program for energy
retrofits, and is used by most major property management firms.
green globes and the green building initiative
In 2004, the GBI acquired the rights to distribute Green Globes for
the Design of New Buildings in the United States. In adapting the
system for the U.S. market, the only changes made were those necessary
to make the system appropriate for the U.S. market (e.g. converting
units of measurement and integration with the U.S. Energy Star
program).
However, we have since committed ourselves to ensuring that Green
Globes continues to reflect best practices and ongoing advances in
research and technology.
To that end, the GBI sought and received accreditation as an ANSI
standards developer and began the consensus-based process of
establishing Green Globes as the first ANSI standard for commercial
green building. As part of the process, the GBI established a technical
committee and sub-committees featuring nearly 100 building science
experts, including representatives from four federal agencies, states,
municipalities, universities and leading construction firms, as well as
building owners. A complete list is available at www.thegbi.org.
As part of the ANSI process, the GBI has relinquished control of
the Green Globes tool to the technical committee, which will determine
the final standard without influence from the GBI board of directors,
funders or staff.
about green globes
Although many green building tools claim to be Web-enabled, this is
typically limited to providing online information and templates. Green
Globes' use of Web tools is far more complex, and offers a fully
interactive experience.
Once an online questionnaire is completed, the system generates a
point score and project design highlights. is the report generated
includes an educational component, which highlights sustainability
attributes of the building and provides detailed suggestions for
improvements that should result in a reducing the building's overall
environmental impact. This is supported by hot-links to further
information regarding best design practices and standards or specific
information on building systems and materials. Links are selected to
provide educational information, government references, NGOs, and
industry research relevant to each stage of project delivery and helps
users achieve a better high performance design and higher Green Globes
score.
Projects are awarded up to 1,000 points based on their performance
in seven areas of assessment:
1. Project Management-50 Points.--The Green Globes system places an
emphasis on integrated design, an approach that encourages multi-
disciplinary collaboration from the earliest stages of a project while
also considering the interaction between elements related to
sustainability. Most decisions that influence a building's performance
(such as siting, orientation, form, construction and building services)
are made at the start of the project and yet it's common, even for
experienced designers, to focus on environmental performance late in
the process, adding expensive technologies after key decisions have
been made. This is costly as well as ineffective.
To ensure that all of the relevant players are involved, the system
tailors questionnaires so that input from team members is captured in
an interactive manner, even on those issues which may at first appear
to fall outside their mandate. For example, while site design and
landscaping may come under the purview of the landscape designers, the
questionnaire prompts the electrical engineer to get involved with
design issues such as outdoor lighting or security. Thus the Green
Globes format promotes design teamwork and prevents a situation where,
despite strong individual resources, the combined effort falls short.
Also included under project management are environmental
purchasing, commissioning, and emergency response.
2. Site-115 Points.--Building sites are evaluated based on the
development area (including site selection, development density and
site remediation), ecological impacts (on ecological integrity,
biodiversity, air and water quality, microclimate, habitat, and
nocturnal fauna and flora), watershed features (such as site grading,
storm water management, previous cover and rainwater capture), and site
ecology enhancement.
3. Energy-360 Points.--To simplify the process of energy
performance targeting, Green Globes directs users to the Web interface
used for the Energy Star Target Finder software, which helps to
generate a realistic energy consumption target. As a result, an
aggressive energy performance goal can be set--with points awarded for
design and operations strategies that result in a significant reduction
in energy consumption--as compared to actual performance data from real
buildings.
As previously stated, Green Globes is the only green rating system
to use energy data generated through the DOE's Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is widely considered to be the
most accurate and reliable source of energy benchmarking information.
In addition to overall consumption, projects are evaluated based on
the objectives of reduced energy demand (through space optimization,
microclimatic response to site, day lighting, envelope design and
metering), integration of ``right sized'' energy-efficient systems, on-
site renewable energy sources, and access to energy-efficient
transportation.
4. Water--100 Points.--Projects receive points for overall water
efficiency as well as specific water conservation features (such as
sub-metering, efficiency of cooling towers and irrigation strategies),
and on-site treatment (of grey water and waste water).
5. Resources--100 Points.--The resources section covers building
materials and solid waste. It includes points for materials with low
environmental impact (based on life cycle assessment), minimal
consumption and depletion of resources (with an emphasis on materials
that are re-used, recycled, bio-based and, in the case of wood
products, certified as having come from sustainable sources), the re-
use of existing structures, building durability, adaptability and
disassembly, and the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste.
6. Emissions, Effluents and Other Impacts--75 Points.--Points in
this section are awarded in six categories, including air emissions,
ozone depletion and global warming, protection of waterways and impact
on municipal waste water treatment facilities, minimization of land and
water pollution (and the associated risk to occupants' health and the
local environment), integrated pest management, and the storage of
hazardous materials.
7. Indoor Environment--200 Points.--According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air can be up to 10 times
more polluted than outdoor air, even in cities where the quality of
outdoor air is poor. This has obvious health implications, but the
consequences are also economic. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory found that improving indoor air at work could save U.S.
businesses up to $58 billion in lost sick time each year, with another
$200 billion earned in increased worker performance.
This section evaluates the quality of the indoor environment based
on the effectiveness of the ventilation system, the source control of
indoor pollutants, lighting design and the integration of lighting
systems, thermal comfort and acoustic comfort.
Projects that achieve a score of 35 percent or more become eligible
for a Green Globes rating of one, two, three or four globes, as
follows:
One Globe: 35-54 percent
Two Globes: 55-69 percent
Three Globes: 70-84 percent
Four Globes: 85-100 percent
However, buildings cannot be promoted as having achieved a Green
Globes rating until the information submitted has been third-party
verified by a qualified and authorized individual assessor.
The GBI currently oversees Green Globes-trained verifiers comprised
primarily of licensed architects and engineers with significant
experience in building sciences and sustainability issues. The Green
Globes third-party verification process features a rigorous two-stage
approach.
Stage I can be initiated by the design team as soon as the
Construction Documents questionnaire is finalized. The completed
questionnaire is verified against the documentation generated
throughout the design process and, providing the building is on target
to achieve a minimum of 35 percent of the 1,000 possible points, the
design team receives a Certificate of Achievement. However, a final
rating cannot be achieved until after a Stage II verification, which
occurs post-construction. Stage II includes a site visit and walk-
through by the third-party verifier and can be initiated as soon as
construction is complete.
To further strengthen our third-party verification program, the GBI
recently announced an agreement with CSA America, Inc., a leading
developer of standards and codes, to develop an independently
accredited Green Globes Personnel Certification Program. CSA America is
developing the program on behalf of GBI for assessors using the Green
Globes system to verify achievements in the design and operation of
green buildings. It is the industry's first independently administered
certification program for third-party verifiers of green buildings.
green globes and life cycle assessment (lca)
The green building movement is experiencing a fundamental shift in
the way it approaches sustainable design, away from a prescriptive
methodology--whereby materials are assumed to have environmental
benefits based on rapid renewability, recycled content or other
attributes--toward one that emphasizes measurable performance. Life
cycle assessment (LCA) is a means to this end because it allows the
impartial comparison of materials, assemblies and even whole buildings,
from cradle-to-grave, in terms of quantifiable impact indicators such
as global warming potential.
LCA is widely accepted in the environmental research community as
one of the best ways to assess building sustainability, but its use has
been limited by the perception that it's too complex or time consuming
for mainstream practitioners. Now, thanks to a new tool commissioned by
the GBI, LCA is more accessible than ever before to architects,
engineers, policy makers, manufacturers and developers, regardless of
environmental design experience.
Developed for use with the Green Globes system, the new tool
provides instant LCA results for more than 400 common building
assemblies in low- and high-rise categories--including exterior walls,
roofs, intermediate floors, interior walls, windows, and columns and
beams. It was created by the ATHENA Institute in association with the
University of Minnesota's Center for Sustainable Building Research and
Morrison Hershfield Consulting Engineers. ATHENA's widely acclaimed
Impact Estimator for Buildings was used to generate the results
embedded in the tool.
The tool is currently being reviewed by the ANSI technical
committee prior to its integration into Green Globes. However,
recognizing its importance as an indicator of climate change impacts,
GBI supported the team's creation of a generic version for use by the
entire sustainable design community. This version will soon be
available, free of charge, from the ATHENA Web site (www.athenasmi.ca),
and we are encouraging its use among other green building organizations
and universities, and at all levels of government.
green globes and other rating systems
There is a great deal of agreement as to what constitutes best
energy and environmental practices, so the major green building
standards and rating systems have more similarities than differences.
For example, a team of independent researchers at the University of
Minnesota recently published the results of a three month intensive
analysis of Green Globes and LEED.
The report, ``Green Building Systems: A Comparison of the LEED and
Green Globes Systems in the US,'' is available on the GBI Web site
(www.thegbi.org/gbi/Green--Building--Rating--UofM.pdf). It provides a
detailed comparison of how the systems operate as well as their
respective strengths and weaknesses.
Among its conclusions, the report states that ``in total the
systems are quite similar,'' and that ``both include a common set of
potentially impactful design elements that contribute to the
improvement of a building's green performance.''
The study also found that nearly 80 percent of the categories
available for points in Green Globes are also addressed in LEED 2.2 and
that over 85 percent of the categories specified in LEED 2.2 are
addressed in Green Globes.
It concluded that, while comparing the two systems is extremely
difficult, there are a number of trends ``worth noting.'' Included in
this summary were the following three points:
Green Globes ``appears to be doing a fairly good job in
improving upon the delivery mechanisms employed by LEED which are so
often criticized,'' by providing an online approach to assessment that
improves efficiency and reduces costs,
Green Globes better integrates life-cycle thinking into
its rating system, and
The GBI, as an accredited standards developer under the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ``will undoubtedly enhance
Green Globes presence in the marketplace'' by undergoing the consensus-
based process associated with creating an official ANSI standard for
green building practices.
In addition, the study revealed some ``moderate dissimilarity'' in
point allocations in the two systems, pointing out that ``Green Globes
emphasizes energy use above all other categories. In contrast, LEED
allocates comparatively more points to the Materials section.'' It
reported that areas such as indoor environmental quality, resources,
and site ecology are similarly emphasized by both systems, and that
Green Globes employs a rating criterion that reflects life-cycle
thinking and covers the entire life-cycle of building materials.
It also stated that, ``from a process perspective, Green Globes'
simpler methodology, employing a user-friendly interactive guide for
assessing and integrating green design principles for buildings,
continues to be a point of differentiation to LEED's more complex, and
largely paper-based system. While LEED has recently introduced an
online-based system, it remains more extensive and requires expert
knowledge in various areas. Green Globes' Web-based self-assessment
tool can be completed by any team member with general knowledge of the
building's parameters.'' The researchers added that, ``in contrast,
LEED tends to be more rigid, time-intensive, and [more] expensive to
administer.''
Aside from the fundamental similarities, the Green Globes system
has a number of unique characteristics that make it an attractive
option for those seeking a tool that's both rigorous and practical, at
an affordable price. For example, Green Globes is:
Flexible
Designed for use on building projects of any size, Green Globes is
suitable for everything from large and small offices and multi-family
structures, to institutional buildings such as schools, universities
and libraries.
Encourages Building Comparisons
Owners and developers with multiple properties can use Green Globes
to assess and compare the buildings in their portfolio. As more and
more buildings are Green Globes verified, point scores will also be
aggregated in an anonymous database, enabling users to analyze how both
their designs and existing buildings perform in relation to the median
and to buildings that are similar in size, type and region.
Promotes Integrated Design
Green Globes facilitates the integrated design process, encouraging
multi-disciplinary collaboration from the earliest stages of a project.
The system guides design team members by reminding them of next steps
and introducing the elements of sustainability in a logical sequence.
Facilitates Planning
Self-assessment occurs in two phases: during the schematic design
stage (which corresponds with site plan approval) and during the
construction documents stage (which typically corresponds with building
permit approval). This allows design teams, clients and municipal
authorities to review a detailed report that provides the percentage of
points likely to be achieved (out of 1,000), highlights the project's
environmental attributes, and suggests opportunities for improvement.
u.s. market acceptance
To date, eight buildings have successfully completed Green Globes
third-party verifications across the United States, with an additional
70 buildings in the pipeline.
Of those that have completed the verification process, four of the
eight have also been certified under the USGBC's LEED program, and two
are awaiting their final LEED certification. Because both systems have
similar four tiered rating structures, these dual-certified buildings
provide benchmark data demonstrating that while not identical, the
systems are comparable--in terms of the final ratings and areas of
assessment. They just take a different approach to reach the same goal.
Examples of dual-certified projects include:
William J. Clinton Presidential Center (Little Rock, AR)
Two Green Globes; LEED Silver
Alberici Corporate Headquarters (St. Louis, MO)
Four Green Globes; LEED Platinum
Blakely Hall (Issaquah, WA)
Two Green Globes, LEED Silver
Pfizer Inc. Clinical Research Unit (New Haven, CT)*
Three Green Globes, LEED Silver
*This project received points for excellence in project management
for their integrated design process, which were not available in LEED.
Green Globes has also been formally recognized by the public and
private sectors including:
Formal recognition of Green Globes by six states in green
building legislation and executive orders, including Arkansas,
Connecticut, Hawaiii, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Inclusion in the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company's
Certified Green Building Replacement and Green Upgrade coverage
package, which provides discounted rates for certified green buildings.
(The Fireman's Fund is the only insurance company currently offering
incentives for green commercial buildings.)
Indications from several federal agencies, including the
Department of Health and Human Services (piloting Green Globes on the
NIH building in Maryland and an Indian Health Services building in
Arizona) and the Department of the Interior (piloting Green Globes on a
building in New Mexico) that Green Globes provides unique benefits that
made it worthy of adding into their formal sustainability policies.
future of the gbi
The GBI has made tremendous strides in a short time--and we intend
to continue leading science-based and technologically-advanced
initiatives that allow us to bring to fruition important contributions
on priority issues within the green building movement.
One contribution is to ensure that the those working with the
existing built environment have a reliable, affordable and holistic
tool for improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, while
considering other environmental impacts. It is critical that our Nation
make strides in improving our existing building stock and at the same
time address the gap between design intent and actual building
performance.
The unfortunate reality is that many buildings designed to be
sustainable fail to perform as expected. There are logical reasons,
such as the fact that design team predictions may have been based on
ideal assumptions, while actual performance was diminished by
unforeseen variables, such as moving budget targets, value engineering,
or insufficient commissioning. But to a building owner that receives
higher than expected utility bills or fails to achieve his or her
energy reduction targets, the reasons matter less than the results.
What's been missing, until now, is a way to measure and monitor
performance on an ongoing basis. That is why GBI is introducing Green
Globes for Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (Green Globes-
CIEB).
There is an increasing demand for accountability--through
mechanisms such as climate change legislation, which mandate energy and
CO2 reductions--and building owners are being called upon to
improve building performance with verifiable results. They need to know
quickly and reliably whether specific improvements are having the
intended effects.
Green Globes-CIEB allows users to create a baseline of their
building's performance, evaluate interventions, plan for improvements,
and monitor success--all within a holistic framework that also
addresses the building's physical and human elements such as material
use and indoor environment.
In the context of climate change, energy is the most significant
area of assessment within Green Globes-CIEB. A combined focus on energy
use, building features and management helps to pinpoint where
performance is lacking and what corrective action is required. The
system uses the EPA's Portfolio Manager to determine a consumption
target in k/Btus for each building type, and, where appropriate,
buildings must meet a minimum performance target of 75 percent based on
the comparable EPA Target Finder building.
Green Globes-CIEB is being pilot tested with the goal of
demonstrating that it provides the combination of a credible baseline
and guidance that allows users to plan with accuracy the interventions
required to achieve measured reductions in energy consumption for
existing buildings.
In the first six weeks after the launch of the pilot, the GBI
registered 111 users and 34 buildings began the assessment process. At
this time, more than 160 buildings are using this web-enabled
assessment. This supports our belief, not only in the urgent need for
practical and cost-effective tools such as Green Globes-CIEB, but in
their ability to transform the market from one in which green building
leads to valuable but imprecise benefits to one in which it defines the
path for achieving specific and measured environmental goals.
Other GBI priorities include:
Further integration of LCA into our suite of tools,
including specific regional versions for the different climate zones
across the country.
Interactive tools that make it easier for home builders to
learn about and adopt sustainable practices.
Thank you again for inviting the Green Building Initiative to
participate in today's hearing. We look forward to the opportunity to
work with all of the members of the committee to help make green
building the norm, rather than the exception in residential and
commercial construction.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response by Ward Hubbell to an Additional Question from Senator Sanders
Question. In your testimony you talk about the ``green building''
work being done by the National Association of Home Builders through
the Green Building Initiative. You fall, however, to give details about
what this means, such as, how much energy has been saved, how much
water has been saved, what are the reductions in CO2
emissions, how much have you improved indoor air finality, etc. . . ,
What concrete changes can you point to from your ``green building''
practices?
Response. Two related shortcomings of the green building movement
as a whole have been our tendency to focus on a building's design
instead of its performance and our promotion to date of prescriptive
tools and guidelines instead of those that are performance-based. While
a sustainable design is the first step to achieving energy and other
savings, it is just one part of the equation. A buildings performance
is also greatly influenced by the specifics of its occupancy and
management.
As a result, although more than 100 homes have been certified to
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Model. Green Home
Building Guidelines through work with the Green Building Initiative
(GBI), and thousands more have started the process. I am unable to
point to any concrete evidence of energy savings, carbon emission
reductions or improved indoor-air quality from their participation in
the program. Most of the data that our sector uses to encourage
sustainability is anecdotal, but we intend to change that.
For the commercial sector, the GBI is preparing to release a new
module of the Green Globes system--Green Globes for Continual
improvement of Existing Buildings--which is currently being piloted.
With its emphasis on performance data, the new module will provide a
practical and cost-effective mechanism, (a) for ensuring that high
performance designs result in high performance buildings, and (b) for
evaluating, comparing and improving buildings over the long term. It
will also provide some mud, needed data on the type of savings one can
expect from sustainable construction practices.
For the residential sector, we intend to commission studies on
homes based or the NAHB guidelines in order to understand the true
performance impacts of the recommended practices and more accurately
forecast the benefits.
As soon as this data is available, the GBI will develop a formal
report to share with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
______
Response by Ward Hubbell to an Additional Question from Senator Warner
Question. As you know, some federal agencies, like the Department
of Health and Human Services, have issued policies Incorporating the
Green Globes rating system into their guidance for sustainable and high
performance buildings. Have the Green Globes system provided
certification to any federal buildings to date? What kind of long-term
savings should the agencies expect?
Response. Taking into consideration that the Green Globes
environmental assessment and rating system has been available in the
United States for less than two years, we are pleased to report
progress with a number of federal buildings.
The William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little
Rock, Ark. was the first federally funded project to undergo both the
initial assessment and third-party verification process required before
any building can be promoted as having achieved a Green Globes rating.
We are currently working with the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), which is piloting Green Globes on the National
Institute of Health building in Maryland and an Indian Health Services
building in Arizona, as well as the Department of the Interior (DOI),
which is piloting Green Globes on a building in New Mexico.
The GBI provides interactive solutions that make even the most
sophisticated processes practical and accessible, and agencies such as
these should expect many benefits from using the Green Globes system--
not only as an assessment and rating tool, but as a guide for
integrating environmentally-friendly design into new and existing
buildings.
The Green Globes system's revolutionary interactive platform gives
all building professionals, regardless of experience, the opportunity
to incorporate sustainable principles into their projects. The system
is designed for use with buildings of any size and, in response to the
U.S. Government's creation of Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership
in High Performance Sustainable Buildings with its Memorandum of
Understanding; it has been identified by agencies such as the DHHS and
DOI for use with all new construction/renovation projects.
Use of the Green Globes system is also in keeping with the
government's desire to increase efficiencies through ``electronic
government.'' As you know, many agencies are being asked to enhance
service delivery by increasing their Information Technology resources.
As an online system that's also easy to use and cost-effective, Green
Globes helps to address this growing need.
______
Responses by Ward Hubbell to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. There is already one rating system (LEED) used widely
in the United States, Why Is it Important that other rating systems
also be available?
Response. Obviously, there is some similarity between the GBI and
organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Were
both private sector, nonprofit organizations that offer tools for
assessing and rating green structures. However, while we are
technically competitors, I believe share the common goal of a much
greener built environment--and that our tools have their own unique
characteristics that, together, meet the needs of a much broader
segment of the design and building community.
What's important to keep in mind is that as in other segments of
society, healthy competition among rating systems will drive
improvements. lower costs and benefit the ultimate consumer which In
this case is our shared environment. I also believe its necessary to
motivate the kind of innovation--both separately and collectively--that
our Nation needs to address crisis-level problems such as climate
change.
Let me be clear, organizations such as the USGBC have contributed
mightily to the cause of green building and LEED is a helpful tool.
Yet, as with all such tools Our own included), it comes with its own
unique set of limitations.
In addition to providing a greater range of options for design and
building professionals, an increased level of competition in the green
rating field has already stimulated some exciting advancements in the
green building arena. These include:
Movement toward the development of true consensus
standards for green building. The GBI became the first organization of
its kind to subject a rating system to the rigors of an independent,
third party, codified and consensus-based process under the rules of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Other organizations
have since pursued a similar path.
The creation of practical, user-friendly tools to allow
owners and designers to consider the ``cradle-to-graver'' environmental
impact of materials used in construction. With life cycle assessment
tools recently developed by the GBI, designers can now make decisions
based on the energy, a water, solid waste and climate change impacts of
more than 400 commonly used building assemblies. We're incorporating
this data into our own Green Globes rating system, and we've also
offered it free of charge to any other rating organization or
government entity that wants to use it.
Stimulating the increased use of technology in green
assessment. The Green Globes interactive platform has helped make green
design and assessment both cost-effective and user-friendly. This has
made it possible for a greater number of projects to be built to green
standards and has encouraged the increasing use of technology in other
rating systems.
In addition, Green Globes and other similar tools play an important
role by attracting mainstream design and construction professionals
whose needs (and budgets) aren't met by other systems. For example, in
Summit County, Colo., the local government and High Country
Conservation Center celebrated a sustainable construction milestone
last year when the Summit County Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
became the first recycling facility in the country to be built green.
As a mission-driven, non-profit, the Summit County MRF required a
system such as Green Globes, which offers affordability, flexibility
and user friendliness. Without this option, it would have been
impractical to assess and rate the building's environmental
achievements--and its accomplishments would have gone unrecognized.
The bottom line: green building does not only apply to big budget
projects and cathedrals of architecture. The market can bear--and
frankly needs--a variety of options that accommodate a full range of
budgets and building types, as well as the individual preferences of
architects, builders and others in a position to influence the adoption
of sustainable building practices.
Question 2. What effect on Green Building innovation would
mandating a single standard at the Federal level have?
Response. As indicated above, increased competition since the
inception of the GBI has already spurred improvements. However, while
we have come a long way in the work to better our built environment,
there is still more to be done. Mandating a single standard at the
Federal level would promote a monopoly situation and stifle the
innovations inspired through a competitive environment.
Simply put, if the government finds it necessary to mandate green
building, it is vital that the legislation or executive order be rating
system neutral. If we want the green building movement to mature and
grow, we need the power of competition to drive the improvements that
will take us to the next level.
Question 3. Why is a consensus-based approach important in
formulating green building standards?
Response. True consensus standards are established when a
recognized standards developer follows a prescribed process that
subjects every aspect of its rating system to review, analysis and
voting by a balanced group of independent stakeholders.
In the case of the GBI, we were the first green building
organization to become a standards developer under ANSI. The USGBC and
the NAHB followed suit, but the USGBC has not initiated a standards
development process. The GBI and NAHB are working to establish the
Green Globes rating system and the NAHB Model Green Home Building
Guidelines (respectively) as the first ANSI standards for commercial
and residential green building.
Speaking to the GBI's ANSI process, the Green Globes system is
undergoing a thorough review by an independent technical committee and
seven expert subcommittees, which will make modifications through a
formal voting process. Before it can be ratified, the standard must be
released for public comment and all negative comments must be addressed
by the committee in writing.
While other green building standards are commonly referred to as
consensus standards, they are neither developed nor maintained through
an independent, third-Party process for consensus development. This is
an important distinction, not only because the federal government has
stated that it prefers voluntary consensus standards for use in federal
buildings, but because standards not developed by consensus are under
the control of their governing bodies.
Utilizing established, consensus-based procedures, such as those
required by ANSI, to develop a green building standard encourages a
fair, equitable and open process that helps ensure the best standard
will be brought forward to the public.
Question 4a. Explain why you decided to pursue ANSI certification
for Green Globes.
Response. With an estimated 100 million buildings in operation by
2010, it is vital that organizations like the GBI and others encourage
green building by developing third-party codified consensus standards
buildings based on sound building science.
The GBI is committed to offering consensus-based standards that are
also practical and affordable, and give design and construction
professionals the confidence that they are working with the best tools
available. Through the ANSI process, we are leveraging the considerable
knowledge of nearly 100 building science experts who sit on our
technical committee and subcommittees and will also seek public comment
We feel confident that the result will be a highly credible and useful
standard.
We also applaud the decision of our partners at the NAHB to take
their Model Green Home Building Guidelines through the same ANSI
process, as well as organizations such as the National Institute of
Building Sciences, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers and ASTM International, which are working to
develop minimum standards for green building. Together, these
Initiatives will provide a variety of options that accommodate a full
range of budgets, building types and preferences.
Question 4b. Will you continue to pursue ANSI certification for
other rating systems you might promote in the future?
Response. We will most assuredly evaluate opportunities to seek
ANSI accreditation for future tools and rating systems.
Question 5. In your testimony, you mentioned the prescriptive
nature of rating systems and the need to move towards performance-based
systems. Please elaborate.
Response. The green building movement is experiencing a fundamental
shift in the way it approaches sustainable design, away from a
prescriptive methodology--whereby certain practices or materials are
assumed to have environmental benefits--toward one that emphasizes
measurable performance.
For example, many people believe it's better for the environment to
use materials produced within 500 miles of the structure being built.
On the surface this makes sense--since less energy will be required to
transport the materials. But there are a tremendous number of factors
that influence whether or not a locally produced material is
preferable, including the source of its components, type of
manufacturing process and mode of transportation.
Life cycle assessment (LCA), which allows the impartial comparison
of building designs based on measures such as global warming potential,
is widely considered to be the best way to determine a building's true
sustainability.
As such the GBI recently commissioned a software tool that provides
LCA results for more than 400 common building assemblies in low- and
high-rise categories. Prior to its integration into Green Globes, the
new tool is being reviewed by our ANSI technical committee. It is also
being created in generic form for use (free of charge) by other rating
organizations as well as the broader sustainable design community.
As mentioned previously, the GBI is also preparing to introduce a
new addition to the Green Globes suite of tools: Green Globes for
Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings. Designed to complement
Green Globes for New Construction, the new module will allow building
owners and managers to evaluate, track and improve the environmental
performance of their buildings, and to compare multiple buildings
within a portfolio.
Question 6. Please provide additional detail on your third-party
on-site verification process.
Response. A building cannot be promoted as having achieved a Green
Globes rating until it undergoes a rigorous third-party verification
process and the information submitted has been verified by qualified
and authorized assessor.
The process features two stages. Stage I can be initiated by the
design team as soon as the Construction Documents questionnaire is
finalized. The completed questionnaire is verified against the
documentation generated during the design process and, providing the
building is on target to achieve a minimum 35 percent of the 1,000
possible points, the design team receives a Certificate of Achievement.
However, a final rating cannot be achieved until after a Stage II
verification, which occurs post-construction. Stage II includes a site
visit and walk-through by the third-party verifier and can be initiated
as soon as construction is complete.
The GBI currently oversees a team of Green Globes-trained
verifiers, who are primarily licensed architects and engineers with
significant experience in building science. However, to further
strengthen our third-party verification program, we recently announced
an agreement with CSA America Inc., a leading developer of standards
and codes, to develop an independently accredited Green Globes
Personnel Certification Program. CSA America is developing the program
on behalf of the GBI for assessors using the Green Globes system to
verify achievements in the design and operation of green buildings. It
will be the industry's first independently administered certification
program or third-party verifiers of green buildings.
The Green Globes Assessor Certification Program will be based on
ISO 17024 General Requirements for Bodies Operating Certification
Systems of Persons. Personnel certification is the assessment and
formal recognition of an individual's competence against objectively
identified criteria within a specific subject area.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbell.
I think that you at this table have won a prize which I
will call the Noble Prize, which is that each one of you
finished on time. It is quite a remarkable and a noble
achievement, and all of you, despite occasional differences in
view, I think presented excellent testimony. I thank you.
You know, one of the things that is being discussed at some
length is there are some differences. Senator Warner of
Virginia has a bill that has similar characteristics to the one
that I have proposed, but ours is more demanding in terms of
the verification of what constitutes a green building.
One of the things that I would ask, Mr. Fox, does the
calculation presented by Mr. Templeton about the recovery of
the extra costs in building a green building, estimated to be
30 percent more, if I remember, to do it, but recover in
roughly a 3-year period of time, obviously. Is that consistent
with your experience in the buildings that you have worked on?
Mr. Fox. Yes, it is. We are seeing, depending on the type
of building, anywhere from a 1 percent to maybe a 3 percent
increase in costs, and the recovery period that we look for in
all of the innovations that we propose is 5 years or less.
Senator Lautenberg. What has been the response? You
obviously have had clients who support the effort and are
willing to spend the extra money at the time of development,
knowing very well that they are going to have a much better
product out there, believing that they will have a healthier
environment more consistent with our mission to reduce
greenhouse gases, global warming, et cetera. So it sounds like
a good investment, but when you see what some of the costs of
building is, especially when you talk about New York, and I am
a little familiar with that. It is a suburb of my State of New
Jersey, you know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. We are very interested in what takes
place there.
You said that the green design of the B of A Building will
result in a 50 percent energy saving. Which technologies that
are part of this design will yield that kind of energy saving
and how difficult is it to install?
Mr. Fox. The place where we start is with the building
envelope, to make that the most efficient, the most energy
conserving envelope that we can--the windows, the spandrel
panels, the roof, and try and make that the most high
performance envelope that we can.
We then look at the mechanical systems that are delivering
both heating and cooling to the interior of the space, and make
those systems the most efficient we can. One of our innovations
was the ice storage system, which is 44 large tanks 10 feet in
diameter, 10 feet high, made in New Jersey by a terrific
company named CALMAC, and get all of those systems in balance
so that we are using the least amount of energy we can to both
heat and cool the building.
All of those technologies are off the shelf. They are
current state-of-the-art. The ice storage system has been in
use for decades.
Senator Lautenberg. How about the aesthetics?
Mr. Fox. The aesthetics?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, of the exterior. I had an
opportunity to visit with a manufacturer in California of solar
panels, typically used on roofs, but also could be siding. It
is incredible, the volume of these things that they are turning
out now, the solar panels. They have their own character in
terms of how they appear. I think they are OK, but it is a
fairly uniform type of thing, I think even in the color.
So when people are building buildings, they like the
uniqueness about it, whether it is a gigantic skyscraper or a
home. So are you able to envelop these programs in the same
quality of view and aesthetics that you would otherwise be able
to get?
Mr. Fox. Well, the answer is yes. This building is a very
transparent, all glass, prismatic-informed building. We looked
at photovoltaic panels, which when they are the most efficient
are a dark purple color. We tried to integrate that into the
design, and it made the building very stripey, with horizontal
stripes. So we elected not to proceed with that.
On the Four Times Square Building, which is also on the
same block, which has a different facade treatment, we did
incorporate solar panels in the facade of that building.
So depending on one's design aesthetic and design approach,
some of these technologies fit better than others at different
times.
Senator Lautenberg. You mentioned the cost of water. Water
availability is a favorite subject of mine. I traveled to the
South Pole a couple of years ago to see what the National
Science Foundation is doing in terms of ice melt and so forth.
Some time ago, 70 percent of the world's fresh water was stored
in the ice in Antarctica. As the temperatures increase, we see
the dissolving virtually of that ice protection, that ice cap.
As it slides off into the sea, obviously it is less available.
One of the problems that I think our Country and our world has
to face pretty darn quickly is the availability of potable
water and how we are going to adjust to that.
This mission that all of you are on really deserves
commendation. The fact is, there are some different approaches,
obviously, since I am proposing legislation. I tilt toward the
LEED standard, but respect Mr. Hubbell and the fact that you
see it differently. I am concerned about the verification. I
think you said that there were independent ratings created. Who
is the independent that creates that?
Mr. Hubbell. We have an ISO-certified organization called
CSA America that is also an ANSI standards developer. They have
developed a training course for our third party verifiers.
These third party verifiers will look at not only the answers
to the questionnaire and the other things in our system, but
also look at construction documents and commissioning plans and
all that. And then, unlike any other rating system that I am
aware of, we actually do an onsite inspection, so these people
go to the building, they tour the building, and they spend time
understanding what systems are in that building and make sure
that they match with what the building owners have reported.
Senator Lautenberg. There is a board of directors of the
organization?
Mr. Hubbell. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. How are they appointed or elected?
Mr. Hubbell. Well, the board, as you probably know, elects
itself. We have a very balanced governance model. We have one
third of our seats devoted to producers; one third devoted to
users, which we classify as builders, developers, architects,
people who actually use our system; and then one third devoted
to third parties, government, NGO's, academicians, that sort of
thing.
The other thing, Senator, that we do that I think is unique
is we have taken the content of our rating system and separated
it from the organization. The organization, the staff, the
funders, the board, cannot determine the content of our rating
system. That is done through an independent consensus process
through the American National Standards Institute.
So if you look on our Website, you can see that have a
technical committee of 30 individuals that come from places
like the U.S. EPA, American Lung Association, American
Institute of Architects, as well as representation from
industry and users. They determine the content of our
standards. We don't.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Tonjes, what is happening in the
homebuilding community? Is green a consideration? Are green
technology standards used today? Is the homebuilding industry
in part saying that we build healthy homes in their
advertising?
Mr. Tonjes. I think it is a big issue to get consensus on,
but I can tell you that over the last many years, a lot of what
we consider green building practices have become mainstream as
part of the regular construction practices. That includes
engineered wood products, composite materials made up of
grocery bags and grocery sacks and sawdust, as you will;
increased insulation.
So one of the things is that I think you will find across
the Country one of the major components of green building is
the energy factor. Energy programs have been long in practice
in a lot of parts of the Country. Most of these are regionally
incentivized, if you will. I like to give the example in my
home State and my home community, which is Austin, TX. I
actually was one of the first Energy Star builders in a program
that got started in Austin, TX in 1984. That program eventually
evolved into the first green building program in 1991.
Subsequent to that, Energy Star was picked up by the EPA and
has been very successfully branded.
You know, a lot of green building practices are measured in
the energy side of the component. Also in my State, we adopted
a statewide building code in 2001 and 2003. We adopted a
statewide energy code. Being in Austin, where we were already
doing those things, I was quite surprised at the order of
magnitude of what that did in our State. Texas, as you might
suspect, is a very large residential building State, with over
100,000 homes each year. We have made significant gains in
that.
Senator Lautenberg. It sounds like your focus is largely,
certainly primarily, on energy savings, but I believe, as Mr.
Fox says, there is more to green building than simply energy.
We talked about water use. We talked about other kinds of
things. How about what happens in the buildings that are
sometimes so well insulated that the air gets stale and it
creates its own problems? Is that a factor that you see? Or Mr.
Fox, the architect, do you see it? Does green building have to
go beyond just the energy issues, which is important, by the
way.
Mr. Tonjes. If I might address that? Indoor air quality is
certainly a significant part. A lot of that has to do with the
design of the home, the commissioning of the home, the
mechanical system, sizing the mechanical equipment, basically
your air conditioning, to have the adequate availability to
both filter the air and get the humidity out of the air, which
is a huge problem in our State.
Our State builders association was very successful when we
first implemented the statewide energy code, of giving
statewide training to our membership on high performance homes.
This was done through our State Energy Conservation Office,
which was supported by the Department of Energy.
So a lot of these practices go hand in hand, and ultimately
the result was very startling to improve the indoor air
quality.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Mr. Fox, to my earlier question, is there more to green
construction than energy saving? Is that the principal
component? Or is it the emissions that are toxic, or at least
greenhouse, there also? When you talk about a 40 percent saving
of energy on the building side of things, that create
greenhouse gases, 40 percent of the total. It is more than
energy, is it not?
Mr. Fox. Yes. Doing a green building, as I have said many
times, is 100 little things. Some of those 100 have to do with
energy, and energy is very important, because this is the
primary issue with CO2 and climate change. However,
health is equally important.
So to put the right materials in a building is extremely
important, those that don't have volatile organic compounds,
known carcinogens, and they have existed in carpet and paint
and wall coverings and fabrics and furniture. I dare say most
of the furniture in this room was made with volatile organic
compounds, and probably the carpet.
In addition, the indoor air quality is very important, so
how that air gets filtered, how that air gets tempered, how it
gets delivered. The delivery system in this room comes out of
the diffusers in the ceiling, and comes out fairly cold, and
relies on a mixing of air to warm up a little bit before it
hits us. In the mixing of the air, it is picking up the dust,
the pollen and the sneezes in this room and delivering it
equally to everyone, so air delivery is equally important.
There is a relatively new science called Biophilia. There
was a book written a number of years ago by E.O. Wilson and the
ability of people to connect to the natural environment is
extremely important in terms of health, and the sense of well
being. I am sure that Claire Barnett would agree with me in
terms of schools, the ability for these students to connect to
a natural environment and not be in a classroom with little
tiny windows is very important. It is the same in our homes.
The other issue is maintenance.
Senator Lautenberg. You must keep your eye on the mission
in order to kind of find your way through the extra things that
have to be done, the costs, et cetera, the appearances, all of
those things.
Ms. Barnett, you touched a sensitive spot with me. I am a
professional grandfather. I have 10 grandchildren. The oldest
is 13 and the youngest is 3. What I want for them is what every
grandparent in the Country wants for their kids: good health,
able to get an education if they have the capacity, live in a
peaceful Country.
So my oldest grandchild who is 13 has a fairly severe
asthmatic condition, and when he goes to play sports, my
daughter will first immediately find out where an emergency
clinic is nearby, so that if he starts to wheeze or otherwise,
they can get someplace quickly for some relief.
I see it in the growth of childhood diseases, or at least
the awareness of a growth in childhood diseases, autism, for
instance. In New Jersey in 15 years, we went from 240 cases
diagnosed to 7,500. And so it is I believe for most of the
Country. And diabetes, with one out of three children born
today it is believed will be affected by diabetes before death,
before their lives are over.
So we have a real mission there, Ms. Barnett. I thank you.
I would guess that there are startling numbers. What percentage
of classroom conditions are acceptable for the health of the
children across this Country? Do you have any idea? Because the
task is so enormous to correct it, but so again, the mission is
critical.
Ms. Barnett. Thank you for the question. I think that there
is a tremendous intersection of issues when you begin talking
about schools and children and environment and health. We know
now a lot more about children and their environmental
vulnerabilities than we did 5 or 10 years ago. We know a lot
more now about healthy indoor environments in the peer-reviewed
sciences than we did 5 or 10 years ago.
The evidence is clear that health indoor environments are
good for children. This really is a back to basics call. In
thinking about architectural design, what is so interesting
about the old, old school buildings is that they were built to
be very durable, with terazzo floors. They had very high
ceilings. They had very tall windows that opened top and
bottom. That was for natural ventilation and daylight.
School specifications for design, going back 100 years out
of New Hampshire and Maine, for example, and New York, talked
about ``whence cometh the daylight'' to fall on the desks in
the center of the classrooms, because people then understood
that children needed fresh air and sunshine to thrive and to
learn indoors, and needed, lovely views and or having access to
playgrounds and parks that were safe and usable, both of which
are wonderful issues in terms of school siting.
I think that what I want to focus on in my remarks is the
real need to design out common problems that schools have, and
design in best solutions. We can all do that for children.
I think one of the challenges for a volunteer school board
member, or locally elected official, or a school
superintendent, is where in the world do you get the
information and make it easy and accessible and usable within
your mix of various State education or other aid or technical
assistance from the State agencies? Connecticut, New York and
New Jersey are not the same in how their educational systems
operate, just as one close to home example.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Ms. Barnett. The education agencies have different
capacities and interests and oversight. The energy offices do.
The health departments have different interests and abilities.
The ability to put together environment, energy, education and
health and come up with what States really need to do to ensure
that every child has a healthy, high performance school should
be made simpler for local schools.
One of the things that happens to us when we are doing
either public hearing testimony or making community
presentations is the frequent question of, well, ``I want a
green school; I want a green building. Do I have to start from
scratch? Do I have to have a new building? Is that the only way
to get one? ''
So my organization talks about the greening of existing
buildings through greening of the operations and the purchasing
of school, and then for local districts to plan to gradually
upgrade their facilities as renovation projects and minor
maintenance and repair take place.
The bigger question is: Is there great national data on who
is doing what out there. The answer is no. There is no Federal
Agency or system of oversight or recordkeeping that addresses
the conditions of buildings within the States. There are
estimates that have been done by U.S. GAO and by the NEA, but
there is not a formalized structured system. There are systems
of facility inspection reporting in a few States, but not
nationally.
Requested. Our office coordinated a national report on the topic,
``Lessons Learned'' with contributions from 28 groups nationally. It
provides State by State data tables from Federal sources and estimates
the numbers of children at serious risk.
[See report on page 123.]
Requested. As one example of how facility data is important, New
York State initiated a system of school building inspection reporting
in 1999, primarily to estimate school capital needs. In 2005, our NYS
program did a study of all 100 schools in two upstate counties: we
merged the facility data with the school `report cards' (on student
characteristics and achievement), and found that the conditions of the
facilities were related to attendance, test scores, and--very
surprisingly--suspension rates.
[See report on page 190.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Templeton, in your testimony, you indicate that a dozen
Federal agencies, 22 States, and 75 local governments have
created policies that use or encourage the use of the LEED
standard. Now, how does the LEED standard adapt to meet the
needs of these different levels of government? How does the
standard continually evolve to meet new problems and new
technologies?
Mr. Templeton. As you can imagine, the diversity of States
and local municipalities in particular, but also the building
types that are addressed within the Federal agencies does
require a flexible system in order to respond to the diversity
of project types and regions and scales of those projects.
LEED has been structured in a flexible framework that
addresses environmental impact categories so that it can be
applied universally across all of these factors. So we do see
everything from school projects to commercial office projects
to retail projects to high rise towers, all being able to use
the same rating system in a much more diverse way. There are
several dozen different building types that are currently using
the LEED rating system across these different options.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
One kind of last observation. Ms. Barnett, my bill directs
EPA to develop model guidelines and provide grants to States to
develop healthier schools. When we look at the magnitude of the
problems to make existing buildings greener, and I assume that
with rare exceptions it is possible to do it, but the cost may
in some cases not be worth it, as opposed to starting over.
But without Federal money and guidelines from the EPA, Ms.
Barnett, would States be inclined to implement these
environmental best practices? How are the States doing now?
Ms. Barnett. Some of the States are involved and doing very
good work. One of the largest issues facing all schools
nationally is the problem of indoor air pollution. Any building
which is poorly sited, poorly constructed, engineered,
designed, operated, maintained is going to have a collection of
problems which generally reflect themselves in poor indoor air
quality. So it is a layering effect of multiple issues.
There are more than 15 States now, probably closer to 20,
which have adopted various best practices or regulations around
indoor environmental quality and indoor air quality,
specifically in schools. There are more than 30 States that
have adopted restrictions on pesticide use in schools.
So there are States that are taking action. There are a
number of States, for example Washington, New York, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, and I think Oregon is
getting involved, and Ohio as well, in doing statewide
adaptations of ``high performance school'' design, and applying
``LEED-plus high performance school'' design to school
construction. See Collaborative for High Performance School
design at www.chps.net.
So it is very possible. States know they have a problem.
Parents know that there is a problem, and school boards
actually know that there is a problem. Trying to get your arms
around the best solutions and how to accelerate the
implementation of best practices in the field is a real
challenge. That is why we particularly like the emphasis in S.
506, your bill of allowing EPA to work with the States to help
them create comprehensive environmental quality plans for
schools.
Senator Lautenberg. Our mission is green. It takes green to
do it. Hopefully, that green will come from the Federal
Government in some part so that we can encourage the
development of these healthier buildings.
I think thematically what we ought to be saying is help
children stay healthy or get healthier, and focus on that, and
let people realize that while it may take some resources, that
the mission is so well worth it.
I thank each one of you for your appearance here today. You
contributed something to the debate. It is very important while
we have some differences, once again I think the goal is more
than an appropriate one. I thank you.
We will keep the record open for questions, and I would ask
that if we have written questions to submit to you, that you
respond as promptly as you can.
Thank you very, very much.
This committee is adjourned.
Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]