UT Dallas 74,000-square-foot (6,900 m2) Student Services Building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As readers of Construction Law Musings can attest, I am an enthusiastic (if at times skeptical) supporter of sustainable (or “green”) building.  I am solidly behind the environmental and other benefits of this type of construction.  However, I have likened myself to that loveable donkey Eeyore on more than one occasion when discussing the headlong charge to a sustainable future.  While I see the great benefits of a privately built and privately driven marketplace for sustainable (I prefer this term to “green” because I find it less ambiguous) building stock and retrofits of existing construction, I have felt for a while that the glory of the goal has blinded us somewhat to the risks and the need to consider these risks as we move forward.

Another example reared it’s ugly head recently and was pointed out by my pal Doug Reiser (@douglasreiser) at his Builders Counsel Blog (a great read by the way).  Doug describes a project that I mentioned previously here at Musings and that is well described in his blog and in a recent newsletter from Stuart Kaplow (@stuartkaplow), namely, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center project.  I commend Doug’s post for a great description of the issues, but suffice it to say that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued Weyerhauser over some issues with a sustainable wood product that failed.  While the case was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the case illustrates issues that arise in the “new” sustainable building world.

While at bottom, the legal considerations for us construction attorneys are not all that different (breach of contract, construction defects, failure to meet plans and specifications), some of the risks inherent in the process are either new or old ones wrapped in new materials.  In short, we’re using old materials in new ways and using new materials that hadn’t been used before in these types of projects.  This means that we don’t have the years of engineering data to back up proper use of these materials and this can lead to issues over time.

My fear is not that energy efficiency and other benefits of sustainable building will not be met, but that failure to see and anticipate these risks will lead to setbacks in the process. On major problem with a “green” project (LEED or otherwise) will do more to slow the process than taking our time and doing things right the first time.  As my dad used to say:  its better to be 5 minutes late than speed to be there “on time” and get a speeding ticket that slows you down even more.

Thanks again to Doug and Stuart and please let me know your thoughts.  Am I off base?  What do you think?

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

I have spoken on many occasions here at Construction Law Musings and elsewhere about the risks and rewards for contractors found in sustainable construction.  The rewards were fairly apparent.  New markets, government incentives and the desires of owners to be “green” clearly point toward a need for contractors to get into the sustainable building game.

However, when I was first writing my Eeyore like thoughts most of the thoughts of all us construction attorneys were speculative.  Whether because wholesale “green” construction was relatively new or because the court process was relatively slow, there were not many ways to test if our, shall we say “less optimistic,” predictions were going to come to pass.

For better or worse, several of the more dire predictions have come true.  One major green construction debacle is the Destiny USA litigation.  I cannot possibly set out all of the various issues as well as my friend and colleague Chris Cheatham does in his e-book about the project and its aftermath (.PDF).  I highly recommend this e-book and the posts found at Chris’ Green Building Law Update blog for those of you interested in how the IRS, the USGBC and the Green Bonds Program interact to cause many a pitfall for construction and design professionals.

Another scenario that has always been at the back of my mind is the potential liability found in the engineering aspects of these construction projects.  As I have said before, contractors, subcontractors and engineers are all interacting with new building materials or using tried and true materials in new ways.  This type of innovation is both laudable and risky.  Without years of engineering data or an eye toward the potential future issues, AEC professionals can get caught in a liability bind.

This scenario came to a head in the case of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation building in Montgomery County, MD.  In that case (described well at GBLU), the Foundation wanted “green” building materials in their local headquarters.  The Foundation then used “green” Parallams in the construction of the roof truss system (among other elements of the building) in order to meet its goal.  Despite assurances from the supplier of the parallams, a Weyerhauser subsidiary, that these beams would survive exposure to the elements, the parallams began to rot and the building became potentially unsafe.  Needless to say litigation ensued.

At the risk of sounding like I’m saying “I told you so,” these scenarios are just the sort of scenarios that my colleagues and I have been discussing.  I am far from happy to be among a group of folks that have been shown to be correct.  I am fully behind the move to sustainable building and do not want to see these hopefully isolated incidents put a damper on that laudable movement.  However, these examples show the need to anticipate risks and work with construction attorneys, architects and engineers knowledgeable in the practical and legal aspects of risk management in sustainable building.

On a more optimistic note, and despite the title of this post, I do not believe that the sky is falling.  If anything, these incidents should give us the ability metaphorically get our umbrellas up and anticipate these risks better in the future.  With the added knowledge that these cases provide, we can carefully move forward to a future in construction with a strong sustainable base.

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts.  Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday Musings, we welcome Nick Pacella.  Nick is an architect licensed in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. His practice has spanned several economic swings and he has been able to reposition the eggs in his basket to make the most of each recovery. He is currently focusing on adapting existing commercial buildings to take advantage of materials and processes that promote improved energy efficiency for both the owner and the tenants. For a more colorful rendition of projects you can visit his company’s website, www.nmparch.com.

I remember as a kid when the attendant at gas stations would not only clean your windows but also check the oil level of your vehicle as it was filling up with $0.25 per gallon gas. (I did say that I have seen several economic swings) These services have mostly disappeared, and to no great effect to your car since most cars go much longer between oil changes. Other than a slightly dirtier windshield it hasn’t affected your ability to drive and maintain your car.

This is not so with professional services. Architects used to include many services that are now sourced to others. Project Management, Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers now populate the landscape. In many cases they came to be because architects either did not provide the service their client’s were looking for or they allowed themselves to be put into an adversarial relationship with their clients. They were likened to foxes watching the chicken coop, especially for project management and owners representative services. Client’s have had others buzzing in their ears “are architects really going to look out for my interests above theirs?’” Of course the clients never ask if the new wave will do any better at rallying behind their interests.

For the most part Owners Representatives and Project Managers are well trained and offer a dependable service, but the issue still remains; is the architect still a part of the main team in terms of the dissemination of information? The more information from the client is filtered as it is passed on, the more dissimilar it is to the original. Just think of any game of ‘telephone’ and how the first phrase that is whispered is mutated and transformed by the time it reaches the last pair of ears. This becomes even more disjointed if the disseminator is deciding what information each person ‘needs to know’. I have worked with many skilled PM that can do this well. Unfortunately, I have seen a trend to hiring younger and less experienced (cheaper) staff that is not experienced. Information is portioned out so as to protect their interests/job and not those of the client or the project. In the end the architect will be held responsible for a design that does not meet the clients needs even when he did not receive all the pertinent data.

I also see a disconnect happening at the construction administration side of projects. This time it is more of a cost saving move by owners who may have facilities staff and feel they don’t need CM services from the architect. Decisions are made on the site that have a negative domino effect and could have been avoided if the architect was engage during the CM process. Usually the costs to reconcile any problems are far in excess of the fee an architect would have charged to attend weekly meetings. Again, a seasoned facilities engineer would know when to call in the architect or engineer when a question that is outside their expertise comes up. The trend to hiring younger, less seasoned staff has extended to these positions as well and they tend to shoot from the hip as a matter of course just to show they have game.

The other central factor in limiting services is the architect themselves. As access to projects becomes more competitive, fees become are being set for a limited scope of services, almost like a Chinese menu approach, so that the base fee presented with the bid is as low as possible. If you want services for specifying furniture that is extra, or you are allowed only one schematic design or no bid supervision. It can go on and on and the service that is offered for the base bid is almost useless in producing viable construction documents.

This can produce a disastrous soup when you combine documents that do not fully describe the scope of work to be done with inexperienced project management or facilities personnel. Peer review of documents would go a long way to aiding he architect in providing adequate documentation, but I don’t see much of that happening any more. The same goes for lessons learned sessions after the project is completed. No money in the budget to do that and so it is off to the next billable hour.

As we move forward with new dictates for greater sustainability and owners’ expectations of higher energy efficiency in the designs they are paying for I only see this scenario getting worse, except, that is, for lawyers.

As always, Nick and I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Image via Wikipedia

I was having a discussion regarding “green”  building with my friend and recent guest poster here at Musings, Nick Pacella (@nmpacella) this past week and (as often happens when I chat with the great folks in the construction world) it got me to thinking.  Is “Green” its own separate category of construction, or just another sub-set of possible specifications for a construction project with it’s own set of challenges?

Much has been made of sustainable construction from a risk management, marketing, governmental and about every other standpoint that I can think of.  Much has been made in the news and in the blogosphere about the safety of “Green” buildings and the cost.  One question I haven’t seen dealt with is whether we really need to be talking about “green” construction in the first place.

Think about it, the word green means many things to many people.  Certain owners want nothing but energy savings and see the pure environmental benefits as secondary.  Others see it the other way around.  Some want air quality.  Some want it all.  Some just think it’s cool , but don’ t really know what that means.  If you say “I want a green building” to me, I will pull out a color wheel.

Many owners think that they know what they want, they just may or may not know how to express it.  This is where architects, engineers, contractors and (yes) construction attorneys come in.  The key to any construction project is proper expectations that are regularly updated throughout the project.  The earlier the owner is educated as to the cost, materials, feasibility and time frame of the project, the better.  This starts with the initial meeting and a definition of what “green” means for the owner.  Once this meeting occurs, the rest of the process is the same whether the project is “green” or “regular” (with the possibility of certification as an overlay).  Plans need to be drawn, detailed specifications need to be written, contractors and subcontractors need to be hired and consulted to figure out the practical avenues of completion, change order procedures need to be followed and the project needs to get to the finish line.

In short, if you take the word “green” out of the above scenario, you have a set of good construction practices for any project.  This is why I think that construction is construction and expectations vary for that construction from owner to owner regardless of if you call it “green” or otherwise.  While being “fluent” in the sustainable construction field can help an architect or contractor meet an owner’s expectations, it does not mean that “green” construction is all that different from traditional construction.

What do you think?  Am I off base in thinking that construction (green or otherwise) follows the same rules and is not all that different?  Let me know.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Paul E. Beers.  Paul is the Managing Member of Glazing Consultants International, LLC (GCI), a building envelope consulting firm in business since 1988. He has over 25 years experience in the window and glazing trade and with building envelopes. He is a leading expert with glazing systems and hurricane damage and protection and was instrumental in the development and implementation of missile impact tests after Hurricane Andrew hit Dade County, FL. His expertise includes windows, doors, glass and wall claddings with an emphasis on water leakage and damage. He has served as an expert witness in federal and circuit courts for windows, doors, glass and wall systems and water leakage. Paul can be reached at pbeers@glazingconsultants.com or on Twitter @glazingconsult. Find out more about GCI on the web at http://www.glazingconsultants.com, and join its LinkedIn group to discuss building envelope issues.

I admit I’m a sucker for new technology.  Just this week, I ordered an Apple iPad with all the bells and whistles. A friend showed me his, and then, I had to have one. My justification is that I can now travel without lugging my 10-pound laptop everywhere.

Knowing my luck, Apple will come out with the new and improved model next week, and mine will be obsolete. But I bought with confidence because I know Apple puts a lot of resources into research, development and product testing.

Unfortunately, that’s not always the case with new building materials. Many products are ultimately tested in the field, and if history is any indicator, problems may develop with “green” technologies for buildings.

When building codes were changed for better hurricane resistance a few years back, it spawned new applications and adaptations of existing products, first in South Florida and then in many other areas of the U.S. and Caribbean. Good ideas didn’t always turn out as intended, resulting in product failures, warranty claims and litigation.

One hurricane product innovation was laminated glass interlayers, which were developed in order to pass missile impact tests. They were rushed to market and initially embraced by the construction industry and consumers. However, for some startups, quality was lacking, and visual distortion through the glass made telephone poles look wavy and the ocean look rough, even on calm days. Other glass products failed over the next few years by clouding and delaminating.

Another unforeseen effect was that some windows, doors and storm shutters which met the building code requirements leaked water profusely. They provided protection from high winds and windborne debris, but they were not properly designed to resist water leakage.

A lot of claims and litigation related to the new hurricane technologies developed, including several class action suits.  Some disputes were between manufacturers and suppliers, and others were between consumers and manufacturers. Repairs usually required replacing defective products and were costly and time consuming. Some startups didn’t honor claims and quickly went out of business as soon as the claims started coming in, leaving insurance companies to defend them.

I believe we can expect more of the same type of issues to arise as a result of the green movement. In the glass and fenestration industry, products are being developed with new glass coatings, new insulated glass technologies, photovoltaic cell applications, more efficient windows and doors and so on. Inevitably, the focus on energy efficiency may leave other areas such as durability, condensation resistance and water leakage ignored. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the next round of litigation begins.

As always Paul and I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Construction Law Musings welcomes Steve Szoke, P.E., LEED AP.  Steve is Director of Codes and Standards for the Portland Cement Association in Skokie, Illinois.  He graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Lehigh University, in his native state of Pennsylvania.  He is a register professional engineer in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

His accomplishments and activities related to sustainability include past chair and honorary member of the Sustainable Building Industry Council; International Code Council Sustainable Buildings Technology Committee which developed of the draft version of the International green Construction Code; ASTM Committee E60 on Sustainability; and ACI Committee 122 Energy Efficiency of Concrete and Masonry Systems.

Many state and local jurisdictions are developing or considering the development of green or sustainable codes for the design and construction of buildings.  PCA has observed that there are currently no national reference standards or model codes available at this time, but these efforts are progressing.  Most code development that PCA has reviewed tend to be based on or using language from  the US Green Building Council (USGBC) certification program Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or language from drafts of the American Society for Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard 189.1 Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings Except Low-rise Residential Buildings.

The LEED program is not written in mandatory language and tends to be broader in scope than what is typically within the purview of building code departments.  The ASHRAE standard is still a draft.  PCA has reviewed several of the state and local efforts and compiled these proposed changes into one set of amendments for consideration of adoption for the design and construction of high performance buildings.  In addition to the typical “green” or “sustainable” provisions, PCA included provisions for increased durability and disaster resistance.

Adding green or sustainability features to buildings designed and built to the minimum life safety codes just does seem to make sense.  Sustainable buildings should be more durable and more resistant to natural disasters, including but not limited to hurricanes, tornadoes, other high wind events, hail storms, floods, structure fires and wildland fires.  This is especially true with the extreme weather conditions that are occurring.  Over recent years the intensity, extremes and frequency of severe weather has increased.  Wildland fires are become more intense.  Last year Georgia was in a drought and concerns about wildland fires were paramount.

This year Georgia is experiencing extreme flooding.  Many buildings built to the minimum life safety code requirements of conventional building codes need to be demolished and rebuilt or significant portions need to be reconstructed.  Deconstruction, demolition, replacement and repair due to severe weather that is becoming more commonplace simply doesn’t seem to consistent with the overlying philosophy of green building.  More stringent design and construction requirements will reduce the amount of demolition, replacement, and reconstruction when disasters occur.  This philosophy is not currently being addressed in most national model code and reference standards efforts regardless of proposals and pleas by a minority represented in these efforts.  Opposition has historically been, “green buildings can be provided” or “safer and more secure buildings can be provided as long as they don’t cost a penny more to build.”

Maybe buildings built to the minimum building code requirements should not be classified as high performance buildings.  The approach taken by PCA is consistent with the whole building design guide model adopted as a model by the High Performance Building Council.  Fortunately in the United States there are opportunities to amend and append building codes at the state and local level so that building codes may be modified to address regional and local geography, geology, population density, disaster recovery programs, climate, and other conditions and priorities within the jurisdiction.  For more information visit  www.cement.org/codes/hpbc_ordinance.asp.

Steve and I encourage your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

This month’s Virginia Business Magazine is a great issue on green jobs in Virginia. The whole issue is very worth reading.

I was fortunate enough to be interviewed in connection with the piece entitled “LEEDing the Way?” The topic of discussion in this article is the incentive provided by the market and state and local governments for building green.

Please check it out.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

Image via Wikipedia

For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome back Elaine Hirsch.  Elaine describes herself as a kind of a jack-of-all-interests, from education and history to medicine and videogames. This makes it difficult to choose just one life path, so she is currently working as a writer for various education-related sites and writing about all these things instead.

While layoffs and business closings are making the news, there is one sector that is quietly educating and growing a new economy filled with transformation and economic recovery. Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) initiatives not only consume less energy in the long run, but bring recognition and cost savings for institutions in the short run. MBA Online states that the need for innovation is driven by an exceptionally difficult economic environment, and given today’s stagnant economy, greener energy solutions have become such innovations. According to the Pew Charitable Trust report, between 1998 and 2007 there were two times the amount of job creation in the clean energy sector as any other sector in the nation.

One of the significant differences in LEED driven job positions is that there are levels and opportunities unlike manufacturing or service positions that offer little growth. It is not necessary to spend the rest of your life paying back a student loan when going into a LEED based educational field. To date, there are almost 175,000 LEED professionals throughout the world that have been certified in special areas of green energy and this number is expected to double in the next 2-3 years. According to the US Green Building Council, green construction contributed to 2.4 million jobs between 2000 and 2008, and this number is expected to grow to 7.9 million by 2013.

The government has provided the work available through a Coalition for Better Buildings and affordable training can be easily found. There are 34 states to date that have adopted LEED-based policies for public and private buildings and hundreds of local governments are following suit. Being a veteran offers even better programs with reimbursements available for exams. Many times receiving a LEED Certification in a given area of your interest can open doors just by getting hired by a fine company at the ground level.

The economy is not continuing on a downward slide but simply transitioning into a new direction if you take the time to notice a LEED-based career and where it can lead. Just as electricity, gas-powered vehicles and plastics have changed our way of life, electronics, renewable energy and LEED building is leading us in a new, exciting direction. Take part in the positive side of a changing world and find out how beneficial Sustainability Education and Economic Development (SEED) can guide you to being competitive in the direction of tomorrow.

As always, Elaine and I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

I would like to say a big thank you to Rich Cartlidge and his Green Building Envirotrends Blog for allowing me to guest post. Connections with great folks like Rich are what keep me going here at Musings. Please check him out on Twitter and explore his blog.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday, we welcome a couple of authors.  Gary Klein has been intimately involved in energy efficiency and renewable energy since 1973.  His firm, Affiliated International Management LLC, provides consulting on sustainability.  Craig Conner has been involved with energy efficient buildings since 1976.  He is active in the development of energy and green related building codes.

We, along with several code enforcement staff and colleagues from around the country, proposed changes to the IGCC that would cut its size of the new green code by 2/3. Why revise the IGCC so radically?  Because we want green to actually happen.  The IGCC needs to be simple, understandable, usable, useful and enforceable.

As a society, we celebrate adopting something with Green or Sustainable in the tile.  But our goal is not titles; it is impact on buildings, on people, on the environment.  We should celebrate the greening of buildings.  So how is the implementation of the IGCC doing?  Poorly.

Who has adopted the IGCC?  Richland WA, Maryland, Oregon, North Carolina, Scottsdale AZ, and others.  An impressive list.  Are they really using it? The city in which Craig resides, Richland WA, was the first to adopt the IGCC in August 2010.  So far the total number of buildings built under the IGCC is zero (none).  Richland adopted the IGCC as a “non-mandatory document.  Is Richland a greener city because of this code?  Not yet.  In Maryland the IGCC is an “optional requirement”.  North Carolina used only the rainwater provisions.  The IGCC is an “alternative requirement” for new public buildings in Rhode Island.  Oregon only adopted parts of the IGCC, but modified the energy chapter and utilized the IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement for the water chapter.  Other “adoption” stories are similar.

How many have really applied the IGCC?  Hundreds of buildings would be a comforting answer.  Cities or states that routinely applied the IGCC, just like the other I-codes, would be good.  Are there even 10 buildings that have fully applied this adopted code?  We doubt it.  Have any really applied Craig’s least favorite least favorite chapter, energy?  What was the definition of “green washing” again?

In the language of Dr. Seuss- Green is good.  More green is better.  No green is not good.  An unused green code, that can’t be good?

Do we oppose green?  Hardly.  Our careers have focused on energy and water efficiency.  We are currently active in revising ICC 700 (residential green standard).  We were active in the 2012 IECC and IGCC code development processes.  Craig has authored or helped with many IECC energy upgrades.  Gary is active in ASHRAE standards development, sits on the IAPMO Green Technical Committee and is nationally recognized for his work on the water-energy-carbon footprint connection.  In addition to us, there were four code enforcement staff signatures on GG34, staff with extensive code development, training and code enforcement experience.  (“GG34” is the number given our proposal in the IGCC code development process.)  Our entire GG34 team acknowledges input from many others, mostly code enforcement staff, from around the country.
So who wants this “Simple Green”.  Among others, many code officials that want to use the IGCC.

Mike Collignon’s post on the recent IGCC code development hearings was a pleasure to read.  We agree with Mike’s assessment that the initial large group of code official voters would likely have supported simplifying the IGCC as represented by GG34.  The first day’s large audience only got to vote on one part of GG34, and gave us a 77% “yes” vote.  Later votes that GG34 lost were based on smaller groups, sometimes much smaller groups of voters.

We believe the typical code official wants something that can be used.  They want the Simple Green.  Without the Usable IGCC, the price of complexity in the code world is confusion and lack of compliance.

Most code changes come from product makers, trade associations, or advocates of various good causes.  As such their focus is a few sections or maybe a few pages in a 200+ page IGCC.  They don’t see complexity as they are only concerned with a small fraction of the code.  We are trying to make the whole code usable, which is why so many of our supporters are those that have to use the whole code, the code officials.

What did we propose to change in the IGCC to get Simple Green?  GG34 was based on a number of principles.  A longer version can be found here.

• Principle:  Focus on the core of green: energy and water.  IGCC energy should be built on the IECC.  IGCC water should be built on the IPC.

The IGCC content on water is OK, but we clarified and condensed the chapter, cutting the code text in half by removing language already in other I-codes and by creating a section for provisions shared by graywater, rainwater and reclaimed water.  In contrast, the content in energy is a mess. We believe the IGCC creates a new energy code, missing the ICC mandate to be an overlay to the IECC in energy.

Why do we say a new energy code?  IGCC covers plug loads (outside the scope of the IECC).  IGCC uses a new metric, source energy, while the IECC, ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 189.1 (ASHRAE commercial green) all use energy cost.  Just look at the tables of multipliers in the IGCC energy chapter, none of these factors even applies in the IECC.  IGCC adds several equations, such as for greenhouse gases; let’s just reduce energy use and the greenhouse gas will be improved even if we don’t do a calculation.  IGCC creates a “zEPI”.  So what zEPI value equals energy code compliance?  There is not an answer, they are apples and oranges.

An important acknowledgement: To be fair to the IGCC development committee, they were not given enough time.  Given another year with another cycle we believe they would have fixed may of the issues GG34 dealt with.

Are there precedents for simpler codes being better?  Yes, for example, the rewrite of the 2003 IECC resulted in the 2006 IECC that was only 1/3 the length  with the smaller code having more impact.

Let’s be clear.  The I-codes should include a green code.  We are absolutely not trying to create a competing green code.  We advocate adoption of the IGCC (and I-code family), and will offer a set of amendments that a jurisdiction can adopt to produce a Usable IGCC, or “Simple Green”.  We expect to have that revised Usable IGCC with amendments based on the 2012 IGCC and reasons by late January.  Send us an email then if you want a copy (free) when it is ready.

As always, Mike, Kevin and I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

© Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 U.S. license.