Why? Why is everyone so obsessed with claiming their rating system is more consensus than the other's. I'd much rather see the two rating systems compete with the results.
- Buildings using my rating system use 23% less energy than the average new construction building. Your rating system only uses 5% less energy.
- Occupants in buildings using my rating system used 4.3 sick days a year per FTE. In your rating system the average was 5.2 sick days per FTE.
I could draft a better rating system than LEED or Green Globes. And it definitely would not be consensus based. Way too many chefs in the kitchen for my taste. And in my opinion, the majority is usually wrong. Let's judge and value the rating systems on measurable data of building performance. Everything else is just debate club.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
July 19, 2013 - 10:47 am
They can't compete with results unless they 1) have the results and 2) are willing to share them.
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
July 22, 2013 - 10:51 am
Exactly, we should be demanding results.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
July 23, 2013 - 4:55 pm
To be a bit less flip about this, "everyone" is not obsessed with claiming consensus. The people with the alleged ANSI standard are obsessed with using that as a lever.
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
July 31, 2013 - 3:27 pm
Per the CEO of USGBC, Rick Fedrizzi,
"Our role and our mission is to help transform the market to better buildings through the collective voice of the building industry. The USGBC consensus process brings everyone - including parties with diametrically opposed and competitive interests to the table that represents the market. And if you think about it Bill [Walsh]...I think we are lucky to finally have a forum for this kind of discussion.
"The role of the USGBC never has been to dictate the proverbial "answer", that is not our job. Instead we give the industry the tools, the process, and the forum within which they can arrive at the answer for themselves."
The consensus process is the fundamental function of USGBC per its CEO. It creates a forum, a process.
And it looks like they have applied for ANSI Accreditation to fight the claim made by AHPBC.
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1103.pdf
And by "everyone" I meant these two groups, the news/blogs, the design professionals, and the politicians.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
July 31, 2013 - 3:58 pm
USGBC became an ANSI standard developer in 2007 in order to fend off attacks about not have a "true consensus process." But ANSI's job is to streamline standards, not create multiple standards that have the same goal. There is already an ANSI green building standard, as far as ANSI is concerned, and USGBC can't develop a second one. I would not agree that USGBC is "obsessed" with its process. The reason it's a constant topic is that lobbyists are driving the conversation, and they are basing their attacks on federal government rules about consensus. That wasn't USGBC's idea, or LEEDuser's. Presumably it is a federal safeguard against nepotism and (ironically) industry lobbying, and in that context it makes complete sense.
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
August 9, 2013 - 11:24 am
I think we have different backgrounds and may be having two different arguements. I know very little about ANSI but have been trying to read up on it. I see at least two ANSI green building standards. Green Globes and ASHRAE 189. I don't see anything preventing USGBC from developing LEED into another ANSI standard. Then the 3 different groups would be encouraged by ANSI to work the standards into a single one.
I see a lot of ways that Green Globes could get their ANSI standard revoked. http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Ame...
All of these seem to be lacking in the Green Globes development process. Public notification, openness, balance, public review, and appeals. Someone (aka USGBC) who feels they have been wronged should be able to spend the time jumping thru the ANSI appeals process hoops that would eventually pick apart Green Globes. I just read how the Glass lobbying industry appealed ASHRAE 90.1 that tried to limit the percenage of glass in new building facades. By using the ANSI process they argued they were not adequately represented and the technical basis of the decision was not properly documented. Use the system the way lobbyist do.
All of that being said about how Green Globes fails to live up to ANSI standards I see a couple things that LEED will need to change to become compliant. There is no appeals mechanism during the public comments. I also do not see effort made to resolve any objections to the standard. I've commented on here for years how my suggestions to improve LEED are regularly dismissed or how responses are copy/pasted and not relevant to the suggestion.
So LEED needs to work on two areas to get ANSI and Green Globes needs to work on 5 or 6 areas to keep their ANSI rating.
Out of curiousity, if USGBC became an ANSI standard developer in 2007, why didn't they get ANSI already? Why did Green Globes beat them to the punchline?
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
August 12, 2013 - 9:35 am
Lots of good info and questions! We're planning some further coverage on this, so stay tuned.
Karen Joslin
principalJoslin Consulting
216 thumbs up
December 2, 2013 - 4:28 pm
Here it is Dec and we are waist deep in the ACC/Timber efforts to ban LEED in Ohio for public projects. I also thought Green Globes had earned the ANSI Standards Development Organization but they do not appear on the list as of today. Paula or anyone - any updates on if or when that would happen? With the ICC being an SDO and authoring the IgCC I also wonder if any other system could be recognized as ANSI does allow only one standard per "subject" as I understand things.
And per the comments above/below on appeals - the LEED systems are not balloted until a final draft has been proposed that theoretically includes consensus on issues from the comments. Since the consensus body is so huge - far different than an ANSI standard body - the voters can vote up or down - that is the "appeal". No need for another step other than just don't use the standards.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 7:53 am
Karen, what list are you looking at?
GBI and USGBC are both ANSI standards developers. Only the ANSI/GBI standard is an ANSI standard, and there is serious question now about its overlap with the Green Globes tool itself. If ANSI has taken ANSI/GBI off its list of standards for some reason, that would be important to know about. Meanwhile, check out this article in EBN if you haven't read it. It's about a former board member who quit GBI over their continued ANSI claims, which he believes are false: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2013/10/31/Green-Globes-Bo...
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 9:07 am
I can't find "ANSI/GBI 01-2010" doing a search of the ANSI documents website. It only shows up on the ICC website. Just doing a search on ANSI for the key words of "Green Building" all I can find is ASHRAE 189.1. "Green Globes" comes up with nothing.
How coy GBI is with their wording of the 2013 version of Green Globes I'll say it is not an ANSI document. They'd be shouting to the roof tops if it was. Instead all they say is "Green Globes NC is now based on an ANSI standard". We'll any movie I've ever seen that said it was "based on" some event, diverges quite far from that event.
I also saw GBI posted some public comments. Two rounds out of 4 were posted. I laughed when I saw the last round had 3 pages of comments from 6 people. They seem to address comments in the same manner that USGBC does. They accept any grammatical correction or minor tweaks but any substantial comment is rejected.
http://www.thegbi.org/about-gbi/ANSI-accredited-standards-developer.shtml
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 9:44 am
Bill, they do not need to shout to the rooftops when they have the ear of policymakers. I am looking into why the standard isn't on the ANSI site!
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 12:12 pm
A director at ANSI has confirmed that GBI/ANSI 01-2010 remains an approved standard. According to the email, their decision to sell only through their own website is "separate from the ANS process and ... is not significant in any way."
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 1:38 pm
Were they able to confirm if Green Globes NC-2013 is an ANSI document? Or is that left up to the ANSI standards developer to self regulate? GBI.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 1:51 pm
Bill, that is not their territory. They regulate only the ANSI process. As mentioned in the EBN article I linked to above, they would not get involved in the relationship between the Green Globes tool and the ANSI standard unless someone alleges false claims through an official process. And then, they would likely only make GBI change its written materials.