Chemical and plastics trade groups claim the federal government should stop using LEED. BuildingGreen separates the facts from the fabrications.

The FOX Architects-designed American Chemistry Council headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Photo Credit: receptiondeskworld.com

A developing focus on chemicals of concern in the LEED rating systems could make federal buildings less energy-efficient, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

In recent letters to the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and to a number of representatives in the U.S. Congress (PDF), ACC and others also claim that LEED v4 (formerly known as LEED 2012) is not “science-based” and does not use a “true consensus approach” to development.

LEED: “a tool to punish chemical companies”?

The latter document went to a group of legislators who have echoed ACC’s position in their own letter (PDF) to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) pointing to “arbitrary chemical restrictions” and claiming LEED is “becoming a tool to punish chemical companies.” See Lloyd Alter’s incisive coverage at Treehugger for more background on the congressional letter to GSA.

Below, we look at each of AAC’s claims and separate the truth from the lies. But first…

Why this attack matters

The federal government, including the military, is the single largest user of the LEED rating systems. According to data provided by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), 7% of LEED-certified projects and 11.5% of those pending certification are federal government buildings. The public sector as a whole (federal, state, and local governments combined) makes up a whopping 27% of LEED-certified projects, and smaller governments could follow the federal lead on LEED. Use of LEED by these entities has, over the last 12 years, helped develop green practices and products across the industry.

Mark Kalin
 

LEED consultants are paid to lend their expertise to achieve a project’s LEED certification goals. Their decisions focus on achieving credits and their participation is absolutely vital to the project, but some can actually work against the project's sustainability goals. Here are the top six problems I see.

#1 Discouraging bidding by specifying unrealistic LEED requirements

When a specification requires a regional source, a recycled content percentage, and certain certifications for a product, the specifier has to be certain that conforming products exist. On a recent project, the only bidder for the doors couldn’t actually meet all the requirements and put in a premium price. Other bidders declined to bid citing the requirements of the specifications. The worst outcome was a project that decided to abandon certification because of unnecessary requirements in the specifications that pushed the project over budget.

Free Webcast

Top-20 LEED-EBOM Documentation Mistakes--And How to Avoid Them

Wed. April 25 | 2 p.m. Eastern Time

Getting LEED-EBOM certification is all about documentation: At a lot of documentation. It's a lot of work, and yet--there are so many pitfalls, unknowns, and blind alleys that it's common for LEED review comments to hang projects up with tons of issues. Such problems are a frustration--at worst, they can cost a LEED certification, or certification level, that you worked hard for.

In our latest webcast, LEEDuser is pleased to offer a free presentation addressing exactly this issue: common LEED-EBOM documentation mistakes, and how you can avoid them.

Free LEEDuser Webcast

Behind the Scenes on LEED 2012: New Developments in Credit Documentation, Reference Guides, and More

Thurs. April 26, 2012 | 3 p.m. EDT

As we've seen from the LEED 2012 drafts and public comment periods, major changes are underway for the LEED rating systems. So many changes resulted from the 3rd public comment period, in fact, that USGBC announced a 4th public comment period, to run May 1–15.

Yes, the Department of Defense is using ASHRAE 189.1 and other guidelines--but a code is not the same as a rating system, says an Army spokesperson.

Blogger Chris Cheatham of the Green Building Law Update raised alarms about LEED's future earlier this week with this eye-popping headline: "Army Abandons LEED Certification." Citing testimony by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn that discussed the Department of Defense's intention to create its own internal building code based on ASHRAE 189.1, Cheatham concluded that LEED was dead in the military and that this was a "game-changer" for federal contractors, LEED APs, and the very survival of LEED.

Along with some commenters on Chris's post, we suspected this conclusion was a little premature. LEED has a lot of challenges ahead, but we have confirmed that losing the Army is not currently one of them.

As Dave Foster in the Pentagon's Media Relations Division told us, "LEED is a rating system. ASHRAE is a construction code. The two are not the same."

If we want to slow global warming, we need to stop being such tree-huggers and start embracing the world's forests. And yes, there's a difference.

This is part three in our "Wood Wars" series.

Part 1: Are FSC and LEED Killing American Jobs? A Look at the Evidence

Part 2: FSC and Beyond: LEED 2012 Buries the "Wood Wars" Hatchet

Next: forests and global warming

From earliest childhood, most people naturally want to be in or near trees--the seed of environmentalist leanings for many of us. Solving problems like global warming will take a more nuanced and rational approach that balances our love of nature with the economic and environmental realities of forest systems.

Some children have pets. I had trees.

Free Webcast

LEED 2012 3rd Public Comment Period and Beyond: The Future of LEED

Wed. March 14, 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time Register Now!

LEEDuser's LEED 2012 experts cover the key issues

After months of controversy, the third public comment draft of LEED 2012 strengthens commitments to both FSC and local wood--while not budging on the importance of life-cycle assessment.

This is Part 2 in our "Wood Wars" series.

Part 1: Are FSC and LEED Killing American Jobs? A Look at the Evidence

Part 3: Three Things You Need to Know About Forests and Climate Change

Next: forests and global warming

In this ad from last year, several heavy-hitting environmental groups attempted to show the difference between life-cycle metrics and performance-based standards--and also objected to the since-revised credits for biobased materials. Click to embiggen.

For years, certified wood has ignited tempers and dominated discussions of building materials in the LEED rating systems.

FSC and LEED, with its certified wood credit, are hurting the economy, claim the governor of Maine, a U.S. Senator, and SFI. We take a look at the evidence.

This is Part 1 in our "Wood Wars" series.

Part 2: FSC and Beyond--LEED 2012 Buries the "Wood Wars" Hatchet

The John Mitchell Center at the University of Southern Maine achieve LEED certification in 2005--the second building in the state to do so. A new executive order makes more buildings like this one illegal.

As you may know, the U.S. Congress tried to restrict the military's use of LEED in its recent budget law (it's probably not going to work, as we reported a couple weeks ago).

LEED Minimum Program Requirement #6, requiring energy and water use reporting, is the most controversial and the most difficult to comply with. Our free webcast explains it step by step.

Free Webcast: LEED Energy Reporting Made Easy: Fulfilling LEED-2009 MPR #6

Tues. Feb. 28 | 1 p.m. Eastern Time

When the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) were introduced in 2009, it quickly became clear that MPR #6 would be perhaps the most controversial and the most difficult to comply with. Under the requirements of MPR #6, certified LEED-2009 projects are committed to sharing whole-building energy and water usage data.