• Posted by: MichaelAnschel | Time: 9:09 PM Friday, June 19, 2009

  Yosemite's comment and inclusion of Carl's LEED comments is great, and I encourage readers to check out what Mr. Seville is talking about on his blog as well. It is ALSO worth reading his comments on the NAHB issue (see the link in this article) and the subsequent conversation that took place which in many ways mirrors this one. I respectfully disagree with Yosemite when it comes to calling the NAHB out on a hypocritical position, and their willingness to outright lie about both technology and economics. As Mr. Seville astutely points out, [this is like watching Detroit oppose higher milleage standards]. I am not going to waste time on Ken Jones's comment other than to suggest that he sit down and get current with the international science community's conclusions on Green House Gasses and human based climate change. One degree is a big deal.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Yosemite | Time: 1:21 PM Thursday, June 18, 2009

  Michael, I don't think you do yourself any credit by denigrating the ICC/ANSI/NAHB standard in the manner that you've chosen. Over at GreenBuildingAdvisor, Carl Seville has taken a different tact, see http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-curmudgeon/equal-opportunity-feather-ruffling which I have reprinted ..... "Equal-Opportunity Feather Ruffling" Time to talk about LEED Posted on Jun 18 by Carl Seville, GBA Advisor Time to give USGBC and LEED for Homes a hard time. It seems as though the National Green Building Standard, and NAHB in general, have been getting a lot of heat here and elsewhere lately, so I think it is time to ruffle the feathers of LEED for Homes and the USGBC. In my work providing certification under both programs, I have uncovered many of their deep, dark secrets. Both have very specific requirements and unique gaps that will be addressed in detail in future articles on GBA. In the meantime, just to keep things interesting, I thought I would review some of the features of LEED for Homes that read somewhere between confusing and incomprehensible. A balancing act As I understand it, the initial goal of LEED for Homes was to have a total of 100 available points to earn. While this makes a certain amount of sense (we do, after all, score lots of things on a 0 to 100 scale), it proved to be too much of a challenge, and the program ended up with a 45- to 136-point range. Obtaining certification at the different levels—Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum—requires a range of points, determined by house size and number of bedrooms. As LEED has fewer points available than other programs, each of those points becomes extremely valuable when seeking certification. What’s the point? This shortage of available points has caused some significant imbalances in their value. For example, if you install a $10 timer on a bath fan, you get a full point. If you hire a third-party inspector to perform a flow test on that same fan, and if it tests out within specs, you get another point. The first one is simple, cheap, and guaranteed, while the second is complicated, expensive, and, if the flow test doesn’t meet the equipment requirements, you don’t even get the point. Both practices are highly recommended, but there is a significant disparity in the cost/benefit ratio. "Point shopping" in the certification process is common. Builders start with the least expensive points, then they go for the more expensive ones until they get to the level they are seeking. This practice seems to be exacerbated by the relatively few points available. Curiouser and curiouser To me, the most curious requirement in LEED for Homes is the prerequisite on material use. The builder must develop a "lumber waste factor," an ill-defined document showing that he/she did not overorder framing materials. While I agree that avoiding waste in the construction process is very important, I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for this requirement. It would be very interesting to see research showing that this requirement actually has an effect on the amount of job-site waste. Gaming the system Each project also requires a climate- and project-specific "durability plan," including a risk evaluation form and an inspection checklist. In theory, this makes sense, but in practice, the durability plan can be subject to "gaming" by the builder, either intentionally or through ignorance. One major problem with the durability plan is that there are no requirements for standard exterior moisture control measures. The project team creates its own durability plan, and if it is decided to omit critical measures such as a weather-resistant barrier or window flashing, the project still could receive LEED Home certification. This is not very likely, but it certainly could happen if someone either chose to game the system or just didn’t know any better. In my capacity as a Green Rater on LEED Homes, I have seen many incomplete durability plans, almost all because the project team was ignorant of the LEED program. Results not yet in As LEED for Homes is still fairly new, and the Green Building Standard even newer, we will have to wait for a critical mass of certified projects before we can pass judgment on the true value of either. In the meantime, however, I think it is important to bring these issues to the attention of the industry and the sponsoring organizations. As they revise their programs, we can only hope that they listen to the end users and incorporate good suggestions. And I always enjoy ruffling feathers.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Ken Jones | Time: 10:42 AM Thursday, June 18, 2009

  I for one applaud the NAHB position. All of this nonsense is perpetuated by the belief (by some) that global warming is; 1. Really taking place. 2. Is caused by man made means. Both of which have never been satisfactorily proven. If one was to continue with an "open mind" and really be honest you would find that there are many scientists that wholeheartedly disagree with the global warming mania. Take the green (money) out of the equation and most of this nonsense would disappear in an instant. Even if the ludicrous cap and trade bill was passed the only result would be higher energy costs and taxes and no affect what so ever in regards to carbon dioxide reductions. To think anything else is dishonest. Question for "greenies." What is the ideal temperature of the earth?

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 8:37 AM Sunday, June 14, 2009

  3rd party verification MUST mean both visual identification elements in the project as well as performance testing. You can look at spray foam insulation all day long and never know if there is a void under the surface. You can test for tightness of the home and consistency of insulation, but you have to look at it in order to identify how much (r-value) has been installed.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Curmudgeon | Time: 8:01 AM Sunday, June 14, 2009

  Michael - About time you chilled, man. We were getting worried that you were about to blow a fuse. I also like Tketchum's comments. You (we) should come up with a list of specific comments and hammer them until we see positive changes. On one specific issue, I have a minor quibble. You said of the Standard "it does not require third-party verification (read the program carefully." This is not quite correct. The Standard DOES require 3rd pary verification (visual only), but, as I have said repeatedly, it does not require 3rd party performance testing. It is definitely not a self certifying program, but there is certainly room for improvement.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Michael Anschel | Time: 10:46 AM Friday, June 12, 2009

  I like the comment from TKetchum. I am complaining, and I didn't offer a constructive solution. Good call. It is important to bring our industry along and help everyone change their building practices. I don't think we are throwing anyone under the bus here though. When you go to market with a product you get judged. When you make a claim or suggest a benefit, it gets reviewed. The truth is there are so many people (many of whom are NAHB members)working hard to improve our industry and to have this standard creating confusion in the marketplace regarding what is legitimately green does our industry a dis-service. So what do we do about this? How do we help the NAHB improve their standard? Can your voices, the voices of the responsible builders and remodelers, be loud enough to be heard through the din of the manufacturers and irresponsible builders? If you have constructive ideas, send them to me and I will do what I can to help.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: ahelfman | Time: 10:05 AM Thursday, June 11, 2009

  I agree with Michael, This whole thing is a sham! The "BIG" Builders are only concerned about profitability and really dont care about lower our energy consumption. They use the "affordable" housing excuse everytime. This whole process disgusts me. The only hope is this will aloow "sharp marketing savvy" builders and remodelers to differentiate themselves from the rest.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: TKetchum | Time: 9:56 AM Thursday, June 11, 2009

  I have to dis-agree in part...although some of what you say is true. Your position is not condusive to a diplimatic solution, but rather more on the lines of just plain bitchy. If you have something good to add, I think everyone is willing to listen. Present your suggestions....I have personally read through the standard and seen some mistakes, but overall it's a real positve step in the right direction, and we can't throw people under the bus on a first effort. We need to promote the whole green movement in a productive manner and maybe since you have an opposiving view, and are so against this standard, maybe you could come up with a list of suggestions and submit them to the NAHB.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Michael Anschel | Time: 11:01 PM Wednesday, June 10, 2009

  I appreciate the variety of comments on this post. For those of you who are reading the Curmudgeon's post you will see an slightly different discussion taking place. To GreenBuilderNH I couldn't agree with you more. In fact if you were to read my previous blogs, watch my lectures, or checkout the Green building standard and certification I helped write www.mngreenstar.org you would see that I actually value energy LEAST of all the five primary concepts of Green. It is the low hanging fruit that everyone can achieve. I was simply pointing to the NAHB's opposition to what is a simple step as proof that they are less than sincere with their standard (which by the way does not address any social justice issues, site and community issues, and gives points for installing a garbage disposal!) To boonegreenbuilders I can relate. Our local HBA has a similar make-up. I get that some people are nervous, but the reality is we run businesses and are entrusted with the lives and well being of our clients and in many cases the physical creation of a community. It is our responsibility to take this role seriously. Hard work is never an excuse, and if they can't keep up then perhaps they need to re-think their career choice. Some have suggested the NAHB Green Standard is like training wheels for green. That is a good description. My problem comes when we suggest that riding with training wheels is somehow the same as riding a bike. Perhaps they should re-name the standard "the NAHB give yourself a gold star for trying this crazy thing called Green"

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: boonegreenbuilders | Time: 10:02 PM Wednesday, June 10, 2009

  As a builder i am concerned with climate change and cognizant of the urgency of the need to reduce our fossil fuel use quickily. I am a member of the NAHB and both my local and state level green building council. I can tell you first hand that there are multiple perpectives on this issue among the membership. Many committed green builders applaud the bill you mentioned as a sign of somebody in DC finally gets it, others are frankly skeptical, frightened, and simply wouldnt know how to comply with the bill if it passd. I feel stronly that it does little good to polarize these groups any more than they already are. Better by far to include and educate your fellow builders and bring them along. Tehy arent going away so let make sure they go green.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: greenbuildernh | Time: 9:06 PM Wednesday, June 10, 2009

  I strongly disagree with Mr. Anschel on several fronts. He confuses energy efficiency with green building; while it is a component, it is not the end all. I would argue that advances in building science are just as inportant and thus they are a focus of all the green building standards. Having built under the LEED for Homes Pilot Program, the NAHB Guildelines, and now the NAHB Standards, the Standards (unlike the Guidlines) are just as stringent as LEED in most respects and they do require 3rd party certification, although they do allow for the prescriptive instead of the performance path on energy efficiency. There is no conflit for the NAHB to advance green building for those who want it while maintaining its' long standing position that free market forces ultimately work better than government regulation. Buyers that want very energy efficient homes will seek out the builders who build them. That is the way our system is supposed to work!

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: greenbuildernh | Time: 9:05 PM Wednesday, June 10, 2009

  I strongly disagree with Mr. Anschel on several fronts. He confuses energy efficiency with green building; while it is a component, it is not the end all. I would argue that advances in building science are just as inportant and thus they are a focus of all the green building standards. Having built under the LEED for Homes Pilot Program, the NAHB Guildelines, and now the NAHB Standards, the Standards (unlike the Guidlines) are just as stringent as LEED in most respects and they do require 3rd party certification, although they do allow for the prescriptive instead of the performance path on energy efficiency. There is no conflit for the NAHB to advance green building for those who want it while maintaining its' long standing position that free market forces ultimately work better than government regulation. Buyers that want very energy efficient homes will seek out the builders who build them. That is the way our system is supposed to work!

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Buddhafaction | Time: 7:55 AM Wednesday, June 10, 2009

  I boggles the mind how some greet opportunity with trepidation. Of course the industry is going to try a finesse their way to avoid doing things correctly. And Michael you and your colleagues are correct in providing some push back.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 4:31 PM Tuesday, June 09, 2009

  Michael, this is a pervasive issue that goes beyond NAHB and NAR. I am reminded of the conversations at the MN Real Estate Journal conference last month. Commercial developers and builders at the conference stressed many times that they have a difficult time promoting Green because they don’t see any of the rewards. They are not the ones that ultimately pay the monthly utility bills and get the paybacks. If a Green building costs more to build, they are reluctant to promote Green because then they have to charge higher build costs or lease costs. They continue to believe that energy efficient buildings cost more – and it will if energy is not part of the design. There in lies the circular argument – they aren't promoting and selling buildings that are designed Green designed buildings, they are tryin to put Green strategies on top of existing design to make it look Green. Had they engaged integrated design, the building might not cost more in the beginning and it will certainly be more efficient in the end. I see this as NAR and NAHB’s continued argument – the builder and developer don’t live in the property, won’t see the rewards, and continue to work off old models and old relationships– not engaging knowledgeable architects/designers/energy raters but using old plans and old vendors that aren't required to know the latest technology and theories. Status quo is a tough boat to turn and there are a lot of people comfortable with status quo. Cindy O

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 11:05 AM Tuesday, June 09, 2009

  Now THAT was an editorial! I applaud your courage, Michael. The only problem is that once you piss them off, you never get them back, but maybe you don’t want them back. I’m concerned that we’re moving into an even more retrenched conservatism than we have already seen. You’re right, the home builders just want their $$ back.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 10:55 AM Tuesday, June 09, 2009

  Michael - apparantly NAHB and NAR have not connected with the public. Have any of them ever asked homeowners if they care about lowering their energy bills? Every client I have, whether they come to me Green or leave Green, is concerned about what they pay for energy every month. I was in a 3-year old home yesterday - $ 400,000 - built in the metro area of Minneapolis and built to code - but the homeowner is complaining that the lower level (a walkout complete with carpet and all finishes and a concrete slab that slopes towards the foundation!) is too cold in the winter so they don't use the space! Shame on the builder (for more than just the energy issues)! If our codes don't get better, our homes won't perform better, and homeowners will continue to fight uphill battles with energy costs and durability issues. This was a beautifully appointed home that could have used less fluff and more substance. The contractor provided minimum substance because that is all the code required. My advice - forget mandating codes. Instead, require every NAHB and NAR board member and contractor to live in a home built to NAHB standards and pay the heating/cooling and repair costs- that may change their mind about code and their Green building program. Cindy Ojczyk

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Anonymous | Time: 10:52 AM Tuesday, June 09, 2009

  Thanks for these words. I thought perhaps it would make sense (or no sense at all) to send NAHB a petition. Or better yet, letters from constituents canceling their membership. Where are the ethics in all of this? That is my biggest question. Wouldn't it have been refreshing instead if NAHB and NAR actually endorsed this? These associations should be a driver of better efficiencies, not a denouncer. Just another reason to be weary of industry created programs, certifications, and the like. I am ashamed to be affiliated with either of these industries.

  Report this as offensive

• Posted by: Curmudgeon | Time: 8:53 AM Tuesday, June 09, 2009

  Michael - Unfortunately, I have to agree with you about the NAHB standard. I was as disappointed as you when I discovered deep in the recesses of that impenetrable document that performance testing is not required for certification. At the higher levels, if you choose to actually test a building, it will help create higher performing and greener homes. The problem is that untested homes at the lower levels provide no assurance that they are any better than the code, which, as Mark Laliberte aptly stated, is a D Minus. While the standard does provide builders with the opportunity to build and renovate better, and even good green homes, it also allows them to greenwash. In many cases they may be doing so unwittingly, thinking that since they have met the standard and been certified, that their buildings must be green, when, in fact, they simply aren't.

  Report this as offensive

Comment on this Post

Post your comment below. If you wish, enter a username and password though they are not required. Please read our Content Guidelines before posting.

Enter code:

Enter the code shown in the image.