Posted on 02/25/2009 3:26:25 PM PST by Professional Engineer
One of a handful of laws in the U.S. requiring private buildings to meet LEED standards, legislation passed in 2006 in Washington, D.C., may be unenforceable as currently written. According to the Washington Business Journal, the D.C. Department of Environment is working to address a complaint from the surety industry, which issues bonds that guarantee the completion of construction projects.
The law mandates specific LEED standards for new construction in the city, starting with LEED Silver public buildings in 2008 and ending with LEED Certified large commercial buildings in 2012 (see EBN Vol. 15, No. 12). Developers must provide “performance bonds” for up to four percent of the construction cost, up to a maximum of $3 million. If the building fails to achieve LEED certification, the bond is paid into a green building fund held by the City.
The National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) and the Surety and Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) complained to D.C. officials in 2007 that the way the bonds are defined is not consistent with industry practice. Performance bonds are often issued by a third party (the surety) to ensure, for example, that a contractor meets its obligations. The performance bond in this case, however, does not serve to bring the building into compliance (developers are not required to change their buildings, just pay the fee) and may represent a conflict of interest, since the bond is paid to the same agency that enforces the law. The two groups also expressed concern that the legislation does not specify which party in a project team would be responsible for paying the bond to the City. That lack of clarity could lead the surety industry to avoid issuing the bonds, requiring owners to acquire lines of credit or put bond money in escrow, which could be more expensive for them.
The Department of Environment has created an interagency working group that hopes to have revised regulation ready in spring of 2009.
Sounds like an example of government regulation that interferes with the established practices of the construction industry.
“Sounds like an example of government regulation that interferes with the established practices of the construction industry.”
Doesn’t pretty much all government regulation interfere with the established practices of whomever is being regulated?
The USGBC (hippie retreads and neo-hippies) is a consensus organization (there's that word, where have we heard it before).
They write their standards based on emotional opinion; not science, safety, or practicality. They can change what is required to achieve LEED Silver anytime they want.
If the city law says you have to get Silver, and the USGBC changes the requirement to include having no heat and no air conditioning, then the building would have to be built that way (although it would probably not meet code, in which case code would trump LEED but then it wouldn't be LEED Silver so you .....). This is an extreme and (maybe) absurd example, but it makes my point that a private organization of lefties should not be given building code authority.
As an aside, the new LEED system rates GLOBAL WARMING prevention and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION higher than human safety! That should tell the masses something about USGBC and LEED.
The whole business of cramming LEED, Green, yada yada done our throats interferes with a lot of thing.
The upside to some of the is that a new revenue stream for the design and construction industries has been created. A building which meets many of the standards isn’t any better, got just makes to occupants feel better about themselves.
I agree with ya man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.