U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

55–930 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 110–1088 

GREEN BUILDINGS: BENEFITS TO HEALTH, THE 

ENVIRONMENT, AND THE BOTTOM LINE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 15, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 15, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 3 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 5 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 5 

WITNESSES 

Fox, Robert F., Jr., partner, Cook+Fox Architects ................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Templeton, Peter, vice president of Education and Research, U.S. Green 

Building Council ................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Barnett, Claire, executive director, Healthy Schools Network ............................ 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Tonjes, Ray, chairman, Green Building Subcommittee, National Association 

of Home Builders .................................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 44 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 44 

Hubbell, Ward, president, Green Building Initiative ........................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Supporting Documentation .............................................................................. 59 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 89 

Senator Warner ......................................................................................... 89 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 90 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letters from: 

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America .......................... 100 

The North American Coalition on Green Building ........................................ 103 

MCS Beacon of Hope Foundation, Largo, FL ................................................. 105 

The American Institute of Architects ............................................................. 107 

Alliance for Sustainable Built Environments ................................................ 109 

National Education Association ...................................................................... 110 

Johnson Controls, Inc. ...................................................................................... 111 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute ................................................... 112 

Child Proofing Our Communities, Project of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice ........................................................................................ 114 

Collaborative for High Performance Schools .................................................. 116 

Statement, Stockton Williams, senior vice president/managing director, Enterprise Community Partners .................................................................................. 117 

Reports: 

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................... 123 

New York State School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement, and 

Attendance ..................................................................................................... 190 

(1) 

GREEN BUILDINGS: BENEFITS TO HEALTH, 

THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE BOTTOM LINE 

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Alexander, Cardin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everyone. Just to give you the lay 

of the land, I am really pleased that we are having this hearing 

today. We have two members of this committee who have been real 

leaders on green buildings. One of them has been Senator Lautenberg and the other has been Senator Warner. So we have had great 

bipartisan interest in this. 

I am going to, if there is no objection, place my statement in the 

record and just be clear about my intentions with this bill, and say 

to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Warner’s staff if they are here, 

my intention, working with Senator Inhofe I hope in a cooperative 

way—we will see where it goes—is to bring a green buildings bill 

up for a markup very soon. 

What we have already started doing here is making the Federal 

Government a model of energy efficiency. I am very proud that we 

passed our first such bill which would retrofit Federal buildings, 

and we did this with the Administration, with Republicans and 

Democrats working together. We also added as a piece of that legislation a grants program to cities and counties so that they could 

do the same with their government buildings. There are thousands 

and thousands and thousands of government buildings, and buildings use a lot of energy. If you look at just greenhouse gas emissions, they are responsible for about 40 percent of those emissions. 

So I am very pleased that we are doing this. Senator Lautenberg, 

I love you for your efforts and I do, as well, Senator Warner. I am 

excited about this. 

Just one last point, over at the Commerce Committee, on which 

I serve, we were able to get another piece of legislation through 

which would have the Federal Government now to the greatest extent practicable purchase the most fuel efficient vehicles. So if we 

do the retrofits of the buildings and, of course, green buildings 

looks forward, and part of your bill, which I strongly support, are 
2 

grants to schools to do the same. We are beginning to make a dent 

in this issue and we are showing leadership. 

My schedule is such that WRDA is on the floor today. We are 

very anxious to finish work on that bill. I know a lot of you want 

us to. So I am going to be leaving now. Senator Inhofe, I know, is 

going to follow after his statement. We are going to meet on the 

floor and try to get these amendments to WRDA down to a reasonable number, and do our best to do our magic and get this done 

tonight. If we could get this WRDA bill done tonight, it would be 

a tremendous accomplishment for both sides. 

So with that, I am going to call on Senator Inhofe. I am going 

to hand the gavel to my good and dear friend, Senator Lautenberg, 

who has it. 

Senator Inhofe, the floor is yours. 

And thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [Presiding]. Thanks very much, Senator 

Boxer. We will try to move this along. It is a very important, as 

you have acknowledged, piece of legislation, something that needs 

attention that is almost harmless if we pay attention to it, in helping us achieve a better greenhouse gas record. 

Senator Inhofe, I am reminded, the former Chairman, presently 

just a would-be Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No, will be. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, that starts the morning off freshly. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, we went through this exercise a year ago, and we 

worked things out with Senator Jeffords. There are some good 

things to come from this that I support. There are some things that 

I want to watch out for. 

Let me do a couple of things. First of all, I would like to submit 

for the record at the conclusion of my statement the letters from 

the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the North American Coalition on Green Building. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator INHOFE. Then also I do want to submit my statement in 

its entirety for the record. But I want to say that as this moves 

along, I want to be a little bit cautious of a couple of things. One 

is what we are prescribing in the way of grants to school districts 

or to schools. I want to be very careful, Mr. Chairman, on how we 

treat the local communities and the zoning regulations. I spent four 

terms as Mayor of a major city. I can tell you there is nothing more 

offensive than having the Federal Government come in and say 

what you can and can’t do with your community. So I think we 

need to have some sanity there and look at it very carefully. 

So with those things in mind, I am hoping that we will be able 

to get something out and get it on the floor for a good debate. I 

submit my entire statement for the record, and I thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today to discuss some of the issues relating to green buildings. 

Today we will hear from our panel of five green building experts about some of 

the benefits that can be realized through following the principles of so-called ‘‘green 

building.’’ Two of the goals of green building that are of particular merit are increased energy efficiency and improved water management. 

Increased energy efficiency—along with developing new domestic sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply—is a key component of improving our 

nation’s energy security. Just a few weeks ago, Madam Chairman, we unanimously 

passed a bill out of this committee—the Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act—that 

is a sensible, effective step toward improving energy efficiency in public buildings 

at both the Federal and local levels. 

Effective use of green building design can also be used by communities across the 

country struggling to comply with the federal stormwater management program. 

These communities within metropolitan districts must take measures to reduce 

rainwater from coming into contact with pollutants. Green roofs filter, absorb and 

detain rainwater, reducing the amount being discharged into the municipal 

stormwater system and thus reducing the burden on the local community. 

I look forward to hearing more about these topics from our witnesses today. 

I am also interested, Madam Chairman, in learning more about some of the concerns with current green building practices and what we can do to address those 

concerns in any legislation we may consider in this committee. 

One concern I have heard expressed repeatedly by a number of groups and industries is that of establishing a mandate or endorsement for any one particular green 

building rating system. To date, numerous State and local governments have put 

in place various mandatory measures that call for the adoption of LEED standards 

[—the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for green buildings—] and there is legislation before this committee that specifically refers to LEED. The LEED system, however, was intended 

to be a voluntary program; additionally, there are other green buildings rating systems on the market. Promoting one system over others in legislation essentially 

amounts to brand endorsement by law. 

At this point, I would like to submit for the record letters from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the North American Coalition on Green Building stating 

their concern with referencing only the LEED system in green building legislation. 

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Ray Tonjes from the National Association of Home 

Builders today. I look forward to hearing your perspective on this matter, in addition to learning about your involvement in green building programs. I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Ward Hubbell, president of the Green Building Initiative, 

about the Green Globes rating system and what your organization is doing. 

We should pursue the goals of energy and resource conservation. During our consideration of green building legislation, however, we need to bear certain questions 

in mind. 

It’s my understanding that buildings built ‘‘green’’ don’t always perform as intended—what research still needs to be done on the actual benefits of green buildings? What standards and benchmarks are currently being used for various aspects 

of building design and certification? What mandates might we be creating, and what 

would be the consequences of those mandates? While many of the goals of green 

building are worthwhile, I am concerned about the possibility of legislating mandates—intended or otherwise—that would be costly and burdensome to our taxpayers and communities. 

I look forward to our panel addressing these issues today. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows on pp. 100–104.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Senator Inhofe. 

While there is nothing more offensive to communities than getting mandates from Washington, I don’t hear that same objection 

when it comes to grants from Washington, but I guess that is understandable. 
4 

I take the Chairman’s gracious gavel turnover, and I therefore 

assume the status of Chairman and I welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing. 

When most people consider what hurts the environment and 

harms public health, they don’t consider buildings. Our thoughts 

immediately turn to transportation, which is responsible for about 

one third, it is believed, of greenhouse gases, but buildings have an 

impact on the health of the environment and the health of nearly 

every American. That is because buildings from single family 

homes to skyscrapers are responsible for nearly 40 percent of 

America’s greenhouse gases. 

Those emissions advance global warming and threaten the 

health of our planet and our children. Poorly designed schools can 

have an unhealthy air quality. This poor air quality can cause an 

increase in childhood asthma. More than 67 percent of schools have 

at least one building design condition that contributes to asthma, 

according to a recent study. The Health Schools Network ran this 

study, and I look forward to their testimony on their report. 

In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building 

uses 30 percent less energy, emits nearly 40 percent fewer emissions, and has far better air quality. Green buildings also have 

smaller electric bills, which save owners and tenants on the cost on 

their bottom line. But if we want the private sector to go green, the 

Federal Government needs to take a leadership role and go green 

also. 

The Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of 

buildings in the Nation, and one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the entire world. So I have a bill that I first introduced with Senator Jeffords in the 108th Congress, and have recently reintroduced to get government to lead on this issue, the 

High Performance Green Buildings Act. 

So I appreciate the support that Chairman Boxer, and Senators 

Snowe, Cardin, Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, Menendez, Sanders, 

Klobuchar and Whitehouse have shown by cosponsoring my bill. 

This legislation would blend sustainable design into Federal buildings, help our buildings on the course to earn leadership in energy, 

environment and design. The acronym is LEED. They issue a silver 

rating. 

It would also provide grants, as Chairman Boxer noted, that 

model development guidelines to schools to improve the quality of 

the air that they breathe there. Tom Friedman, noted author and 

journalist, wrote in The New York Times, ‘‘Green is the new red, 

white and blue.’’ Many private companies are doing their part to 

show this new patriotism. We will hear from the architect of a new 

Bank of America green building today. 

The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States 

have signed bills similar to my legislation and it is time for the 

Federal Government to show its new colors. So we want to promote 

the environment and public health by working toward green buildings. 

Senator Alexander, please, if you want to, make a statement 

within a 5-minute period. Please do so. 
5 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate 

Senator Lautenberg on his leadership on this piece of legislation. 

I simply wanted to come by and say that. 

One way to create a green building is through solar photovoltaic 

cells, which produce electricity at the building. That is important 

to us in Tennessee because we have pretty big clean air problem. 

We have problems with sulfur, nitrogen and mercury. Solar energy 

doesn’t produce any of that. 

On the other end of our State in Memphis, Sharp, which came 

to Tennessee to make television sets when I was Governor 20 years 

ago, is now the leading manufacturer of solar photovoltaics and the 

market leader in the United States. Its manufacturing facility is 

that old television factory. They build the television sets now in 

Mexico, but they have employed even more people building solar 

photovoltaics. So I hope Tennessee will become the center of solar 

cell manufacturing in the United States. 

Another point, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people assume that only 

places like Arizona or similar locations can be useful places for 

solar. Germany, which has about 40 percent less solar energy available than the Tennessee Valley region, is the world’s leader in the 

use of solar power. So we believe that technology is likely to show 

us that in buildings and in other ways that solar energy can be 

very helpful. 

As far as renewable power, I myself prefer it to the huge 300- 

foot giant wind turbines with flashing red lights. I like the solar 

energy better and I am very hopeful that it works. 

Oak Ridge National Lab, TVA, Habitat for Humanity, the Department of Energy, are building zero-energy houses in Lenoir 

City. The John J. Duncan Federal Building in Knoxville is a great 

example of creative retrofitting of an 18-year-old Federal building 

that is making an extraordinary environmental impact. 

So Mr. Chairman, your legislation and this hearing are very 

helpful in helping us in the Tennessee Valley look for new ways to 

have clean air, produce more of our own renewable energy, and create jobs, especially in Memphis at the Sharp manufacturing plant. 

I thank you for the chance to make these opening remarks. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Alexander, it is encouraging to 

have your positive view on this. I appreciate it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Cardin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask that my 

entire statement be put in the record. 

First, let me just congratulate you for your leadership on this 

issue. This is a very important subject dealing with green buildings, particularly with the Federal Government exercising leadership. As you pointed out, I am a cosponsor of your bill and I think 

we need to move legislation in this area. 

I am going to suggest that we modify your proposal with two additional provisions to strengthen green buildings, with the Federal 
6 

Government exercising the leadership. I think as was pointed out 

by Senator Boxer and yourself, the Federal Government really 

needs to step up to the plate and provide the national leadership 

for green technology and for energy savings. 

We need to become energy independent. We need to do that for 

the sake of our security, as well as the sake of our environment. 

Buildings consume, as you pointed out, such a large amount of 

our energy needs. The LEED-certified buildings in the United 

States are an aggregate savings of 150,000 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide. That is the equivalent to 30,000 passenger cars not driven 

for 1 year. So as you can see, there is a significant advantage if 

we have green buildings in this country. 

I have introduced S. 1165 that would require new Federal buildings to meet the LEED’s silver standard, which I think we should 

do. We have that technology and it is the right policy and it shows 

the right leadership. 

My legislation would also add one additional area of concern in 

Federal buildings, and that is to deal with the runoff issues. Let 

me just give you one example in the Chesapeake Bay. Development 

is increasing faster than the population. Population growth in the 

Chesapeake watershed, for example, increased by 8 percent during 

the 1990’s, but the rate of impervious service increased by 42 percent. Putting pollutants into our streams, rivers and oceans imposes a significant problem for the Chesapeake Bay. 

So my suggestions would be that we have the Federal Government really exercise leadership in this area by a commitment for 

new construction to meet the LEED’s silver standard and that 

there be standards in our Federal construction that deal with the 

runoff issues. I think if we did that, we would really be sending the 

right signal to the private sector that we really can make a significant reduction in the use of energy, which will help us with energy 

independence, and a significant reduction in carbon dioxides which 

will help us with the global climate change issue. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, 

and I thank you for your leadership in bringing this issue to the 

attention of the U.S. Senate. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. We need to make this 

country energy independent, and to enact a comprehensive, long-term energy policy 

that will give Americans the energy they need, while protecting our environment 

and our national security. 

Senators Lautenberg and Warner have both introduced legislation that I support, 

and I have introduced legislation that compliments these bills—the American Green 

Building Act, S. 1165. We can do more. 

Our Federal Government is the largest single energy consumer in the world. 

Buildings account for over a third of America’s energy consumption.—Buildings 

also account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrous oxide 

emissions, and 10 percent of particulate emissions, all of which damage our air quality. Buildings produce 38 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions—the 

chief pollutant blamed for global warming. 

Federal buildings are a large part of this problem. 

Energy used in Federal buildings in FY 2002 accounted for 38 percent of the total 

Federal energy bill.—Total Federal buildings and facilities energy expenditures in 

FY 2002 were $3.73 billion. 
7 

The American Green Building Act would require all new Federal buildings to live 

up to green building LEED (Leadership and Energy in Environmental Design) Silver 

standards, set by the United States Green Building Council. These standards were 

created to promote sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, 

materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. 

The average LEED-certified building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less 

natural gas and 36 percent less total energy.—LEED-certified buildings in the 

United States are in aggregate saving 150,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide reduction equivalent to 30,000 passenger cars not driven for one year. A single LEEDcertified building is designed to save an average of 352 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

emissions annually, which is equivalent to 70 passenger cars not driven for one 

year. 

In the American Green Building Act, the LEED Silver standard would only apply 

to federal buildings for which the design phase for construction or major renovation 

is begun after the date of enactment of the provision. The General Services Administration or relevant agency may waive this requirement for a building if it finds that 

the requirement cannot be met because of the quantity of energy required to carry 

out the building’s purpose or because the building is used to carry out an activity 

relating to national security. 

My bill will also require that significant new development or redevelopment 

projects undertaken by the Federal Government plan for storm water runoff.— The 

hardened surfaces of modern life such as roofs, parking lots, and paved streets, prevent rainfall from infiltrating the soil. Over 100 million acres of land have been developed in the United States. Development is increasing faster than population: population growth in the Chesapeake Watershed, for example, increased by 8 percent 

during the 1990s, but the rate of impervious surface increased by 42 percent. Development not only leads to landscape changes but also to contamination of storm 

water runoff by pollutants throughout the watershed. Storm water runoff can carry 

pollutants to our streams, rivers, and oceans, and poses a significant problem for 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

Every other pollution source in the Chesapeake is decreasing, but pollution from 

storm water runoff is increasing.—In urbanized areas, increased storm water runoff 

can cause increased flooding, stream bank erosion, degradation of in-stream habitat 

and a reduction in groundwater quality. For these reasons, as the Federal Government moves forward with development, we need to plan for how to manage storm 

water runoff. The storm water provisions in the American Green Building Act will 

be used to intercept precipitation and allow it to infiltrate rather than being collected on and conveyed from impervious surfaces. 

The Federal Government must take the lead if we are to achieve our energy and 

environmental goals. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Now we have a panel of witnesses, all with whom have expertise 

on different elements of green buildings, including residential, commercial and schools. I welcome them to the table. 

Bob Fox, Peter Templeton, Claire Barnett, Ray Tonjes, and Ward 

Hubbell, I thank all of you for joining us. I would, as the witnesses 

take their seats, mention that Mr. Fox is the architect who led the 

development of the Bank of America building in midtown Manhattan. It is a fantastic accomplishment. The building will be the first 

ever high rise office building to achieve the prestigious LEED platinum rating. Mr. Templeton is the vice president for LEED at the 

United States Green Building Council. 

Ms. Barnett is executive director of the Health Schools Network. 

Mr. Tonjes is chairman of the Green Building Subcommittee of the 

National Association of Home Builders. Mr. Ward Hubbell is president of the Green Building Initiative. 

I thank all of you for joining us. I now ask you to present a summary of your testimony. Please do that within 5 minutes. We will 

try to get through and have a chance to interact with some questions. 

I would ask you, Mr. Fox, to testify first. Thank you. 
8 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. FOX, JR., PARTNER, COOK+FOX 

ARCHITECTS 

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Senators. I consider this a privilege and an 

honor to be invited here today to speak with you. 

I am a partner in the architectural firm of Cook+Fox in New 

York City. I have spent my 40-year career working in and around 

New York City. I am privileged to have worked on buildings like 

Four Times Square, the first green high rise building, the Battery 

Park City guidelines, and the Bank of America Tower that you 

mentioned. I also serve on the Mayor’s Sustainable Committee for 

the new 2030 Plan for the City of New York. 

One Bryant Park is a partnership between the Bank of America 

and the Durst family. It is 2.2 million square feet and it will cost 

$1.3 billion. We started designing this building as a high performance building, wanting to produce the absolute best building we 

could. I was convinced when we started that we could never have 

gotten LEED platinum, so we just put our heads down and went 

to work. After we finished our design and then looked at LEED, we 

were delighted that in fact we were a LEED platinum building. 

In terms of the energy of this building, it will consume about one 

half the energy of a normal building. We are doing that primarily 

with a large cogeneration plant of 5 megawatts that we are locating in the building. It will produce 67 percent of the building’s annual energy, and at night when we don’t need that energy, it will 

make ice, which we will melt during the day to supplement the air 

conditioning system. 

We also have a daylight dimming system throughout the building. The brighter the sun, the dimmer the lights. We are saving 50 

percent of the water. I just read in the paper today that the cost 

of water has gone up 40 percent in New York City since we started 

the design of this project in 2003. We will harvest all of the rainwater. We will use that water to flush the toilets. We also have waterless urinals for the first time in a high rise building in New 

York City. 

We are using blast furnace slag instead of half the cement for 

this building. It is a waste product of the steel industry and it 

makes wonderful cement, actually better than using 100 percent 

cement. The ceiling in our lobby will be made of bamboo, a rapidly 

renewable resource. 

The indoor air environment will be second to none. It will be like 

a hospital. We will have 95 percent filters on the incoming air. 

Thirty-five percent is the normal. We will be delivering the air 

from under the floor with individual controls for every occupant in 

the building, and every employee in the building will have access 

to daylight. They will all be able to see out and see what the 

weather is. 

We have found that LEED for us is the common language of the 

green building industry. It is an amazing product because it is the 

result of a volunteer effort by architects, engineers, builders, and 

manufacturers that have donated to the U.S. Green Building Council over 600,000 hours of volunteer time creating this document. It 

is being revised as we speak. If you think about the cost of that 

and just assign a $200 per hour cost, that is $120 million of professional volunteer time. That is some standard. 
9 

So I thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. FOX, JR., PARTNER, COOK+FOX ARCHITECTS

Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

My name is Bob Fox, and I am a Partner at Cook+Fox Architects in New York 

City, a firm known for designing beautiful buildings that save energy and resources, 

While enhancing health and improving the bottom line. This has been the focus of 

my 40 year career. Beginning in 1995 I was the Architect for Four Times Square, 

which was the country’s first green skyscraper, and which was designed when the 

industry had no common standard for defining a ‘‘green building.’’ In 1999 I led the 

team that created Residential and Commercial Environmental Guidelines for the 

Battery Park City Authority, a public-private entity that controls 92 acres of Lower 

Manhattan. Since then, The Guidelines have been followed by all projects built in 

Battery Park City, which by 2010 will result in over 5 million square feet of LEED 

Gold buildings. Currently, I serve on the Advisory Council for Mayor Michael 

Bloomberg’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, which in April released PlaNYC, a comprehensive agenda for sustainable growth over the next 30 

years. 

Cook+Fox is the Architect for the new Bank of America Tower at One Bryant 

Park, a 2.2 million square foot, $1.3 billion commercial headquarters, developed 

jointly by the Bank of America and the Durst Organization. It is currently under 

construction on 6th Avenue and 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan. When completed in 2008, it will be the 2nd tallest building in New York City, standing 945 

feet to the top of its roof. Most importantly, it will be the first high-rise office tower 

in the country to achieve a LEED Platinum rating, the highest possible certification 

from the U.S. Green Building Council. 
10 

1Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Towards a Climate-Friendly Built Environment. Arlington: 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2005. 2 New York City. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April, 2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/ 

html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml) 3World Resources Institute. 2007. EarthTrends: Environmental Information. (http:// 

earthtrends.wri.org). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 4 New York City. PIaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April, 2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/ 

html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml) 

I am here to speak today because buildings are leading consumers of energy and 

emitters of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. Nationwide, the 

building sector accounts for 43 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and buildings 

consume 71 percent of all electricity generated.1 In dense urban areas, buildings can 

represent the dominant source of emissions. When New York City recently completed its first comprehensive Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it was found 

that 79 percent of the city’s carbon dioxide emissions come from its buildings.2

The United States, with only 4.5 percent of the world’s population, is responsible 

for 25 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.3 Buildings represent a large 

part of the problem, because as currently designed and operated, they waste enormous amounts of energy as well as clean water and other resources. Green buildings 

make it possible to create offices, homes, and institutions that perform better than 

conventional buildings on all levels, saving energy and water, improving health and 

productivity, and saving money. 

The green building industry has grown steadily, and then rapidly accelerated over 

the last 10 years. Both the public and the private sector are witnessing the benefits 

of green building, and momentum is growing for the transformation of architectural 

and engineering practices, real estate markets, local building codes, and building 

services and suppliers. In 2006, the American Institute of Architects challenged 

practicing professionals to immediately cut fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent in 

the buildings they are designing. They further challenged the industry to increase 

reductions over the next 30 years, resulting in carbon-neutral buildings by 2035 Cities States and U.S. Government agencies have been among the first to experiment 

with and experience the operational cost savings and superior indoor quality of 

high-performance green buildings. 

In large cities like New York, green buildings are being recognized as an essential 

part of planning for future growth, maintaining the urban infrastructure, and protecting health and quality of life. With urban populations growing rapidly, cities 

across the United States face great challenges, but can also benefit from urban density. Because of the density of apartment buildings and reliance on mass transit, 

New Yorkers produce 71 percent less CO2 per capita than the average American.4

Cities, therefore, that invest in sustainable growth can be an important part of the 

solution. 
11 

The Bank of America Tower, with 2.2 million square feet of premium office space, 

will consume about half the energy and water of a typical building of its size, while 

creating the healthiest most productive possible work environment for its occupants. 

It was designed to take advantage of a world-class public transit system: in getting 

to work, the tenants of the building will generate only 1⁄20th the energy of the average suburban commute. With 8000 workers arriving each day, the building will 

have zero parking spaces. 

The Bank of America Tower will earn a LED Platinum certification through an 

integrated approach to green building practices and technologies. When we began 

the project, the goal was to create the most high performance building possible: one 

that would use far less energy, far less water, create a high quality interior environment, use materials with high recycled content and no Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs), and recycle all construction debris. After we had finished our basic design 

we turned to LEED, the industry standard and clearly the most advanced measuring tool, to see how well we had done. We were delighted to learn we had the 

potential to earn a Platinum certification. 

Energy efficiency in buildings can be drastically improved with today’s strategies 

and technology. Typically, when power is generated in our country, approximately 

2⁄3 of the energy goes directly up the smokestack in the form of waste heat. After 

additional transmission losses, what arrives at the typical building is only about 27 

percent of the total energy created. Instead, the Bank of America Tower will have 

an on-site, 5 megawatt power plant producing clean energy from natural gas at 77 

percent efficiency. Using cogeneration technology, this giant turbine will produce 

electricity, then use the waste heat to generate even more power. It will be enough 

to provide approximately 67 percent of the building’s annual energy needs with 

clean, efficient supply. 
12 
13 

Like most large cities, New York has an electric grid that struggles to keep up 

with demand during peak times. At these times, the power utility is forced to turn 

on its oldest, dirtiest ‘‘peaks’’ plants. It has been estimated that 90 percent of the 

air pollution in the city comes from just 50 percent of its power plants. One of the 

goals at the Bank of America Tower was to ensure the building did not contribute 

to this burden on the city’s infrastructure. The building will have a thermal storage 

plant in the cellar, with 44 large tanks making ice at night, when energy demand 

is low and the cogeneration plant is producing more power than the building needs. 

During the day, the ice melts to supplement the air conditioning system, reducing 

the peak demand and creating a much more even level of power consumption. Like 

most utilities, Con Edison charges its customers a rate based on peak demand, so 

the building tenants will save money. 

Water and wastewater are also critical issues impacted by the building sector. 

New York, like Washington, DC, has a combined sewer and stormwater system. 

During significant rains, sewage treatment facilities routinely become overwhelmed 

by the volume of wastewater, and discharge partially treated sewage into our waterways. The Bank of America Tower, in contrast, will make zero stormwater contribution to the municipal system. The building will do this by collecting all rainwater 

that falls on its roofs, about four feet a year, and storing it in four tanks staged 

throughout the building. Water that condenses from mechanical equipment and 

drains from lavatory sinks will also be collected, treated, and used to flush toilets 

and supply the cooling towers. Nearly every office building in the United States 

today uses clean, drinking-quality water for these purposes. The building is also installing waterless urinals, a technology that alone will save three million gallons of 

water every year. Thanks to these combined strategies, the building will consume 

less than half the potable water of a typical office building. 
14 

5Wilson, Alex. ‘‘Productivity and Green Buildings.’’ Environmental Building News 13.10, October 2004. 6 U.S. EPA and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. ‘‘The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality.’’ April 1995. 

To the Bank of America, constructing a building that offered 50 percent water 

savings, 50 percent energy savings, drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions, 

and added an iconic element to the New York City skyline was of great interest. 

But what really caught the Bank’s attention was the quality of the indoor environment, and the potential impacts on employee health and productivity. Like other organizations, especially those in a knowledge-based industry, the Bank could expect 

to spend around 10 percent of its operating budget on rent and utilities, but more 

than 80 percent on salaries and benefits.5 Even by rough calculations, a 1 percent 

increase in productivity—the equivalent of 5 minutes a day—would amount to $10 

million a year. Fewer sick days and overall reduced absenteeism translate into real 

benefits for any organization. For the Bank, enhancing the ability to hire and retain 

the best talent was also extremely important. 

A high-performance work environment addresses natural light, artificial lighting, 

thermal and acoustic comfort, air quality, and other design factors. The first priority 

for the Bank of America Tower was to design a daylit environment that would let 

tenants work by natural light as much as possible. Enclosed in highly transparent, 

floor-to-ceiling glass, the workplace also provides a direct connection to the outdoors—a complex set of environmental cues whose impacts on human well-being are 

just starting to be understood by psychologists and designers, through a field known 

as biophilia. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, indoor air is often more 

polluted than outside air, and many people spend 90 percent of their time indoors.6

Whereas the typical code-compliant building in New York is designed to filter out 

only 35 percent of particulates from the mechanical ventilation system, the Bank 

of America Tower will filter 95 percent of particulates, as well as ozone and VOCs. 

In effect, the air that is exhausted from the building will be cleaner than the air 

coming in. In addition, in virtually all U.S. office buildings, air is ducted in through 

the ceiling and then blown downward, where it mixes with all the air in a room, 

evenly distributing dust, germs, and allergens. Instead, the Bank of America Tower 

will have an under-floor air distribution system. Rather than forcing conditioned air 

down from the ceiling, heat from occupants and computer equipment will draw fresh 

air upward, at warmer temperatures and lower pressure. Individual air diffusers in 

the floor will allow workers to adjust the flow of as around their desks, minimizing 

the circulation of airborne pathogens and resolving the chief complaint among office 

workers of being too hot or too cold. 
15 
16 
17 

7Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ‘‘Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Global Cement 

Industry.’’ Annual Review of Energy and Environment vol. 26, 2001. 

Other issues that have been considered include the impacts of materials over their 

entire life-cycle, from cradle to grave. The manufacture of cement, for example, results in one ton of CO2 emitted for every ton of cement produced. This is why worldwide, the cement industry is responsible for more than 5 percent of CO2 emissions.7

To minimize these emissions, 45 percent of the cement in the Bank of America 

Tower is being replaced with blast furnace slag, a waste product of the steel industry. By using an industrial waste product, we have calculated that this practice will 

prevent 56,250 tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Other materials-related 

practices include preferred purchasing of recycled and locally-produced materials, 

and recycling of 83 percent of construction and demolition debris. 

Where green building practices represented an additional cost the costs and benefits were carefully evaluated by the owner and design team. Some ideas were abandoned, and only strategies that represented a reasonable payback were pursued. In 

total, the added cost of green technologies and practices, including cogeneration, represents approximately 2 percent of the project budget. We have found that building 

at scale was itself an opportunity to reduce the overall cost of high performance 

green measures. 
18 

8 New York City. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April, 2007. (http://www.nyc.gov/ 

html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml) 

Building in a fundamentally different way is a challenging task. Before an industrywide standard was created, practitioners had to determine for themselves what 

practices were harmful or beneficial. As a standard developed by a coalition representing all sectors of the building industry, the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

LEED system is now a common language for measuring and validating green buildings. Every LEED certified building must comply with certain requirements, from 

eliminating Environmental Tobacco Smoke to commissioning all mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment to ensure it operates at the level at which it was 

designed to perform. This voluntary standard is designed to evolve over time, and 

results from a consensus-based process that is inherently robust and inclusive. Some 

600,000 volunteer hours have been invested in developing and improving LEED over 

the past 10 years (had this time been billed at $200/hr, it would add up to 

$120,000,000). This level of collaboration by architects, engineers, builders, and 

manufacturers is unmatched in any industry, and has helped accelerate the current 

transformation of building markets. The opportunities of high performance green 

buildings are not limited to new buildings. Existing buildings are an extremely important part of the energy equation—in New York City, it is estimated that by 2030, 

85 percent of the city’s energy usage will come from buildings that exist today. Existing buildings can be upgraded through retrofits to fighting and heating and cooling systems; the resulting energy savings typically amount to a 3- to 7-year payback. Retro-commissioning to optimize mechanical equipment functioning typically 

pays for itself within 2 to 3 years.8

Buildings such as the Bank of America Tower prove that it is possible to create 

high-performance green buildings on a very large scale. At 2.2 million square feet, 

large building budgets can afford to make creative innovations—but what about the 

rest of us? 

In fact, buildings at all scales can make a difference in the health and well-being 

of their occupants, and in the quality of environment we pass on to future generations. In early 2006, Cook+Fox had outgrown its previous office and needed to find 

new space. Using the same standards for beautiful design and high performance, 

and with the help of creative engineers, we worked hard to create a LEED Platinum 

interior space of 12,000 square feet, with a 3600 square foot green roof. We moved 

in June 2006, and are already enjoying terrific employee and client satisfaction. 

The United States has always been a high-performance country and an incubator 

for innovation. No landlord or developer wants to own a building destined for obsolescence because it locked itself into the thinking of the 20th century. As costs decline and benefits accumulate, high-performance building will become the only way 

to design the places we live and work. The question now is how to act intelligently 

and effectively to set a new high standard. 
19 
20 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. It looks like that 

building ought to have an opportunity to show off its development 

perhaps even become a tourist attraction, Mr. Fox. 

Mr. FOX. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It is exciting to hear what can be done. 

Next, Mr. Templeton, we welcome you and ask for you to give 

your testimony please. 

STATEMENT OF PETER TEMPLETON, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL 

Mr. TEMPLETON. Good morning. My name is Peter Templeton 

and I am vice president of Education and Research for the U.S. 

Green Building Council, a nonprofit coalition of more than 9,000 

private, nonprofit and governmental organizations working to 

transform building design, construction and operations. Our vision 

is that all buildings will achieve sustainability within a generation. 

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to talk with you 

about green buildings as an important part of the solution to the 

challenges of energy dependence and climate change, and the role 

of the Council and its LEED green building rating system in providing immediate and measurable results. 

Every year, buildings are responsible for 39 percent of U.S. CO2

emissions and 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. They use 

15 trillion gallons of water and consume 40 percent of raw materials globally. Buildings are more than one third of the challenge 

and green buildings are the solution. 

Green buildings use an average of 36 percent less energy than 

a conventional building, with a corresponding reduction in CO2

emissions. If half of our all new construction in the United States 

were built to that standard, it would be the equivalent of taking 

more than one million cars off the road every year. 

Green buildings make sense for both the environment and the 

bottom line. Studies show that on average, LEED buildings cost 

less than 1.5 percent more than conventional construction, and the 

investment is paid back in full within the first year, based on energy savings alone. 

But energy savings aren’t the only story. Water conservation, reductions in construction waste, and effective storm water management not only means savings for the building owner, but also reduced demands on municipal infrastructures. Health and productivity benefits are equally impressive. Anecdotal studies demonstrate that people in green buildings have 40 percent to 60 percent fewer incidents of colds, flu and asthma. Patients in green 

hospitals are discharged as much as 2.5 days earlier, and kids in 

green schools score up to 18 percent better on test scores. 

LEED-certified buildings have higher asset value than their conventional counterparts. Leading institutions, including Bank of 

America, PNC Bank, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Wells Fargo 

have all embraced LEED. Insurance companies including AIG and 

Fireman’s Fund now offer premium discounts for green buildings. 

Since its introduction 7 years ago, LEED has become the nationally accepted benchmark for leadership in green building. True to 

its intent, it gives projects and project teams a concrete set of de-
21 

sign and performance goals and third party certification that validates their achievement. 

Today, 851 buildings have been LEED-certified, and 6,500 more 

are in the process, totaling 1.1 billion square feet. Every business 

day, $100 million worth of construction registers with LEED. There 

are LEED projects in every State and in 26 countries. Increasingly, 

building owners and developers are choosing to certify their entire 

portfolios. 

The LEED rating system addresses all building types and the 

full life cycle of commercial buildings, from construction to operations and retrofits. In addition, LEED for Homes is currently in 

pilot with 6,000 individual homes and 200 builders. And LEED for 

Neighborhood Development opened for pilot this year and more 

than 300 projects have applied. 

LEED takes a holistic approach to sustainability, recognizing 

performance in five key areas: site, water, energy, materials and 

resources, and indoor environmental quality, with an additional 

category to recognize innovation. Four progressive levels of LEED 

certification—certified, silver, gold, and platinum—are awarded 

based on the number of credits or points achieved in each category. 

The transformation of the building marketplace can also be 

measured through the people who are part of it. More than 36,000 

professionals have achieved LEED accreditation. More than 80,000 

attend USGBC-offered educational programs each year, and 92,000 

are actively engaged in USGBC programs nationally or through 

USGBC’s 70 local chapters and affiliates. 

As green buildings are integrated into the mainstream, costs 

come down, aggregate benefits go up, and the whole of the market 

is driven to innovation. It is a case study for how even a large and 

fractured industry, one that represents 14.2 percent of U.S. GDP, 

can change itself from the inside out and how environmental 

achievements can be won side by side with powerful economic results. 

The public sector has demonstrated vision and leadership in the 

green building movement, both by adopting LEED for their own 

buildings and by creating smart incentives for the private sector. 

Currently, 12 Federal agencies, 22 States and 75 local governments 

have made commitments to use or encourage LEED. In 2006, GSA 

submitted a report to Congress concluding that LEED is the most 

credible of five different rating systems evaluated. The GSA currently requires its new buildings to achieve LEED certification. 

USGBC is committed to our mission because green buildings 

save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, conserve water, improve 

health, increase productivity, and cost less to operate and maintain. Green buildings are becoming highly prized assets and a critically important part of the solution to global climate change and 

energy dependence. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. We 

commend you, Senator Lautenberg, for your leadership and look 

forward to working with this committee to accelerate transformation of the built environment to sustainability. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Templeton follows:] 
22 

STATEMENT OF PETER TEMPLETON, VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL

Thank you for providing the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) with the opportunity to testify on the benefits of green buildings. We commend Chairwoman 

Boxer and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership in this critical area. 

My name is Peter Templeton, and I am USGBC’s Vice President of Education and 

Research. I joined USGBC as one of its first staff members, and previously served 

as the Council’s Director for LEED® and International Programs. It is a privilege 

to talk with you about the role of the Council and the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating SystemTM in addressing the 

urgent challenge of energy efficiency and climate change, and the many far-reaching 

benefits of green building. 

THE IMPACT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Buildings are an essential element of the solution to the energy, resource, and climate issues our country is facing. 

Buildings have a lifespan of 50–100 years, throughout which they continually consume energy, water, and natural resources, thereby generating significant CO2

emissions. In fact, buildings are responsible for 39 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions 

per year. If the U.S. built half of its new commercial buildings to use 50 percent 

less energy, it would save over 6 million metric tons of CO2 annually, for the entire 

life of the buildings—the equivalent of taking more than 1 million cars off the road 

every year. 

In addition, buildings annually account for 39 percent of U.S. primary energy use; 

70 percent of U.S. resource consumption; use 12.2 percent of all potable water, or 

15 trillion gallons per year; and consume 40 percent of raw materials globally (3 

billion tons annually). The EPA estimates that 136 million tons of building-related 

construction and demolition debris are generated in the United States in a single 

year. (By way of comparison, the United States creates 209.7 million tons of municipal solid waste per year.) 

Green buildings are a significant part of the solution to the problems of energy 

dependence and climate change. The average LEED certified building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less natural gas and 36 percent less total energy 

than a conventional building. LEED certified buildings in the United States are, in 

aggregate, reducing CO2 emissions by 150,000 metric tons each year, which equates 

to taking 30,000 passenger cars off the road. 

Of the various strategies that have been proposed, building green is one of the 

most effective for meeting the challenges of energy consumption and climate change. 

The technology to make substantial reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions in 

buildings already exists; modest investments in energy-saving and other climatefriendly technologies can yield buildings and communities that are significantly 

more environmentally responsible, more profitable, and healthier places to live and 

work. 

By addressing the whole building, from construction materials to cleaning supplies, LEED generates opportunities to reduce emissions and environmental impact 

throughout the supply chain and the complete building lifecycle. 65 percent of the 

credits in the LEED Rating System reduce the CO2 footprint of the building. The 

avenues by which LEED mitigates climate change include: 

Energy 

LEED awards credits for reducing energy use in buildings through such means 

as installing energy efficient heating and cooling systems; using renewable power 

(e.g., daylight, solar heating, wind energy); requiring building commissioning; and 

purchasing green power. 

Water 

On average, a LEED certified building uses 30 percent less water than a conventional building, which translates to more than 1 million gallons of water saved per 

year. Reducing the amount of water that needs to be conveyed to and treated by 

municipal wastewater treatment facilities also reduces pumping and process energy 

required by these systems. LEED also promotes on-site treatment of storm water 

to minimize the burden on municipal treatment systems. 

Materials 

LEED buildings use fewer materials and generate less waste through measures 

such as reusing existing building structures whenever possible; developing a construction waste management plan; salvaging materials; using materials with recycled content; using local materials; and implementing an on-site recycling plan. Re-
23 

duced materials consumption lowers the overall embodied energy of the building, 

which has a direct impact on the building’s carbon footprint. 

Transit- & Density-Oriented Development 

LEED buildings earn credits for being located near public transportation. LEED 

also rewards car pooling; using hybrid or electric cars; and bicycling or walking instead of driving. In addition to the emissions produced by the cars themselves, the 

infrastructure required to support vehicle travel increases the consumption of land 

and non-renewable resources, alters storm water flow and absorbs heat energy, 

which exacerbates the heat island effect. 

GREEN BUILDING TRENDS AND MARKET TRANSFORMATION

Just a few years ago, green building was the domain of a vanguard of innovative 

practitioners. Today, green building is being rapidly adopted into the mainstream 

of building practice in both the residential and commercial sectors. McGraw-Hill 

Construction forecasts that the combined annual commercial and residential green 

building markets will total $62 billion by 2010. 

USGBC’s LEED Green Building Rating System serves as an essential, proven tool 

for enabling this market transformation. Equally as important as recognizing leading practice through third-party certification, LEED has given the community of 

building design, construction, and management professionals a concise framework 

for best-practices in high-performance green building design and operations. 

To date, there have been 851 LEED-certified buildings worldwide, with the majority in the United States. In addition, more than 6,500 building projects have enrolled with USGBC and are pursuing certification. In total, 1.1 billion square feet 

of construction space is being built to meet LEED, and that figure grows daily. 

The growth is manifest in USGBC’s green building professional accreditation program as well. Since the program’s launch in 2002, more than 36,000 professionals 

from all disciplines have become LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED APs). 

The LEED Rating System was originally developed for new commercial construction projects, and the rapid uptake of the program demonstrated that the market 

needed additional tools to address different building types and lifecycle phases. 

USGBC released rating systems for the operations and maintenance and commercial 

interiors markets in 2006, and is currently pilot-testing rating systems for homes 

and neighborhood developments. Already, more than 6,000 homes and 200 builders 

are participating in the LEED for Homes pilot test; nearly 200 homes have been 

certified to date. LEED for Neighborhood Development, which integrates principles 

of smart growth, urbanism, and green building at the neighborhood level, is also 

being pilot-tested. More than 350 projects have enrolled for consideration for the 

pilot. USGBC recently launched LEED for Schools, and is completing rating systems 

for health care facilities, retail, labs, and campuses. 

In addition, USGBC is currently piloting a new LEED program for portfolio performance that meets the needs of large owners of commercial real estate who are 

seeking to green their entire real estate portfolios. This innovative approach provides cost-effective solutions to improve building performance across entire companies and organizations. The goal is to facilitate immediate and measurable achievements that will contribute to long-term sustainability. The portfolio program focuses 

on the permanent integration of green building and operational measures into 

standard business practice. USGBC is working with 26 market leaders as a part of 

the pilot, including American University, Bank of America, California State University—Los Angeles, Cushman & Wakefield, Emory University, HSBC, N.A., PNC 

Bank, State of CA—Dept. of General Services. Syracuse University, Thomas Properties Group, Transwestern, UC—Merced, UC—Santa Barbara, University of Florida, USAA Real Estate Company. 

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF GREEN BUILDING USING LEED

Projects enroll in LEED by registering their intent with USGBC and paying a fee 

of $450. Project certification fees are approximately $0.03 per square foot, and average about $4,500. 

According to third-party studies published and updated by Capital E and by Davis 

Langdon in the past 24 months, the average total additional cost for using LEED 

on a project (including professional fees, materials, and systems) is 1.5 percent or 

less. That cost is typically repaid in the first 10 months of building operation based 

on energy savings alone. 

For example, according to U.S. Banker Magazine, the greening of the Bank of 

America Tower, being constructed in Manhattan, is adding less than 2 percent of 
24 

its projected cost. The project expects to recoup any investments through reduced 

electricity usage and water-saving techniques. 

Harvard Business Review cites the DPR building in Sacramento, California as 

having invested 1.4 percent upfront additional costs to implement green measures. 

The project is expected to more than make up the investment by generating over 

$400,000 in operations savings. 

ABOUT THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a nonprofit membership organization with a vision of sustainable buildings and communities within a generation. 

Our 9,000-member organizations and 92,000 active individual volunteers include 

leading corporations and real estate developers, architects, engineers, builders, 

schools and universities, nonprofits, trade associations and government agencies at 

the Federal, State and local levels. Green buildings save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, conserve water, improve health, increase productivity, cost less to operate and 

maintain, and increasingly cost no more to build than conventional structures. Because of these benefits, they are becoming highly prized assets for companies, communities and individuals nationwide. 

As the developer and administrator of the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating SystemTM, USGBC is a leader in green 

building and green development. Founded in 1993, USGBC is a 501(c) (3) non-profit 

organization, an ANSI-accredited standards developer and a newly active participant in ISO technical working groups. The organization is governed by a diverse, 

31-member Board of Directors that is elected by the USGBC membership. Volunteer 

committees representing users, service providers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders steward and develop all USGBC programs, including the LEED rating system, through well-documented consensus processes. Seventy local USGBC Chapters 

and Affiliates throughout the United States provide educational programming to 

local communities. 

A staff of more than 85 professionals administers an extensive roster of educational and informational programs that support the LEED Rating System in addition to broad-based support of green building. USGBC’s LEED Professional Accreditation program, workshops, green building publications, and the annual Greenbuild 

conference provide green building education for professionals and consumers worldwide. 

ABOUT THE LEED® GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMTM

LEED is the nationally recognized benchmark for the design, construction, and 

operations of high-performance green buildings. Since 2001, LEED has provided 

building owners and operators with design and measurement tools with the reliability and integrity they need to have an immediate, quantifiable impact on their 

buildings’ performance. 

LEED is a voluntary standards and certification program, and was developed to 

promote leadership in the building industry by providing an objective, verifiable definition of ‘‘green.’’ LEED is a flexible tool that can be applied to any building type 

and any building lifecycle phase, including new commercial construction; existing 

building operations and maintenance; interior renovations; speculative development; 

commercial interiors; homes; neighborhoods; schools; health care facilities; labs; and 

retail establishments. 

LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas, with an additional category to recognize innovation: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials and resources 

and indoor environmental quality. Each category includes certain minimum standards (‘‘prerequisites’’) that all projects must meet, followed by additional credits that 

are earned by incorporating green design and construction techniques. Four progressive levels of LEED certification—Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum—are awarded based on the number of credits achieved. USGBC provides independent, thirdparty verification that a building meets these high performance standards. 

USGBC member committees develop the LEED Rating System via a robust consensus process that enables USGBC to incorporate constantly evolving practices and 

technologies. The key elements of the process, which USGBC has refined over more 

than a decade of leadership experience, include a balanced and transparent committee structure; Technical Advisory Groups to ensure scientific consistency and 

rigor; opportunities for stakeholder comment and review; member ballot of new rating systems and substantive improvements to existing rating systems; and a fair 

and open appeals process. Details about the LEED development process are publicly 

available on the USGBC Web site, www.usgbc.org. 
25 

USGBC is continuing to advance the market with the development of LEED 

Version 3.0, which will harmonize and align LEED rating systems and versions, as 

well as incorporate recent advances in science and technology. Congruent with this 

effort, USGBC is introducing a continuous improvement process into LEED, which 

will create a more flexible and adaptive program and will allow USGBC to respond 

seamlessly to the market’s evolving needs. Particular focus areas include technical 

and scientific innovations that will improve building performance; the applicability 

of LEED to the marketplace, in order to speed market transformation; and the customer experience, to ensure that LEED is an effective tool for the people and organizations using it. 

The inclusion of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is an important step in the technical 

development of LEED. USGBC’s Life Cycle Assessment working group has developed initial recommendations for incorporating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of 

building materials as part of the continuous improvement of LEED. 

LCA holistically evaluates the environmental impact of a product throughout its 

life cycle: from the extraction or harvesting of raw materials through processing, 

manufacture, installation, use, and ultimate disposal or recycling. USGBC’s long 

term objective is to make LCA a credible component of integrated design, thereby 

ensuring that the environmental performance of the whole building takes into account the complete building life cycle. 

In 2006, citing the qualities outlined above, the U.S. General Services Administration submitted a report to Congress concluding that LEED is the ‘‘most credible’’ of 

five different rating systems evaluated. The GSA currently requires its new buildings to achieve LEED certification. 

Building projects are enrolled in the LEED program by registering their intent 

with USGBC through LEED Online. After the building is constructed, the project 

teams submit proof-of-performance in the form of online documentation through 

LEED Online. LEED Online was developed through a partnership with Adobe Systems Inc. 

Expert certification teams review and verify project documentation, and award 

LEED Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification based on the number of credits the project achieves based on a sliding scale. 

LEED AND THE GOVERNMENT

Governments at all levels have been highly influential in the growth of green 

building, both by requiring LEED for their own buildings and by creating incentives 

for LEED for the private sector. From the Department of Energy’s support for the 

initial development of LEED, to the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the many 

cities and states that have adopted LEED, the public sector has demonstrated considerable vision and leadership in the transformation of the built environment. Currently, 12 Federal agencies, 22 states and 75 local governments have made policy 

commitments to use or encourage LEED. 

The Federal Government has been a particularly strong supporter of USGBC and 

LEED. The U.S. Department of Energy enabled the development of LEED with a 

$500,000 grant in 1997, and has also provided USGBC with $130,000 in grants to 

support the Greenbuild Conference and Expo. Staff from the national laboratories, 

FEMP and other program areas have actively shared their expertise to develop and 

refine LEED. USGBC has also collaborated with DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy with BuildingGreen on the High Performance Buildings 

Database. 

The U.S. General Services Administration—which is the nation’s largest landlord—requires its new buildings and major renovation projects to achieve LEED certification. As mentioned previously, GSA also submitted a report to Congress affirming that LEED ‘‘continues to be the most appropriate and credible sustainable building rating system available for evaluation of GSA projects.’’In particular, GSA noted 

that LEED applies to all GSA project types; that it tracks the quantifiable aspects 

of building performance; that LEED is verified by trained professionals and has a 

well-defined system for incorporating updates; and that it is the most widely used 

rating system in the U.S. market. 

Government leadership will continue to be essential to the advancement of green 

building. USGBC supports targeted, viable government initiatives that facilitate 

market transformation, including: 

• The creation of an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings within the 

U.S. General Services Administration to coordinate green building research, information dissemination and other activities, as provided by S. 506, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2007. 
26 

• The expansion of the Office Director’s duties that would facilitate: metering, 

sub-metering and continuous commissioning of Federal buildings in order to measure energy use and to ensure that building systems are delivering the efficiencies 

for which they are designed; agency reports on their CO2 reductions using the existing energy targets required by Federal law; establishment of green building education and training programs for Federal Agency staff in order to ensure that the 

capability exists to achieve agency sustainable building goals. 

RESEARCH

In a March 2007 report, USGBC found that research related to high-performance 

green building practices and technologies amounts to only 0.2 percent of all federally 

funded research. At an average of $193 million per year from 2002 to 2005, research 

spending is equal to just 0.02 percent of the estimated value of annual U.S. building 

construction. These funding levels are not commensurate with the level of impact 

that the built environment has on our nation’s economy, environment and quality 

of life. USGBC recommends that total annual federal funding equate to 0.1 percent 

of annual construction value, $1 billion. 

Furthermore, USGBC has identified the following eight research program areas 

toward which such funding should be applied: Life Cycle Assessment of Construction Materials; Building Envelope and HVAC Strategies; Lighting Quality; Transportation-Related Impacts of Buildings; Performance Metrics and Evaluation; Information Technology and Design Process Innovation; Indoor Environmental Quality; 

and Potable Water Use Reduction in Buildings. 

HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS

In the United States, more than 55 million students and more than 5 million faculty, staff, and administrators spend their days in school buildings. These buildings 

represent the largest construction sector in the U.S.—$80 billion in 20060–2008— 

which means that greening school buildings is a significant opportunity to make a 

major impact on human, environmental, and economic health. 

Most important, children in green schools are healthier and more productive. Design features including attention to acoustical and visual quality, daylighting, and 

color have a profound impact on children’s ability to learn. Green schools also have 

superior indoor air quality and thermal comfort, and expose children to fewer chemicals and environmental toxins—which has been linked to lower asthma rates, fewer 

allergies, and reduced sick days. 

Green schools cost less to operate and greatly reduce water and energy use, which 

generates significant financial savings. According to a recent study by Capital E, if 

all new school construction and school renovations went green starting today, energy savings alone would total $20 billion over the next 10 years. On average, a 

green school saves $100,000 per year—enough to hire two new teachers, buy 500 

new computers, or purchase 5000 new textbooks. The minimal increase in upfront 

costs—on average less than $3 per square foot—is paid back in the first year of operations based on energy savings alone. 

To further this effort, USGBC supports federal authorization and funding of K12 green school demonstration projects in targeted school districts throughout the 

country. Such a directive must also include a requirement that the buildings are 

constructed so that they can serve the students as teaching tools on green building 

design, construction and operation. 

CONCLUSION 

The U.S. Green Building Council is a coalition of leaders from every sector of the 

building industry working to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built, and operated through market-based tools. USGBC’s LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating SystemTM has become a nationally accepted benchmark for high-performance green buildings. 

In just seven years, LEED has had a significant, positive impact on the building 

marketplace. LEED was created to establish a common standard of measurement 

for what constitutes a ‘‘green’’ building, and provides independent third-party validation of a building’s green features. LEED provides building owners and operators 

with the tools they need to make an immediate and measurable impact on their 

buildings’ health and performance, which is why more than 1.1 billion square feet 

of construction space is being built to LEED standards. The impact is growing: 

Every business day $100 million worth of construction registers with LEED; 50 people attend a USGBC training course; 20 people become LEED Accredited Professionals and four organizations join USGBC as members. 
27 

Green building is essential to environmental, economic, and human health. Annually, buildings account for 39 percent of U.S. primary energy use; 70 percent of U.S. 

energy consumption; use 12.2 percent of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per 

year; and consume 40 percent of raw materials globally (3 billion tons annually). 

The EPA estimates that 136 million tons of building-related construction and demolition debris is generated in the U.S. in a single year. 

Buildings are an essential part of the solution to mitigating climate change and 

establishing energy independence. The average LEED certified building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less natural gas, and 36 percent less total energy 

than a conventional building. LEED certified buildings in the United Staates are 

in aggregate reducing CO2 emissions by 150,000 metric tons each year, which 

equates to 30,000 passenger cars not driven. Building green is a highly effective 

strategy for meeting the challenges ahead of us. The technology to make substantial 

reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions in buildings already exists, which 

means that modest investments in energy-saving and other climate-friendly technologies can yield buildings and communities that are significantly more environmentally responsible, more profitable, and healthier places to live and work. 

Federal, State, and local governments have been instrumental in the growth of 

green building, both by adopting green building themselves and by encouraging it 

in the private sector. The government’s continued leadership will be essential to ongoing advancements in this area. Significant opportunities exist in increasing Federal funding for green building research and in Federal support for the design and 

construction of green schools. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Green Building Council. We look forward to working with you to facilitate the transformation 

of the built environment to sustainability. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you for some of those startling results that we can expect from green building architecture and development. Thank you. 

Ms. Barnett. 

STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HEALTHY SCHOOLS NETWORK 

Ms. BARNETT. Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank the 

committee for the opportunity this morning to speak to you about 

children’s environmental health and how our Nation’s non-green 

and very unhealthy schools actually undermine children’s health 

and learning, and what we can do together to promote healthy 

school environments for all children. 

My name is Claire Barnett. I am executive director of the Health 

Schools Network. I also coordinate the National Coalition for 

Healthier Schools. 

Today, 54 million children, because today is a school day, are required to be in our Nation’s 120,000 public and private schools. Yet 

every single day brings another report of lead in school drinking 

water, schools sinking into landfills, closures due to mold infestations, evacuations and emergency room trips prompted by chemical 

spills, schools on toxic sites, chemicals in closets literally from the 

1840’s, and hard-working parents told in fact by their family doctors to keep children out of unhealthy buildings. 

It is not the right legacy. We know that children are uniquely 

vulnerable to environmental contaminants. They breathe more air, 

drink more fluids, and eat more food per pound of body weight 

than adults do. Their developing systems are more vulnerable to 

environmental toxins and their behaviors, like sitting and rolling 

around on the floor, would put them in touch with a different set 

of pollutants. 

Focusing in on just one set of pollutants commonly found in 

schools, EPA estimates that about half of all our Nation’s schools 
28 

have problems with indoor air, which can be 5 to 100 times more 

polluted than outdoor air. Air pollution is in fact a major contributor to asthma, the leading cause of school absenteeism and the 

leading occupational disease of teachers. That means they get it on 

the job. 

Other health effects from indoor air include respiratory problems, 

difficulty with concentration, rashes, headaches, nausea and so 

forth. Anyone can be affected. But then think of the escalating 

numbers of children with preexisting health and learning impairments who are being enrolled in schools every day. They may be 

even more affected. 

One answer is to get back to basics and find an approach that 

deliberately designs out common problems and designs in solutions 

that restore fresh air and sunshine to our schools. Benefits include 

improved achievement, health, attendance, and productivity, as 

well as savings in energy and resource conservation. One study 

found an 87 percent reduction in flu in schools that had healthy indoor environments. Another found 67 percent reduction in sick 

building syndrome, and a 46 percent reduction in upper respiratory 

problems. One health study found a 40 percent reduction in asthma 

episodes taking place during school. 

High performance schools save an average of one third in energy 

costs. These are really astounding numbers. How can every child 

benefit from this? Communities are beginning to make very smart 

choices to build healthy green schools. Governors in California and 

New Jersey have issued executive orders. New York City schools 

just adopted new green high performance design standards following the lead of Los Angeles Unified School District, as well as 

statewide initiatives in New York, Washington, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire. 

A 2006 National Research Council report called Green Schools 

found that there is in fact a robust scientific literature on indoor 

environments and children’s health. I would hope the Senators 

would take note that the Federal Education Department has yet to 

report to all of you on its similar 2004 National Priorities Study 

done pursuant to No Child Left Behind. 

The hard sciences show that children in fact do better in buildings with specific qualities. The buildings should be dry. They 

should have good indoor air quality. They should be quiet. They 

should have well maintained systems, and they should be clean. In 

fact, basic best practices in prevention such as green cleaning and 

the use of less toxic pest controls are highly cost-effective and minimize indoor air pollutant risks to all school occupants. 

So if all these things are wonderful, how does any one school 

reach that? How does a volunteer school board member or a parent 

or a classroom teacher or a school head figure out how to get a high 

performance school? What do they do? 

Fortunately, EPA has created a suite of proven school environment best practices and has encouraged them locally over the last 

few years with mini-grants, largely to school constituency organizations. Today, in our view, the best way to rapidly accelerate the 

numbers of children and communities benefiting from healthy and 

high performing schools is to encourage State activity. 
29 

Thus, we support the High Performance Green Buildings Act 

that would establish a Federal Office on Green Buildings, and authorize EPA to give grants to qualified State agencies to build information and technical assistance systems. Within the States, 

they can promote high performance school design, help resolve environmental problems, and EPA alone is uniquely qualified with 

the Federal Centers for Disease Control and ATSDR to develop 

school siting guidelines. 

In summary, there is absolutely no downside. Every child and 

every community should have a healthy, high performance school. 

It is achievable. It is doable. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnett follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEALTHY SCHOOLS

NETWORK

INTRODUCTION

Good morning. Thank you Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the other members of 

the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for the opportunity to 

present information on how the poor conditions of our school buildings undermine 

children’s health and interfere with learning and what we can do to reverse that 

by building and operating healthy and high performance schools. 

Our children and grandchildren—yours and mine—are compelled to be in school 

today. Yet, every day brings new reports of e-coli in school water; schools sinking 

into landfills; closures due to mold infestations; evacuations and ER trips prompted 

by chemical fumes; schools on toxic sites; chemicals in closets from the 1840’s; parents told to keep their children away from unhealthy schools. No parent wants that 

for their child and no one here would visit those threats on anyone’s else’s child. 

But our society does. And the real shocker is that all of those problems are easily 

avoided through the siting, design, construction, and operations of our children’s 

workplaces—their school buildings. 

School buildings can be designed and maintained in such a way that the school 

facility itself promotes the health and well being of children, and promotes and facilitates learning. A Healthy and High Performance School dramatically improves 

the health and learning of students while saving money for schools. Too often 

schools are unhealthy places that impede learning, sicken children, teachers and 

staff and waste public resources. The Healthy and High Performance School combines design features that promote children’s environmental health, environmental 

sustainability, energy efficiency, reduced carbon emissions and save money for education and their communities. Science-based policy and action steps should be taken 

now to ‘‘design out’’ common problems and ensure that all our children have environmentally healthy schools that are clean and in good repair. 

My name is Claire Barnett. I am the founding Executive Director of Healthy 

Schools Network, Inc., and the Coordinator of the national Coalition for Healthier 

Schools. Healthy Schools Network is a not for profit research, information and education, and advocacy organization that seeks to ensure that every child will have 

an environmentally healthy school that is clean and in good repair. We have successfully shaped and secured new polices, programs, and funds for schools, at home 

in New York, and nationally, while our Clearinghouse has assisted parents and 

schools in every state. The national Coalition provides ‘‘the platform and the forum’’ 

for healthy school environments, endorsed by over 520 organizations and individuals 

nationwide. My testimony is on behalf of Healthy Schools Network and on behalf 

of participants in the Coalition. 
30 
31 

OVERVIEW

Children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants, many of which 

are found in schools. Children proportionately breathe more air, drink more fluids, 

and eat more food than adults. Developing systems are more vulnerable to environmental toxins than are fully developed adults. Yet health standards for children’s 

exposure to indoor environmental contaminants do not exist. An often-cited U.S. 

General Accounting Office report noted that children are compelled by law to attend 

school, yet these school facilities may be unsafe or harmful to student health. 

Children’s exposure to environmental hazards at school contributes to multiple 

health problems. Poor school indoor air is a major contributor to causing and exacerbating asthma, which is well known to be at epidemic proportions among school age 

children. Hazards in the school environment are linked to a host of other health 

problems including respiratory problems, poor concentration, rashes, headaches, 

gastrointestinal problems, nervous system disorders, and cancers. Nationally, there 

has been a dramatic rise in the number of children afflicted with learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism. These conditions are also 

linked with environmental toxins that may be found in the school environment. 

The poor conditions of America’s schools are well documented (and endured by 

millions of children every day), and these deteriorating school facilities contribute 

greatly to harmful environmental exposures. As noted above, there is no system of 

environmental health protection for children at school. The school environment is 

therefore unique, and tragically, often fails in providing its most basic function, that 

is providing a healthy and safe learning environment for students, teachers and 

school staff. 

THE ‘‘GREEN’’ OR HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOL

One answer to this complex problem is to have schools well designed from the 

start. Communities across the Nation are designing and building healthy and high 

performance (or ‘‘green’’) schools that create environments that improve learning, 

promote good health, are easier to maintain, and cost less to operate than traditional school facilities. Clean air, non-toxic building materials, daylighting and fullspectrum lighting, state of the art thermal and acoustical engineering and energy 

efficiency are incorporated into a holistic design and comprehensive construction of 

a school. Demonstrated benefits include improved student performance, improved 

child health, improved student attendance and substantial operational savings. 

High performance schools mitigate poor indoor air quality by using materials that 

do not off-gas hazardous chemicals, by utilizing properly designed ventilation and 

air conditioning systems, and focusing on preventative maintenance. In addition to 

superior indoor air quality, healthy and high performance schools provide improved 

student performance due to better lighting, acoustics and thermal comfort. A 

healthy and high performance school also saves up to 40 percent of the building’s 

energy costs over the lifetime of the facility. In addition, healthy and high performance schools can be built at the same cost as conventional school facilities. These 

schools then have an added benefit, saving districts substantial funds in decreased 

energy and maintenance costs over the life of the building. 

Across the country, communities are building Healthy and High Performance 

(‘‘green’’, sustainable) schools. Governors of both California and New Jersey have 

issued Executive Orders requiring schools to be built in accordance with High Performance/Green design standards. The New York City Schools, our nation’s largest 

district, just adopted a Green Schools Guide blending USGBC’s LEED–NC rating 

system with elements of NY-CHPS, the NY Collaborative for High Performance 

Schools design guidelines. Indeed the CHPS design model that began in CAL and 

is adopted by Los Angeles and other large districts, has now been adapted for use 

statewide into Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. These 

environmentally healthy design protocols will impact billions of dollars of school construction and major renovations. More states can and should do the same. 

Indeed, school construction and school purchasing is a $730 billion a year decentralized market taking place in thousands of local communities. Imagine if all 54 

million children in our Nation’s 120,000 + public and private schools had environmentally healthy buildings. What a transformation! And a ready market for greenrated product producers. 

The health and learning benefits are known to Federal agencies, as well as to 

high-end real estate developers. But what are the real benefits to our children? 

A new National Research Council report ‘‘Green Schools: Attributes for Health 

and Learning’’ is an excellent review of the hard sciences. Among the findings, that 

’green’ has not been well defined; but that there is a ‘‘robust literature’’ in the impacts of healthy school environments on children, on attendance, on achievement 
32 

and behavior, and on productivity. Bear in mind the virtual epidemic of children 

with asthma, autism, auto-immune disorders, visual, auditory, and other learning 

challenges in school every day, then consider: • Robust body of evidence linking health to IAQ • Some evidence linking IAQ to productivity and learning • There is an association between excessive moisture, dampness, molds in buildings and adverse health outcomes • Key factors in IAQ: ventilation rate and effectiveness, filter efficiency, temperature and humidity control, control of excess moisture, O&M, maintenance • Indoor pollutants and allergens also linked to linked to respiratory and asthma 

symptoms (HSN note—asthma is the leading occupational disease of teachers and 

of custodians) • Reduced pollutant load (through increased ventilation and filtration) has been 

shown to reduce occurrence of building-associated symptoms • Work performance decreases with higher room temperatures • Green school lighting focuses on energy, not work performance • Control glare when encouraging daylighting • Speaking and listening are key to learning • Sufficient evidence for inverse association between excessive noise and student 

learning • Infection control in densely occupied spaces requires cleaning and ventilation • More research will be helpful 

Greening school design provides an extraordinarily cost-effective way to enhance 

student learning, reduce health and operational costs and, ultimately, increase 

school quality and competitiveness.—Gregory Katz, Greening America’s Schools: 

Costs and Benefits, October 2006, Capital–E. 

BACK TO BASICS. No one should be surprised that children do better with a little fresh air and sunshine and a quiet place in which to learn. 

The federal agencies like EPA and Education and CDC are aware of the impacts 

of unhealthy schools on children’s health, and the National Academy of Sciences has 

produced a tremendous report summarizing the peer reviewed literature on the 

health and learning attributes of schools, finding that healthy indoor environments 

produce benefits. 

What should a parent, teacher, school principal or a local school board member 

or school head do? 

One way to get usable information into their hands quickly and to accelerate the 

number of schools taking action is to encourage states to become active. Thus my 

own organization and the participants in the national Coalition are supporting The 

High Performance Green Buildings Act that would establish a federal office and advisory committee on green buildings. 

Focusing on Title II, the Healthy and High Performance Schools section, we find 

that it will address many of the issues raised today. For example, 

Grants to the states.—An important effort that will protect taxpayers and protect 

children is to make sure that High Performance Green buildings, once opened, stay 

green, and that localities don’t ‘‘lose’’ any more school facilities due to poor siting, 

design, construction, operations, or ill-informed maintenance practices. This puts a 

premium on rapidly disseminating U.S. EPA’s best practices for healthy indoor environments, such as IAQ Tools for Schools and Healthy SEAT into states and cities, 

thence into local schools, allowing State agencies to mix and match energy, education, health, and construction aid formulas for efficient and effective results. 

Title II authorizes EPA to make grants to qualified State agencies to develop comprehensive school environmental quality plans that address critical issues in design, 

construction, siting, maintenance. It also would allow states to identify problems 

and develop and disseminate solutions. 

Title II also directs EPA to develop model school siting guidelines. Not one parent 

in the country wants their child to go to school on a toxic waste site or in a swamp. 

Yet report after report has found too many schools on such sites. Model guidelines 

for the siting of schools would do much to alleviate the pressure to place schools 

on compromised sites and would help communities reject proposals to place hazards 

adjacent to or near existing schools. 

Title II also directs EPA to issue guidelines for the states to develop and implement 

environmental health programs for schools in research and in children’s health protection. One feature that is critical to protecting children caught in unhealthy conditions is encouraging the states to collaborate with the federally designated and 

funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units in on-site environmental investigations of schools. Adults and children often have the same exposures in 

schools; children may outnumber adults in schools by ten to one and are more vulnerable to these hazards. Yet adults can call upon contracts, unions, OSHA, NIOSH, 
33 

Labor Departments, occupational health clinics and more, while children and families have no such system of environmental health services anywhere. In the aftermath of September 11th, with local schools contaminated by fumes and debris, not 

one agency stepped in when schools were re-opened without appropriate, full remediation. This gap in services has a perverse effect, depriving everyone—schools, 

agencies, parents and children—of independent, full and complete assessments of 

hazards. (Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children’s Environmental Health,© APHA, Healthy Schools Network, Bartlett and Petrarca, 2002). 

As advocates for children’s environmental health, we have worked diligently to 

promote Healthy and High Performance school design in the federal government, in 

the State houses, in local districts and with parents, teachers and school personnel 

across the country. There is now burgeoning interest across the country in ‘‘green’’ 

building and design as an essential part of our commitment to protect our environmental heritage. 

Yet the additional benefits for our children, their health, and their educational experience from designing in features that are health-protective, in contrast to resource efficient, is at least as great. 

The Bottom Line.—There is no downside to healthy and high performance school 

design and operations. It improves children’s health, workers health, improves our 

environment, saves energy, and saves money for education. As schools across the 

country are built, rebuilt and renovated, we owe it to our children, their parents, 

their sponsoring communities and the taxpayers to assure that they are designed 

and built to specifications representing now proven state-of-the-art healthy and high 

performance architectural standards. 

A vote for healthy schools is a vote for children, for environment, for education, 

for health, and for communities. 

Thank you. 

COALITION FOR HEALTHIER SCHOOLS: ISSUE STATEMENT

ISSUE BACKGROUND.—IMPROVING CHILDREN’S HEALTH, LEARNING, THE ENVIRONMENT, 

AND COMMUNITIES

Each day over 53 million school children and 6 million adults—20 percent of the 

entire U.S. population—enter our Nation’s 120,000 school buildings to teach and 

learn. Unfortunately, in too many cases, they enter ‘‘unhealthy’’ school buildings,’’ 

that undermine learning and health. Many school facilities have been poorly maintained and thousands of our Nation’s schools remain severely overcrowded. Schools 

are often sited next to industrial plants or on abandoned landfills; new schools are 

built beyond safe walking or biking distance for students. In a recent five-state survey, more than 1,100 public schools were built with in a half-mile of a toxic waste 

site. Polluted indoor air, toxic chemical and pesticide use, growing molds, lead in 

paint and drinking water, and asbestos are also factors that impact the health of 

our nation’s students and school staff. These problems contribute to absenteeism, 

student medication use, learning difficulties, sick building syndrome, staff turnover, 

and greater liability for school districts. The U.S. Energy Dept. found schools could 

save billions of dollars by installing energy efficient heating systems. 

32 million children at elevated risk of health problems caused by decayed schools 

(Lessons Learned, 2006). According to U.S. EPA, ‘‘Studies show that one-half of our 

nation’s schools have problems linked to indoor air quality. Students, teachers and 

staff are at greater risk because of the hours spent in school facilities and because 

children are especially susceptible to pollutants.’’ Schools are also more densely occupied and more intensively used than offices, which contribute to the overall problem. Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism and the leading occupational 

disease among teachers and custodians. The increase in asthma problems is particularly acute in urban areas with large numbers of African-American, Hispanic American and other minority students. Children with preexisting health, learning, or 

other special needs may be at greater risk. 

Federal agencies, states, communities, and education officials must improve school 

environmental quality. Federal agencies are well aware that ‘‘high performance 

school’’ design and construction and environmental management of facilities can 

produce healthier learning environments. Key policy and program reforms include 

siting, design and construction, and environmental management on issues such as 

‘‘green cleaning’’ and least-toxic pest control, as well as preventive repairs that preserve neighborhood infrastructure and center communities on children’s needs. 

At a time when this Nation is committed to raising the academic performance of 

all children, it is essential that the federal agencies provide the knowledge, leader-
34 

ship and technical assistance that states, cities, and schools need to ensure that 

every child, every school employee, and every community has environmentally safe 

and healthy schools that are clean and in good repair. 

Statement Sponsors: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Alliance for Healthy Homes, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Beyond Pesticides, Children’s Environmental Health Network, Connecticut 

Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools, Environmental Defense, Funders 

Forum on Environment and Education, Healthy Child Healthy World (CHEC), 

Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics (MA), Healthy Schools Network, Improving Kids 

Environment (IN), Institute for Children’s Environmental Health, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Marin Golden Gate Learning Disabilities Association 

(CA), Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network, National Center for Environmental 

Health Strategies, National Education Association, National Education Association/ 

Health Information Network, National PTA, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

New Jersey Work Environment Council, New Jersey Environmental Federation, Oregon Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Education 

Network, 21st Century Schools Fund, West Harlem Environmental Action, League 

of Conservation Voters, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, National 

Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Apollo Alliance, and 500 more groups 

and individuals, as of April 2007. 

REFERENCES

Federal Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register: April 23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 78), http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo13045.htm. Renewed 4/18/2003 (http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030418–10.html) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/schools for an extensive listing of EPA programs, also http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/introduction.html. 

Also see EPA’s ‘‘Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool’’ (SEAT) at 

www.epa.gov/schools for assessing the conditions and practices of school buildings 

and identifying priority actions based on federal laws and best practices. 

Building Healthy, High Performance Schools: A review of Selected State and Local 

Initiatives, Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law Institute, 2003 (http:// 

www.elistore.org/reports—details.asp?ID=10925&topic=Indoor—Environments) 

The Collaborative for High Performance Schools, (http://www.chps.net/). CHPS 

Best Practices Manual: Volumes I–IV. http://www.chps.net/manual/index.htm#v4, 

Collaborative for High Performance Schools, CA, 2004. TO ORDER: Collaborative 

for High Performance Schools, c/o Eley Associates, 142 Minna St., San Francisco, 

CA 94105. Tel: (877) 642–2477. 

The Green Book, 2nd ed., American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health, 2003, see http://www.aap.org/visit/cmte16.htm 

Science-Based Recommendations to Prevent or Reduce Potential Exposure to Biological, Chemical, and Physical Agents in Schools, Derek G. Shendell, et al., Journal 

of School Health—December 2004, Vol. 74, No. 10, a review of peer-reviewed publications and proceedings. 

‘‘Healthy and High Performance Schools Act’’, Sec. 5414 ff, No Child Left Behind, 

defines healthy and high performance school and authorizes a federal grant program 

to the states to implement local information and technical assistance program; mandates Study of National Significance on Unhealthy School Buildings. 

A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects on Indoor Environments on 

Student’s Health, Academic Performance and Attendance, 2004, U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Doc #2004–06, Washington, DDDC, 2004., 

prepared for Congress pursuant to HHPS/NCLB. 

Healthier Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality, 

Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law Institute, Jan. 2002 (http://www.elistore.org/reports—detail.asp?ID=56&topic=Environmental—Health 

Do Indoor Pollutants and Thermal Conditions In Schools Influence Student Performance? A Critical review of the Literature, M.J. Mendell, G.A. Heath, Indoor Air, 

Volume 15 Issue 1 Page 27–January 2005 

‘‘Learning the Hard Way’’, Jn 2002 cover story, Environmental Health Perspectives, Journal of the Natl. Inst. of Env. Health Sciences, online at http:// 

www.healthyschools.org/ 

Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children’s Environmental 

Health, Sarah Bartlett and John Petrarca, American Public Health Association and 

Healthy Schools Network, 2002, 300 pp. Order through Healthy Schools Network or 

APHA. 
35 

Creating Safe Learning Zones: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions, Center for 

Health, Environment and Justice, 2001, for sample policies and GIS maps on 

schools built on or near Superfund and other hazardous site. http:// 

www.childproofing.org/cslzindex.html 

Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, Mark Schneider, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2002, at http://www.edfacilities.org or call 888– 

552–0624. 

Lessons Learned, 32,000,000 Children: Victims of a Public Health Crisis, Healthy 

Schools Network, Inc., April 2006. http://healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html 

New York State School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement, and Attendance: A Data Analysis Report, Healthy Schools Network, Inc., 2005. http:// 

healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html 

Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, National Research Council of 

the National Academy of Science, 2006. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record— 

id=11756 

Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, Gregory Katz, Capital E, October 

2006. http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819.pdf 

Who’s Sick at School: Linking Poor School Conditions and Health Disparities for 

Boston’s Children, MassCOSH, March 2006. http://www.masscosh.org/ 

SchoolsReport.pdf 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Barnett. 

Shocking results on the plus side can result from these changes, 

from these improvements. If we want to look at this in an appropriate way, we look at our children and see what we want for 

them. Pretty simple. 

Mr. Tonjes. 

STATEMENT OF RAY TONJES, CHAIRMAN, GREEN BUILDING 

SUBCOMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 

Mr. TONJES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ray Tonjes, and I 

am a custom builder from Austin, TX, and I am chairman of the 

Green Building Subcommittee of the National Association of Home 

Builders. 

NAHB represents over 235,000 members who employ millions of 

individuals in the homebuilding, remodeling, multi-family, and 

light commercial construction industry. I am here to talk about the 

success that I and my fellow builders have had in cultivating the 

progressive green building program that produces sustainable energy and resource-efficient homes throughout the Country. 

NAHB members build more than 80 percent of all new homes, 

and by the end of 2007, more than half of NAHB members will be 

incorporating green building practices into the development, design 

and construction of these new homes. 

Because housing represents 16 percent of our Nation’s gross domestic product, homebuilders have the potential to profoundly affect sustainability, conserve precious natural resources, and preserve our environment. 

NAHB members are true leaders in the green building movement. Acting with the help of over 850 State and local homebuilders’ associations, NAHB members have been implementing 

green building practices since the term ‘‘green building’’ was coined 

in 1991. According to McGraw Hill, about 10 percent of the homes 

built in 2010 will be green homes, which is a major jump from just 

2 percent in 2006. 

Being green means more than a tankless water heater or a little 

extra insulation in the attic. Green building is how a home exists 

on the land, conserves resources, and provides a healthy indoor en-
36 

vironment for its residents. Green building means making an intentional decision to positively impact energy efficiency, preserve 

resources, and to reduce and recycle waste throughout the entire 

design and construction process and for the life of the home. 

How do we get there? In 2005, NAHB, along with more than 60 

stakeholders, including environmentalists, builders, product manufacturers, and designers, agreed upon a number of criteria that can 

guide builders on how to construct a green home. These model 

green homebuilding guidelines were developed for use by any builder. The guidelines are free and NAHB does not profit in any way 

from their use. 

To date, 18 State and local homebuilder associations have adopted programs based on the guidelines, and dozens more are in development. Some of these have already been endorsed by State and 

local governments. The net effect is thousands of homes are being 

built to these green criteria. 

The six guiding principles of the guidelines, which are outlined 

in my written testimony, include lot development, energy and resource efficiency, water conservation, indoor environmental quality, 

and homeowner education, which includes operation and maintenance. 

NAHB has proactively adopted a policy of promoting green building as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NAHB has 

partnered with the International Code Council, the Nation’s preeminent authority for building codes, to produce and develop the 

first and only national green building standard for residential construction. The standard will be accredited by the American National Standards Institute. It will be an industry-wide, consensusbased, and certifiable benchmark for all residential construction 

types. This includes single family, multi-family, remodeling, and 

land development. 

The committee that is developing the standard includes members 

from the U.S. EPA, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Navy, 

many State and local housing agencies, product manufacturers, 

and nongovernmental green building organizations, including those 

represented here today. 

Finally, the committee includes small custom builders like myself 

and remodelers, and one of the Nation’s largest production builders. Both members and the general public have the opportunity to 

influence the development of the standard. Once published, the 

standard will be periodically reviewed and revised to ensure its 

rigor and integrity. 

Many viable green building programs already exist and more are 

likely to come as we address the challenge of climate change. 

Healthy competition in the burgeoning market will only continue 

to drive its growth and innovation, as well as keep costs down for 

home buyers so that green homes are affordable and people can 

easily make the green choice. 

NAHB urges Congress to preserve competition in the emerging 

green building arena. NAHB’s next step is the development of a national green building program that will not only support the standards I mentioned earlier, but will also help State and local governments to implement green building practices. The housing industry’s commitment to increasing energy and resource efficiency in 
37 

home construction is demonstrated by the development of the national green building standard and a national program based on 

that standard. 

On behalf of the Nation’s home builders, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today about our industry’s advances in 

green building and our ongoing efforts to protect and preserve our 

environment. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonjes follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RAY TONJES, CHAIRMAN, GREEN BUILDING SUBCOMMITTEE, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Association 

of Home Builders (NAHB). My name is Ray Tonjes and I am the Chairman of the 

Green Building Subcommittee at NAHB, representing 235,000 thousand corporate 

members that, in turn, employ millions of individuals in the home building, remodeling, multifamily construction, property management, subcontracting, design, housing finance, building product manufacturing, and light commercial construction industries. As a custom home builder, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the 

successes that I, and my fellow builders, have made in cultivating a progressive 

green building program that is producing sustainable energy- and resource-efficient 

homes throughout the United States. 

INTRODUCTION

NAHB members currently build about 80 percent of all new units in the United 

States and, by the end of 2007, more than half of NAHB’s members will be incorporating green practices into the development, design, and construction of these new 

units. This is a significant and important fact because housing comprises 16 percent 

of the U.S. GDP. The impact of housing on the economy of the United States is substantial, and by encouraging growth in green building, our nation’s home builders 

have the potential to profoundly affect sustainability and conserve precious natural 

resources and our environment. 

NAHB members are leaders in the green building movement and were active on 

this effort long before the recent media interest in climate change and global warming. NAHB has been working on green building alongside its 800+ State and local 

Home Builder Associations (HBAs) for nearly a decade, which is longer than many 

other green building advocates have even existed. In fact, NAHB will be hosting its 

10th Annual National Green Building Conference in New Orleans next year and has 

consistently been ahead of the curve in promoting and developing energy-efficient 

and environmentally-friendly construction techniques for the mainstream home 

builder. 

Based on a survey of NAHB home builders conducted last year by McGrawHill 

Construction, about 10 percent of the homes built in 2010 are expected to be green, 

containing at least three of five green building elements. Being green means much 

more than a tankless water heater and a little extra insulation in the attic, it is 

a holistic approach to how the home exists on the land with the least impact, how 

conservatively it uses resources; and how it provides healthy, safe, and decent shelter to the resident. Simply put, building greener is building better. It means making 

intentional decisions that positively impact energy efficiency, resource conservation 

and indoor environmental quality throughout the entire design and construction 

process. Green means doing the right thing for the builder, the homeowner, and, 

most importantly, the environment. 

The recent strength and growth of green building is due in large part to its voluntary nature, which provides builders and developers the flexibility that is essential for incorporating the principles of sustainable design in innovative ways to construct a home that is both environmentally sound and affordable to homebuyers. 

Green home building will continue to be an important component and because of 

the current flexibility in green building options, builders will be able to successfully 

adjust to the shifting market demand for greener homes. 

NATIONAL GREEN BUILDING STANDARD

Working with more than 60 industry stakeholders, in January 2005 NAHB completed the Model Green Home Building Guidelines (the Guidelines). The Guidelines 
38 

are a product of a year-long, consensus-based process involving input from architects 

and designers, environmentalists, builders, research consortia, and building product 

manufacturers. The shining hallmark of the Guidelines is that every aspect of the 

construction industry was involved in forming these criteria so that every builder, 

large and small, could easily adopt the practices. The Guidelines truly are designed 

for every builder, and they address 100 percent of America’s housing stock. Most 

importantly, NAHB makes absolutely no profit from the promulgation of the Guidelines; they are entirely free of charge. I am proud to report that all of the benefits 

reaped from building a green home with the Guidelines go directly to the homeowner and, ultimately, to our environment. 

The voluntary Guidelines contain six guiding principles that offer a variety of distinct line items from which builders (and operating HBAs) can choose, allowing 

them to be customized to reflect local geographic and climate conditions. These principles include the following: 

• Lot Design, Preparation, and Development.—Resource-efficient site design and 

development practices help reduce the environmental impacts and improve the energy performance of new homes. Siting that saves trees, incorporates onsite storm 

water retention/infiltration features, and orients the home to maximize passive solar 

heating and cooling are essential elements used in planning a green home. 

• Resource Efficiency.—Most successful green homes start at the design phase, 

which includes the selection of materials to be used in its construction. For example, 

engineered-wood products can help optimize material resources because more than 

50 percent of the log is converted into structural lumber rather than conventional 

dimensional lumber. 

Resource efficiency also means reducing job-site waste by developing construction 

waste management plans. These waste management plans, which includes recycling, can reduce normal average construction waste by at least two-thirds, thus reducing the burden on landfill space. Lastly, performing life-cycle analysis (LCA) on 

building materials will help to determine a more accurate impact on the environment, since materials can be renewable, yet can be very energy-intensive when considering their transport to job-sites, for example. The LCA process involves a ‘‘cradle 

to grade’’ philosophy and covers how the material is recovered, the product manufacturing process, the home building process, the maintenance and operation, the home 

demolition, and product reuse, recycling, and disposal. All of these facets combine 

to help builders choose the most resource-efficient products that have the least impact on the environment throughout the life of the home. 

• Energy Efficiency.—Energy consumption has profound impacts on our environment, from the mining of fossil fuels to the emissions of burning non-renewable energy sources. The impact of a home’s energy use over time is a significant factor 

in how that home will impact the environment. Therefore, energy efficiency is heavily weighted in any green building program. The greatest results in energy efficiency 

come from a ‘‘whole systems’’ approach. Energy performance does not end with just 

increasing insulation, using renewable energy, or upgrading the HVAC equipment. 

Green homes must have a balance between these features and careful window placement, building envelope air sealing, duct sealing, and proper placement of air and 

vapor barriers from the foundation up to the attic. Once these features are incorporated into the green home, then it will truly be high-performing, energy efficient, 

less-expensive to operate, and more comfortable to live in than a conventionally-constructed home. 

• Water Conservation.—Implementing water conservation measures can reduce 

mean per capita water usage from 64 gallons per day to 45 gallons per day. Thus, 

green homes are especially welcome in areas affected by long- and short-term water 

supply issues. Green homes conserve water both inside and outside the home with 

more efficient water delivery systems, native and drought-resistant landscaping, 

and careful treatment of storm water and wastewater in the construction process. 

In fact, some communities gain additional benefits from builders using native species in landscaping and filtering and removing contaminants from storm water and 

wastewater in a green home. 

• Indoor Environmental Quality.—Healthy indoor environments are another hallmark of green building. Following energy efficiency, the quality of a home’s indoor 

air is often recognized as the most important feature of a green home. Increases in 

reported allergies and respiratory issues, and the use of chemicals that can emit gas 

from building materials have contributed to an increased awareness of the air that 

is breathed inside the home. Although no official authoritative definition exists of 

what healthy indoor air means, there are measures that green home builders can 

take to mitigate the effects of potential contaminants by controlling the source, diluting the source, or capturing some of the source through filtration. 
39 

• Operation, Maintenance, and Homeowner Education.—Inadequate or improper 

maintenance of a green home can defeat the designer and builder’s best efforts to 

create a resource-efficient home. Failing to change air filters regularly, or neglecting 

to use kitchen and bath exhaust fans in moist air, are very common mistakes most 

homeowners make. Also, many homeowners are unaware of the impact of using 

common substances in and around the home, such as pesticides, fertilizers, and even 

common cleaning agents. By giving homeowners a manual that explains proper operation and maintenance procedures, includes information on alternatives to toxic 

cleaning substances and lawn and garden chemicals, and directs them to water-saving practices, a green home builder can help assure that the home functions as carefully as it was constructed, in an environmentally-responsible manner. 

Since its publication, the Guidelines have been successfully implemented by 18 

State and local HBAs around the country, with the demand growing each day for 

new programs. Working off of this overwhelming success, NAHB agreed to collaborate with the International Code Council (ICC) in February 2007 to establish the 

first and only national residential green building standard that will be certified and 

accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Based on the 

NAHB Guidelines, this standard will serve as the only consensus-based industry 

standard for residential green construction in the United States. 

As a national standard, ANSI requires consensus-based decision-making, opportunity for public comment, and other processes to help guarantee that the standard 

is acceptable to all members of the home building industry, as well as to those who 

regulate them. This process involves full participation from interested stakeholders 

who volunteer to sit on a Consensus Committee, and who provide advice and counsel on how to build a green home, how to verify and certify its integrity, and how 

to continuously update the standard to ensure improvement and rigor. A membership roster of the official Consensus Committee of the National Green Building 

Standard is attached to my statement. 

You will note on this roster the membership of the U.S. Green Building Council, 

the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, numerous city and State housing officials, product manufacturers, insulation manufacturers, architects, and some of the Nation’s largest production home builders. All members provide their insight and input into this very open and transparent process. 

In fact, prior to the inaugural meeting of the Consensus Committee, on April 19– 

20, 2007, the NAHB Research Center, an ANSI-accredited research organization 

that is serving as the Secretariat for the standard, had received over 250 individual 

comments to the first draft. 

A few of the benchmarks that could go into the Nation green building standard 

upon committee agreement include: • Demonstration that the home’s heating and cooling units are correctly sized, according to the Air Conditioning Contractor’s of America’s Manual J, or another reference guide, to achieve minimum energy efficiencies 

• Achievement of minimum requirements set by the International Code Council’s 

International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)® 

• Requirement for third-party review to verify design and compliance with an established energy efficiency program, such as Energy Star® 

• Existence of many options for builders to achieve targets, by scoring points, in 

order to reach various compliance levels, i.e., embedded flexibility 

The consensus process is advanced by the activity of ‘‘Task Groups’’ that serve the 

purpose of providing expertise on the specific topical areas for the standard. There 

are currently seven task groups: Administration and Points, Site Development and 

Global Impact, Resource Efficiency and Owner Education, Water Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality, Energy Efficiency, Multifamily, and Remodeling. These groups 

each review drafts of the standard and provide proposed changes in their specific 

areas that are then presented to the full Consensus Committee for consideration. 

The Consensus Committee has already held its first meeting in April 2007 and is 

scheduled to meet again in July in Washington, D.C. 

Normally, standards development processes can take one to two years to complete, 

given the extensive public input that requires full consideration. However, the need 

to develop appropriate strategies to address growing environmental challenges like 

climate change has motivated our industry to commit to a fast-tracked standards 

process because we believe that it simply cannot be put off any longer. Because the 

Guidelines were developed in concert with such a large and diverse group of stakeholders, we can accelerate this process while still allowing time for required public 

comment. 

Encompassing single- and multi-family construction, remodeling, and land development, the National Green Building Standard is expected to be completed in early 

2008, an indication of the level of urgency with which the industry is approaching 
40 

and addressing the issue. I am proud of the continued effort of the home building 

community to create the first comprehensive residential green construction standard 

that not only informs builders on how to build green, but also educates homeowners 

on how to operate their home in an energy- and resource-efficient manner. Ultimately, the goal is to develop a standard that is flexible enough to adjust to the 

various resource and energy concerns in the varying climate zones around the country, while at the same time encouraging continued innovation in green technology 

that is already dramatically shifting the market. Green building should continue to 

exist in its most flexible form. 

NATIONAL GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM

In order to address the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, climate change, the Board of Directors of the NAHB established policy to proactively 

seek to contribute to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a 

national green building program. With this charge, NAHB members have stepped 

up their national campaign to inform the public about the innumerable benefits of 

green building and sustainability in housing design. In this program, there is a substantial effort to market the green building standard as an effective alternative, and 

to monitor State and local legislative and regulatory activity to ensure builders retain the right to choose from the myriad of green building options and are not restricted to the sole use of one branded product over another. Viable green alternatives exist in the market today in both residential and commercial construction. 

NAHB is poised to make a substantial dollar investment in a National Green 

Building Program. The NAHB National Green Building Program will help push the 

green building envelope and encourage innovation in green construction for the millions of homes that are waiting to be built. As one architect recently stated at the 

NAHB National Green Building Conference in St. Louis, Missouri, by mandating 

one green building program to the exclusion of others, you create a ‘‘race to the bottom.’’ At a time when the challenge of climate change is moving people to live, work, 

and function in a more environmentally responsible way, we need to have options 

to force green building technology to its limit. NAHB’s National Green Building Program will provide those options for all builders and, most importantly, will seek to 

inform current homeowners about how they can improve existing homes with green 

remodeling, making home occupation and maintenance just as efficient as new home 

construction. 

RECOMMENDATIONS/OUTLOOK

As the committee reviews options for passing green building legislation that will 

help guide the federal government towards sustainability in design and construction 

principles, it is important to consider the incredible momentum and green building 

success stories that are already moving the market forward. The daunting task of 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and homes is already beginning 

and the stewardship of the Congress in this matter will be increasingly important. 

Congress has the great opportunity to create avenues for extensive innovation in 

green construction by keeping the market fluid, free of mandates, and striving towards the greatest energy- and resource-efficient buildings available. 

The green building movement is shaping our industry in a tremendous way. To 

date, there have been more than 2,000 homes certified to Guidelines-based programs with thousands more in the pipeline. The healthy competition in the market 

is driving demand. Within three years, almost 10 percent of this nation’s new homes 

will be green. As consumer awareness and education increases, and as green supplies and materials become easier to obtain, more and more builders will take advantage of educational opportunities offered by NAHB and other organizations. 

Above all, NAHB cautions the Committee and Congress against mandating only 

one green rating system to the exclusion of others. Green practices and sustainability are incredibly important in the battle against climate change, and we feel 

that builders need to have access to as many options as possible. Many green building alternatives already exist, and with awareness increasing every day about the 

benefits of green homes, additional programs are likely to be added in the marketplace. 

CONCLUSION

NAHB members have shown that green building is both proactive and profitable, 

primarily because current programs have been allowed to thrive and shift and mold 

to meet specific conservation needs in a geographic area. Our industry’s commitment to developing a rigorous standard, with valuable input from diverse disciplines, will produce certifiable benchmarks for measuring a home’s energy and re-
41 

source efficiency for years to come. The standard will also include a green remodeling component to address the serious needs of upgrading existing homes, many of 

which were not built with energy or resource efficiency in mind. NAHB believes that 

there must be a viable path to elevate the 120 million existing homes into greater 

environmental and energy efficient operation. The National Green Building Standard can provide that pathway. 

NAHB supports and encourages energy efficiency and green building. We support 

a national green building program that is flexible and market-driven, encourages 

continued growth in green construction that protects options for builders in all markets, as well as preserves, protects, and promotes the health of our environment. 

Home builders are having great success with the green building movement, in which 

they have been engaged for years. The commitment of the home building industry 

to energy and resource efficiency in construction is evidenced by our Guidelines, the 

development of the first and only residential green building standard, and our national campaign. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National 

Association of Home Builders. I look forward to any questions you may have for me. 
42 
43 
44 

RESPONSE BY RAY TONJES TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR SANDERS

Question. In your testimonies you talk about the ‘‘green building’’ work being done 

by the National Association of Home Builders through the Green Building Initiative. 

You fail, however, to give details about what this means, such as, how much energy 

has been saved, how much water has been saved, what are the reductions in CO2

emissions, how much have you improved indoor air quality, etc. What concrete 

changes can you point to from your ‘‘green building’’ practices? 

Response. NAHB members construct more than 80 percent of all new homes in 

the United States and have been incorporating green and sustainable design practices into residential construction for more than 10 years. Assisted by more than 800 

State and local associations, NAHB has been working to grow local green building 

programs throughout the United States. To date, more than 100,000 green homes 

have been built and more than 50 State and local voluntary green building programs have been initiated, twenty of which are based on NAHB’s Model Green 

Home Building Guidelines. 

NAHB does not operate its green building programs ‘‘through’’ the Green Building 

Initiative (GBI), as indicated above. 0131 is a separate entity that has promoted the 

Model Green Home Budding Guidelines on behalf of NABS. NAHB’s programs and 

leadership in green building promotion and education are independent of GBI. 

Energy Savings.—Green homes are consistently above code, performing at energy 

savings criteria based on the following tiered-achievement levels: • Bronze Level = 15 percent energy savings above the 2003 International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) • Silver Level = 30 percent energy savings above the 2003 IECC • Gold Level = 40 percent energy savings above the 2003 IECC 

At the very least, green homes are achieving 15 percent above the most aggressive 

energy code available at the time of development of the Model Green Home Building 

Guidelines. Homes at the bronze level use substantially less energy for heating, 

cooling, and water heating, delivering $200 to $400 in annual savings. Most likely, 

the energy and dollar savings are much more significant because many are being 

built at the higher Silver and Gold level. 

Water Savings.—As identified in the criteria of the Model Green home Building 

Guidelines, implementing water conservation measures can save as much as 19 gallons of water per day for each green home, as compared to an average home. These 

savings come from using more efficient delivery systems, incorporating native and 

drought-resistant landscaping, and careful treatment of stormwater and wastewater 

in the construction process. 

Indoor Air Quality.—Since there is no ‘‘official’’ authoritative definition by which 

‘‘healthy’’ indoor air can be measured, it in difficult to quantify air quality improvements in green homes. However, builders do use specific measures in green home 

construction that can purposefully mitigate the effects of potential indoor air contaminants by controlling, diluting, or capturing source pollution inside the home. 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions.—While a mechanism to measure carbon reductions 

does not currently exist in the framework of the Model Green Home Building Guidelines, NAHB is working with the other stakeholders to develop a carbon calculator 

that will be part of the National Green Building Standard, and will also be incorporated into NAHB’s National Green Building Program. This will give builders and 

consumers clear and quantifiable data regarding CO2 emissions reductions and will 

be able to verify actual reductions in CO2 emissions as compared to an average 

home. 

RESPONSES BY RAY TONJES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. What are the potential benefits to both contractors and consumers of 

using the Model Green Home Building Guidelines in the construction of new homes, 

and how do these guidelines compare to the LEED system? 

The first and most significant benefit to contractors using the Model Green Home 

Building Guidelines is the flexibility embodied in the criteria. Because there are no 

rigid limits to efficiency targets, builders and contractors can push the envelope and 

modify various part of the home’s construction and performance to achieve sustainability. There are many ways, using a number of different products and practices, 

to achieve the green targets in the Guidelines. The LEED for Home (LEED–H) program is a one-size-fits-all approach with numerous mandatory measures, limiting 

flexibility and increasing costs to homebuyers. The Guidelines are designed to assist 

the mainstream home builder, whereas LEED–H is developed for ‘‘the top 25 percent of homes with best practice environmental features,’’ according to the U.S. 

Green Building Council (USGBC). Lastly, the Guidelines are flee and open to public 

use, providing no profit to NAHB NAHB encourages investment directly into sus-
45 

tainability. The LEED–H program, on the other hand, includes documentation and 

verification fees that can be as high as $3,000. That investment goes directly to the 

USGBC and its providers and does nothing to improve the resource efficiency of the 

home. Attached to this response is a side-by-side comparison, so that you can more 

accurately compare the Guidelines with the LEED–H. 

Question 2. Why is a consensus-based approach important in formulating green 

building standards? 

Response. A consensus-based approach is critical to formulating green building 

standards because it provides for input from a broad range of industry stakeholders—such as government agencies, academia, builders, building owners, and 

manufacturers—thus ensuring success. Also, the allowance of public review and 

scrutiny ensures that all interested parties are given an opportunity to shape the 

outcome, so that the integrity of the benchmarks is never in question. By allowing 

the public, the government, and industry to have transparency into the process. it 

is ensured that certain interests are not unfairly favored over others. Furthermore, 

this transparent and consensus- based process exists for many construction standards, both in the residential and commercial sector. These standards, and numerous 

others, are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the 

oversight authority on standards development. 

Question 3. What effect on Green Building innovation would mandating a single 

standard at the Federal level have? 

Response. A competitive market process enables green building to continually improve by both responding to the needs of consumers and builders and adjusting to 

new technology. By mandating a single standard at the federal level, the government would effectively limit innovation in green building and sustainable design as 

builders would struggle to use mandatory products and practices that may or may 

not be cost-effective, or easy to access. Mandates reduce the incentive for green 

building rating systems to adapt and change to meet the demands of the market. 

Choosing or emphasizing a singular rating system to the exclusion of others virtually ensures that builders will be given only one option for constructing sustainable homes. As one architect stated, ‘‘mandating one green building system is a race 

to the bottom,’’ leaving builders with no impetus to strive towards newer technologies, greater efficiencies, or better products. 
46 
47 
48 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hubbell, I will call on you now, please. 

STATEMENT OF WARD HUBBELL, PRESIDENT, GREEN 

BUILDING INITIATIVE 

Mr. HUBBELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the benefits of green buildings. 

I am Ward Hubbell, president of the Green Building Initiative. 

Founded in 2003, the Green Building Initiative, or the GBI, is a 

not-for-profit organization dedicated to accelerating the practice of 

designing and maintaining more energy efficient, healthier, and 

more environmentally sensitive buildings throughout the Nation. 

We work in both the residential and commercial sectors. 

Our work in the residential sector revolves around our relationship with the National Association of Home Builders to educate 

builders and promote the NAHB’s model green home guidelines for 

residential construction. These guidelines, developed through an inclusive and rigorous process, are fast becoming the accepted approach for residential green building throughout the Nation. We 

are proud to work with the NAHB and commend them for their 

leadership in this area. 

For commercial buildings, we offer state-of-the-art interactive 

web-based tools to facilitate the design and maintenance of sustainable commercial buildings. This portfolio of tools, widely used in 

Canada and known as Green Globes, has been enthusiastically received in the United States since we introduced it in 2004. Green 

Globes has been officially recognized by six State legislatures, piloted by several Federal agencies, and is being used on more than 

300 public and private sector buildings throughout the Nation. 

With Green Globes for new construction, not only can a building 

achieve an environmental rating that is verified by an independent 

third party, but too can also assist designers and architects in selecting the right environmental strategy for their particular project. 

By using its companion system, Green Globes for the continual improvement of existing buildings, building operators can monitor the 

performance of their buildings to ensure that the enhanced environmental design actually equates to better performance. 

A full description of these tools, their origins, and our third party 

assessment processes are included in my written testimony. 

The entrance of the GBI and the groundbreaking work of the National Association of Home Builders not only complements the good 

work of other private organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council, but it also creates a very healthy competitive dynamic 

that has served to stimulate some exciting advancements in the 

green building arena, for example, a movement toward the development of true consensus standards for green building. 

The GBI became the first organization of its kind to subject its 

ratings system to the rigors of a recognized consensus organization 

and we expect to establish Green Globes as an American national 

standard early next year. Other organizations have since pursued 

a similar path. 

Another example is the creation of practical, user-friendly tools 

to allow for the consideration of the cradle to grave environmental 

impacts of materials used in construction. With a life cycle assess-
49 

ment tool recently developed by the GBI, designers can now know 

the total energy, air, water, solid waste, and climate change impacts of the products they use. We are not only incorporating this 

data into our own rating system, but we have also offered it free 

of charge to any other rating organization or government entity 

that would like to incorporate it. 

We also believe our user friendly interactive platform has made 

it possible for a greater number of projects to be built to green 

standards and has encouraged the increasing use of technology in 

other rating systems. 

As this committee begins the important work of developing policy 

to help green the Nation’s built environment, I would offer several 

observations for your consideration. First, green design is vitally 

important, but it is only part of the equation. Effective building operation and maintenance is necessary to ensure a sustainable built 

environment. Just as one can purchase a superbly designed vehicle, 

performance will greatly depend on how often one changes the 

spark plugs, rotates the tires, and drives it in for a tuneup. The 

same principle applies to buildings. 

Second, while environmental attributes such as durability, recycle content and short-term renewability are all important considerations, we must ultimately make decisions about the products we 

use based on a sound understanding of their total environmental 

impact. Good data on life cycle assessments can help us achieve our 

goal of carbon-neutral buildings. 

Finally, buildings are a big part of our climate problem. Public 

policy should harness the powers of competition to help solve it. Organizations such as the GBI, the National Association of Home 

Builders, the American Institute of Architects, and the U.S. Green 

Building Council and others are all working in various ways to develop approaches to measure, incentivize and promote green building. This competitive dynamic has already stimulated improvement 

in the field and is essential for the further advancement of the 

green building movement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbell follows:] 

STATEMENT OF WARD HUBBELL, PRESIDENT, GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to showcase the benefits of green buildings, as well as highlight the work of the Green Building Initiative (GBI). 

The Green Building Initiative is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated 

to accelerating the practice of designing and maintaining more energy efficient, 

healthier and less environmentally-impactful buildings. 

Our organization was founded in 2003, initially to facilitate the adoption of the 

National Association of Home Builders Model Green Home guidelines for residential 

construction. These guidelines, developed through an inclusive and rigorous process, 

are fast becoming the accepted approach for residential green building nationwide. 

The NAHB developed their guidelines by following procedures approved by the 

American National Standards Institute—or ANSI—and now are on a path to develop the first true consensus standard for residential green building. We are proud 

to work with the NAHB and commend them for their leadership in this area. 

In addition to our work with the NAHB, we also offer systems to facilitate the 

sustainable design, development and maintenance of commercial buildings. Green 

Globes—widely used in Canada—was brought to the U.S. market by GBI. It is a 

portfolio of interactive, Web-based design and building performance tools that enable designers to evaluate environmental strategies for their buildings and achieve 
50 

ratings that are verified by an independent third-party. A full description of these 

tools, their origins and our third party assessment processes are included below. 

The creation of the GBI and the groundbreaking work of the NAHB not only complements the good work of other private organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council, but also creates a very healthy and competitive dynamic that has 

served to stimulate some exciting advancements in the green building arena. These 

include: 

• Movement toward the development of true consensus standards for green building. The GBI became the first organization of its kind to subject a rating system 

to the rigors of an independent, third-party, codified and consensus process under 

the rules of the ANSI. Other organizations have since pursued a similar path. 

• The creation of practical, user-friendly tools to allow owners and designers to 

consider the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ environmental impact of materials used in construction. With life cycle assessment tools recently developed by the GBI, designers can 

now make decisions based on the energy, air, water, solid waste and climate change 

impacts of more than 400 commonly used building assemblies. We’re incorporating 

this data into our own rating system, and we’ve also offered it free of charge to any 

other rating organization or government entity that would like to utilize it. 

• Stimulating the increased use of technology in green assessment. The Green 

Globes interactive platform has helped make green design and assessment both 

cost-effective and user-friendly. This has made it possible for a greater number of 

projects to be built to green standards and has encouraged the increasing use of 

technology in other rating systems. 

As this committee begins the important work of developing policy to help green 

the nation’s built environment, I would offer several observations for your consideration. 

1. Green design is vitally important, but it is only part of the equation. Effective 

building operation and maintenance is necessary to ensure a sustainable built environment. Just as one can purchase a superbly designed vehicle, performance will 

greatly depend on how often one changes the spark plugs, rotates the tires and 

drives in for a tune up. The same principle applies to buildings. That’s why the GBI 

offers Green Globes tools to facilitate and certify building design as well as building 

operation and maintenance. 

2. While environmental attributes—such as durability, recycled content and short 

term renewability—are all important considerations, we must ultimately make decisions about the products we use based on a sound understanding of their lifetime 

environmental impact. Good life cycle assessment data can help to achieve our goals 

of carbon neutral buildings. 

3. Finally, buildings are a big contributor to the problem of climate change. Public 

policy should harness the powers of competition to help the building sector contribute to a solution. Organizations such as the GBI, the NAHB, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, ASTM International and the U.S. Green Building 

Council are all working in various ways to develop approaches to measure, 

incentivize and promote green building. This competitive dynamic has already stimulated improvement in the field and is essential for the further advancement of the 

green building movement. 

GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE BACKGROUND

The Green Building Initiative (GBI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit education organization based in Portland, Oregon. It was established to accelerate the adoption of sustainable design and construction practices by promoting credible and practical approaches to green building for both residential and commercial construction. 

I serve as President at the discretion of an independent, multi-stakeholder board 

of directors comprised of construction professionals, product manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, university officials, and other interested third parties. Each 

board member is allocated one vote to guide the GBI, ensuring an equal balance of 

influence. For a list of board members, please visit our Web site at www.thegbi.org. 

In terms of funding, the GBI has benefited from the early support of a core group 

of industries that are committed to advancing the green building movement by creating a variety of credible options for their builder customers. Since our inception, 

we have also worked tirelessly to diversify our financial base through membership, 

training and other initiatives. You can view the GBI’s complete list of funders at 

www.thegbi.org. 

We have also long recognized the power of collaboration and have tried to foster 

relationships with a variety of organizations related to the built environment to help 
51 

accelerate the acceptance of sustainable design and construction in the marketplace. 

Some of the organizations that we have worked with include: • American Institute of Architects • National Association of Home Builders • Associated General Contractors of America • Sustainable Buildings Industry Council • U.S. Conference of Mayors • Building Owners and Managers Association 

THE MISSION OF THE GBI

The GBI is committed to helping promote green building by offering credible and 

practical solutions to make green design, management and assessment more accessible to a wider population of builders and designers. 

For residential construction, the GBI has a unique strategic partnership with the 

NAHB. Our role is to promote the NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines 

to residential construction professionals, and to work with NAHB chapters, called 

home builder associations, to develop and populate local green building programs 

based on the national guidelines. We provide technical assistance, promotional and 

marketing support, host educational seminars for builder members, and conduct 

market research in an effort to spur sustainable development, as well as consumer 

demand for green homes. To date, in partnership with the NAHB and their local 

affiliates, the GBI has helped to develop and launch local and State green building 

programs in 15 major markets across the country. For a list of these programs, 

please visit www.thegbi.org. For commercial construction, the GBI owns the rights to promote and distribute 

the Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system, which was originally developed for the Canadian marketplace. Green Globes is a revolutionary 

green management tool that features an assessment protocol, rating system and 

guide for integrating environmentally friendly design into commercial buildings. It 

features modules for New Construction and the Continual Improvement of Existing 

Buildings and facilitates recognition of completed projects through third-party 

verification. The system is successful because it is rigorous, yet easy to use and affordable. Due to its unique, Web-based platform, the detailed information and references users need to design sustainable, energy-efficient buildings are embedded 

within the system providing the most relevant information at exactly the time it is 

needed. 

Innovation and Competition 

The rating systems we promote—NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines 

for residential construction and Green Globes for commercial construction—have 

helped accelerate the adoption of green building practices by driving advancements 

in green building rating systems. 

In addition to supporting the diversity of buildings and building professionals, we 

believe that competition will continue to do for green building what it has done in 

countless other areas—drive improvements, lower costs and benefit the ultimate 

consumer, which in this case, is our shared environment. 

The following initiatives are explained in more detail below, but, in the last two 

years alone, GBI: • Became the first green building organization to be accredited as a Standards 

Developing Organization (SDO) by ANSI and is well into the process to establish 

our Green Globes system, as the first commercial green rating system to become an 

ANSI standard. • Began pilot testing Green Globes for the Continual Improvement of Existing 

Buildings to strengthen the link between sustainable design objectives and actual 

building performance, 

• Developed the first tool for integrating life cycle assessment (LCA)—considered 

to be the most effective way to compare the environmental impacts of building materials and assemblies—into a green rating system, and 

• Chose to advance the green movement as a whole by supporting the development of a generic version of our LCA tool—the ATHENA® Eco-Calculator for Assemblies—which will soon be available from the ATHENA Institute, free of charge, 

to the entire sustainable design community. 

GBI’s status as an innovator was also reinforced by the AIA’s and Architecture 

2030’s recent call for climate change legislation based on energy data generated 

through the Department of Energy’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 

Survey (CBECS). Widely considered to be the most accurate and reliable source of 

energy benchmarking information, GBI and the EPA’s Energy Star program are the 

only rating systems that rely on this important database. Green Globes is unique 
52 

in its emphasis on using CBECS for both its design and existing buildings modules—where it serves as the system’s benchmark for measured reductions in energy 

consumption. 

GREEN GLOBES-HISTORY AND CREDENTIALS

The Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system represents more 

than nine years of research and refinement by a wide range of prominent international organizations and experts. 

The genesis of the system was the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), which was brought to Canada in 1996 in 

cooperation with ECD Energy and Environment. Pioneers of this project included 

Jiri Skopek, John Doggart and Roger Baldwin, who were the principal authors of 

the BREEAM Canada document. 

In 1996, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) published BREEAM Canada 

for Existing Buildings. More than 35 individuals participated in its development, including representatives from the following organizations: 

• Bell Canada 

• Carrier 

• Canadian Construction Research Board 

• Canadian Standards Association 

• ECE Group 

• Environment Canada 

• Environmental Planning Institute of Canada 

• Halozone, Inc. 

• International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives 

• Natural Resources Canada 

• National Research Council 

• Ontario Hydro 

• Ontario Realty Corporation 

• Tescor Energy Services, Inc. 

• University of Toronto 

In 1999, ECD Energy and Environment worked with TerraChoice, the agency that 

administers the Government of Canada’s Environmental Choice program, to develop 

a more streamlined, question-based tool, which was introduced as the BREEAM 

Green Leaf eco-rating program. This program led to the development of Green Leaf 

for Municipal Buildings with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities later that 

year. 

In 2000, BREEAM Green Leaf took another leap forward in its evolution, becoming an online assessment and rating tool under the name Green Globes for Existing 

Buildings. Also that year, BREEAM Green Leaf for the Design of New Buildings 

was developed for the Department of National Defense and Public Works and Government Services Canada. 

In 2002, Green Globes for Existing Buildings was introduced online in the United 

Kingdom as the Global Environmental Method (GEM). Work also began to adapt 

BREEAM Green Leaf for the Design of New Buildings into the online Green Globes 

for New Buildings. Participants in this process included representatives from: 

• Arizona State University 

• Besto Group 

• Building Owners and Manufacturers Association of Canada 

• Canadian Construction Association 

• Canadian Standards Association 

• Department of National Defense 

• DST Group 

• Elia Sterling Associates 

• Energy Profiles 

• GWL Realty 

• MCMP Architects 

• Natural Resources Canada 

• Public Works and Government Services Canada 

• Stewart Energy 

• TerraChoice 

• The ATHENA Institute 

In 2004, Green Globes for Existing Buildings was adopted by the Building Owners 

and Manufacturers Association of Canada (BOMA) under the name Go Green Comprehensive (now Go Green Plus). Since then, the Canadian federal government has 

adopted Go Green Plus as a green management tool for its portfolio of more than 
53 

500 existing buildings. It is also integral to the Ontario Power Authority’s program 

for energy retrofits, and is used by most major property management firms. 

GREEN GLOBES AND THE GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE

In 2004, the GBI acquired the rights to distribute Green Globes for the Design 

of New Buildings in the United States. In adapting the system for the U.S. market, 

the only changes made were those necessary to make the system appropriate for the 

U.S. market (e.g. converting units of measurement and integration with the U.S. 

Energy Star program). 

However, we have since committed ourselves to ensuring that Green Globes continues to reflect best practices and ongoing advances in research and technology. 

To that end, the GBI sought and received accreditation as an ANSI standards developer and began the consensus-based process of establishing Green Globes as the 

first ANSI standard for commercial green building. As part of the process, the GBI 

established a technical committee and sub-committees featuring nearly 100 building 

science experts, including representatives from four federal agencies, states, municipalities, universities and leading construction firms, as well as building owners. A 

complete list is available at www.thegbi.org. 

As part of the ANSI process, the GBI has relinquished control of the Green Globes 

tool to the technical committee, which will determine the final standard without influence from the GBI board of directors, funders or staff. 

ABOUT GREEN GLOBES

Although many green building tools claim to be Web-enabled, this is typically limited to providing online information and templates. Green Globes’ use of Web tools 

is far more complex, and offers a fully interactive experience. 

Once an online questionnaire is completed, the system generates a point score and 

project design highlights. is the report generated includes an educational component, which highlights sustainability attributes of the building and provides detailed 

suggestions for improvements that should result in a reducing the building’s overall 

environmental impact. This is supported by hot-links to further information regarding best design practices and standards or specific information on building systems 

and materials. Links are selected to provide educational information, government 

references, NGOs, and industry research relevant to each stage of project delivery 

and helps users achieve a better high performance design and higher Green Globes 

score. 

Projects are awarded up to 1,000 points based on their performance in seven 

areas of assessment: 

1. Project Management-50 Points.—The Green Globes system places an emphasis 

on integrated design, an approach that encourages multi-disciplinary collaboration 

from the earliest stages of a project while also considering the interaction between 

elements related to sustainability. Most decisions that influence a building’s performance (such as siting, orientation, form, construction and building services) are 

made at the start of the project and yet it’s common, even for experienced designers, 

to focus on environmental performance late in the process, adding expensive technologies after key decisions have been made. This is costly as well as ineffective. 

To ensure that all of the relevant players are involved, the system tailors questionnaires so that input from team members is captured in an interactive manner, 

even on those issues which may at first appear to fall outside their mandate. For 

example, while site design and landscaping may come under the purview of the 

landscape designers, the questionnaire prompts the electrical engineer to get involved with design issues such as outdoor lighting or security. Thus the Green 

Globes format promotes design teamwork and prevents a situation where, despite 

strong individual resources, the combined effort falls short. 

Also included under project management are environmental purchasing, commissioning, and emergency response. 

2. Site-115 Points.—Building sites are evaluated based on the development area 

(including site selection, development density and site remediation), ecological impacts (on ecological integrity, biodiversity, air and water quality, microclimate, habitat, and nocturnal fauna and flora), watershed features (such as site grading, storm 

water management, previous cover and rainwater capture), and site ecology enhancement. 

3. Energy-360 Points.—To simplify the process of energy performance targeting, 

Green Globes directs users to the Web interface used for the Energy Star Target 

Finder software, which helps to generate a realistic energy consumption target. As 

a result, an aggressive energy performance goal can be set—with points awarded 
54 

for design and operations strategies that result in a significant reduction in energy 

consumption—as compared to actual performance data from real buildings. 

As previously stated, Green Globes is the only green rating system to use energy 

data generated through the DOE’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is widely considered to be the most accurate and reliable source 

of energy benchmarking information. 

In addition to overall consumption, projects are evaluated based on the objectives 

of reduced energy demand (through space optimization, microclimatic response to 

site, day lighting, envelope design and metering), integration of ‘‘right sized’’ energyefficient systems, on-site renewable energy sources, and access to energy-efficient 

transportation. 

4. Water—100 Points.—Projects receive points for overall water efficiency as well 

as specific water conservation features (such as sub-metering, efficiency of cooling 

towers and irrigation strategies), and on-site treatment (of grey water and waste 

water). 

5. Resources—100 Points.—The resources section covers building materials and 

solid waste. It includes points for materials with low environmental impact (based 

on life cycle assessment), minimal consumption and depletion of resources (with an 

emphasis on materials that are re-used, recycled, bio-based and, in the case of wood 

products, certified as having come from sustainable sources), the re-use of existing 

structures, building durability, adaptability and disassembly, and the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste. 

6. Emissions, Effluents and Other Impacts—75 Points.—Points in this section are 

awarded in six categories, including air emissions, ozone depletion and global warming, protection of waterways and impact on municipal waste water treatment facilities, minimization of land and water pollution (and the associated risk to occupants’ 

health and the local environment), integrated pest management, and the storage of 

hazardous materials. 

7. Indoor Environment—200 Points.—According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air can be up to 10 times more polluted than outdoor air, 

even in cities where the quality of outdoor air is poor. This has obvious health implications, but the consequences are also economic. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that improving indoor air at work could save U.S. businesses up to $58 billion in lost sick time each year, with another $200 billion earned 

in increased worker performance. 

This section evaluates the quality of the indoor environment based on the effectiveness of the ventilation system, the source control of indoor pollutants, lighting 

design and the integration of lighting systems, thermal comfort and acoustic comfort. 

Projects that achieve a score of 35 percent or more become eligible for a Green 

Globes rating of one, two, three or four globes, as follows: 

• One Globe: 35–54 percent 

• Two Globes: 55–69 percent 

• Three Globes: 70–84 percent 

• Four Globes: 85–100 percent 

However, buildings cannot be promoted as having achieved a Green Globes rating 

until the information submitted has been third-party verified by a qualified and authorized individual assessor. 

The GBI currently oversees Green Globes-trained verifiers comprised primarily of 

licensed architects and engineers with significant experience in building sciences 

and sustainability issues. The Green Globes third-party verification process features 

a rigorous two-stage approach. 

Stage I can be initiated by the design team as soon as the Construction Documents questionnaire is finalized. The completed questionnaire is verified against the 

documentation generated throughout the design process and, providing the building 

is on target to achieve a minimum of 35 percent of the 1,000 possible points, the 

design team receives a Certificate of Achievement. However, a final rating cannot 

be achieved until after a Stage II verification, which occurs post-construction. Stage 

II includes a site visit and walk-through by the third-party verifier and can be initiated as soon as construction is complete. 

To further strengthen our third-party verification program, the GBI recently announced an agreement with CSA America, Inc., a leading developer of standards 

and codes, to develop an independently accredited Green Globes Personnel Certification Program. CSA America is developing the program on behalf of GBI for assessors using the Green Globes system to verify achievements in the design and operation of green buildings. It is the industry’s first independently administered certification program for third-party verifiers of green buildings. 
55 

GREEN GLOBES AND LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)

The green building movement is experiencing a fundamental shift in the way it 

approaches sustainable design, away from a prescriptive methodology—whereby materials are assumed to have environmental benefits based on rapid renewability, recycled content or other attributes—toward one that emphasizes measurable performance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a means to this end because it allows the 

impartial comparison of materials, assemblies and even whole buildings, from cradle-to-grave, in terms of quantifiable impact indicators such as global warming potential. 

LCA is widely accepted in the environmental research community as one of the 

best ways to assess building sustainability, but its use has been limited by the perception that it’s too complex or time consuming for mainstream practitioners. Now, 

thanks to a new tool commissioned by the GBI, LCA is more accessible than ever 

before to architects, engineers, policy makers, manufacturers and developers, regardless of environmental design experience. 

Developed for use with the Green Globes system, the new tool provides instant 

LCA results for more than 400 common building assemblies in low- and high-rise 

categories—including exterior walls, roofs, intermediate floors, interior walls, windows, and columns and beams. It was created by the ATHENA Institute in association with the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research 

and Morrison Hershfield Consulting Engineers. ATHENA’s widely acclaimed Impact 

Estimator for Buildings was used to generate the results embedded in the tool. 

The tool is currently being reviewed by the ANSI technical committee prior to its 

integration into Green Globes. However, recognizing its importance as an indicator 

of climate change impacts, GBI supported the team’s creation of a generic version 

for use by the entire sustainable design community. This version will soon be available, free of charge, from the ATHENA Web site (www.athenasmi.ca), and we are 

encouraging its use among other green building organizations and universities, and 

at all levels of government. 

GREEN GLOBES AND OTHER RATING SYSTEMS

There is a great deal of agreement as to what constitutes best energy and environmental practices, so the major green building standards and rating systems have 

more similarities than differences. 

For example, a team of independent researchers at the University of Minnesota 

recently published the results of a three month intensive analysis of Green Globes 

and LEED. 

The report, ‘‘Green Building Systems: A Comparison of the LEED and Green 

Globes Systems in the US,’’ is available on the GBI Web site (www.thegbi.org/gbi/ 

Green—Building—Rating—UofM.pdf). It provides a detailed comparison of how the 

systems operate as well as their respective strengths and weaknesses. 

Among its conclusions, the report states that ‘‘in total the systems are quite similar,’’ and that ‘‘both include a common set of potentially impactful design elements 

that contribute to the improvement of a building’s green performance.’’ 

The study also found that nearly 80 percent of the categories available for points 

in Green Globes are also addressed in LEED 2.2 and that over 85 percent of the 

categories specified in LEED 2.2 are addressed in Green Globes. 

It concluded that, while comparing the two systems is extremely difficult, there 

are a number of trends ‘‘worth noting.’’ Included in this summary were the following 

three points: 

• Green Globes ‘‘appears to be doing a fairly good job in improving upon the delivery mechanisms employed by LEED which are so often criticized,’’ by providing an 

online approach to assessment that improves efficiency and reduces costs, 

• Green Globes better integrates life-cycle thinking into its rating system, and 

• The GBI, as an accredited standards developer under the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) ‘‘will undoubtedly enhance Green Globes presence in the 

marketplace’’ by undergoing the consensus-based process associated with creating 

an official ANSI standard for green building practices. 

In addition, the study revealed some ‘‘moderate dissimilarity’’ in point allocations 

in the two systems, pointing out that ‘‘Green Globes emphasizes energy use above 

all other categories. In contrast, LEED allocates comparatively more points to the 

Materials section.’’ It reported that areas such as indoor environmental quality, resources, and site ecology are similarly emphasized by both systems, and that Green 

Globes employs a rating criterion that reflects life-cycle thinking and covers the entire life-cycle of building materials. 

It also stated that, ‘‘from a process perspective, Green Globes’ simpler methodology, employing a user-friendly interactive guide for assessing and integrating 
56 

green design principles for buildings, continues to be a point of differentiation to 

LEED’s more complex, and largely paper-based system. While LEED has recently 

introduced an online-based system, it remains more extensive and requires expert 

knowledge in various areas. Green Globes’ Web-based self-assessment tool can be 

completed by any team member with general knowledge of the building’s parameters.’’ The researchers added that, ‘‘in contrast, LEED tends to be more rigid, timeintensive, and [more] expensive to administer.’’ 

Aside from the fundamental similarities, the Green Globes system has a number 

of unique characteristics that make it an attractive option for those seeking a tool 

that’s both rigorous and practical, at an affordable price. For example, Green Globes 

is: 

Flexible 

Designed for use on building projects of any size, Green Globes is suitable for everything from large and small offices and multi-family structures, to institutional 

buildings such as schools, universities and libraries. 

Encourages Building Comparisons 

Owners and developers with multiple properties can use Green Globes to assess 

and compare the buildings in their portfolio. As more and more buildings are Green 

Globes verified, point scores will also be aggregated in an anonymous database, enabling users to analyze how both their designs and existing buildings perform in relation to the median and to buildings that are similar in size, type and region. 

Promotes Integrated Design 

Green Globes facilitates the integrated design process, encouraging multi-disciplinary collaboration from the earliest stages of a project. The system guides design 

team members by reminding them of next steps and introducing the elements of 

sustainability in a logical sequence. 

Facilitates Planning 

Self-assessment occurs in two phases: during the schematic design stage (which 

corresponds with site plan approval) and during the construction documents stage 

(which typically corresponds with building permit approval). This allows design 

teams, clients and municipal authorities to review a detailed report that provides 

the percentage of points likely to be achieved (out of 1,000), highlights the project’s 

environmental attributes, and suggests opportunities for improvement. 

U.S. MARKET ACCEPTANCE

To date, eight buildings have successfully completed Green Globes third-party 

verifications across the United States, with an additional 70 buildings in the pipeline. 

Of those that have completed the verification process, four of the eight have also 

been certified under the USGBC’s LEED program, and two are awaiting their final 

LEED certification. Because both systems have similar four tiered rating structures, 

these dual-certified buildings provide benchmark data demonstrating that while not 

identical, the systems are comparable—in terms of the final ratings and areas of assessment. They just take a different approach to reach the same goal. 

Examples of dual-certified projects include: 

• William J. Clinton Presidential Center (Little Rock, AR) 

• Two Green Globes; LEED Silver 

• Alberici Corporate Headquarters (St. Louis, MO) 

• Four Green Globes; LEED Platinum 

• Blakely Hall (Issaquah, WA) 

• Two Green Globes, LEED Silver 

• Pfizer Inc. Clinical Research Unit (New Haven, CT)* 

• Three Green Globes, LEED Silver 

*This project received points for excellence in project management for their integrated design process, which were not available in LEED. 

Green Globes has also been formally recognized by the public and private sectors 

including: 

• Formal recognition of Green Globes by six states in green building legislation 

and executive orders, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaiii, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

• Inclusion in the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company’s Certified Green Building 

Replacement and Green Upgrade coverage package, which provides discounted rates 
57 

for certified green buildings. (The Fireman’s Fund is the only insurance company 

currently offering incentives for green commercial buildings.) 

• Indications from several federal agencies, including the Department of Health 

and Human Services (piloting Green Globes on the NIH building in Maryland and 

an Indian Health Services building in Arizona) and the Department of the Interior 

(piloting Green Globes on a building in New Mexico) that Green Globes provides 

unique benefits that made it worthy of adding into their formal sustainability policies. 

FUTURE OF THE GBI

The GBI has made tremendous strides in a short time—and we intend to continue 

leading science-based and technologically-advanced initiatives that allow us to bring 

to fruition important contributions on priority issues within the green building 

movement. 

One contribution is to ensure that the those working with the existing built environment have a reliable, affordable and holistic tool for improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, while considering other environmental impacts. It is 

critical that our Nation make strides in improving our existing building stock and 

at the same time address the gap between design intent and actual building performance. 

The unfortunate reality is that many buildings designed to be sustainable fail to 

perform as expected. There are logical reasons, such as the fact that design team 

predictions may have been based on ideal assumptions, while actual performance 

was diminished by unforeseen variables, such as moving budget targets, value engineering, or insufficient commissioning. But to a building owner that receives higher 

than expected utility bills or fails to achieve his or her energy reduction targets, the 

reasons matter less than the results. 

What’s been missing, until now, is a way to measure and monitor performance 

on an ongoing basis. That is why GBI is introducing Green Globes for Continual 

Improvement of Existing Buildings (Green Globes-CIEB). 

There is an increasing demand for accountability—through mechanisms such as 

climate change legislation, which mandate energy and CO2 reductions—and building 

owners are being called upon to improve building performance with verifiable results. They need to know quickly and reliably whether specific improvements are 

having the intended effects. 

Green Globes-CIEB allows users to create a baseline of their building’s performance, evaluate interventions, plan for improvements, and monitor success—all within a holistic framework that also addresses the building’s physical and human elements such as material use and indoor environment. 

In the context of climate change, energy is the most significant area of assessment 

within Green Globes-CIEB. A combined focus on energy use, building features and 

management helps to pinpoint where performance is lacking and what corrective action is required. The system uses the EPA’s Portfolio Manager to determine a consumption target in k/Btus for each building type, and, where appropriate, buildings 

must meet a minimum performance target of 75 percent based on the comparable 

EPA Target Finder building. 

Green Globes-CIEB is being pilot tested with the goal of demonstrating that it 

provides the combination of a credible baseline and guidance that allows users to 

plan with accuracy the interventions required to achieve measured reductions in energy consumption for existing buildings. 

In the first six weeks after the launch of the pilot, the GBI registered 111 users 

and 34 buildings began the assessment process. At this time, more than 160 buildings are using this web-enabled assessment. This supports our belief, not only in 

the urgent need for practical and cost-effective tools such as Green Globes-CIEB, 

but in their ability to transform the market from one in which green building leads 

to valuable but imprecise benefits to one in which it defines the path for achieving 

specific and measured environmental goals. 

Other GBI priorities include: 

• Further integration of LCA into our suite of tools, including specific regional 

versions for the different climate zones across the country. 

• Interactive tools that make it easier for home builders to learn about and adopt 

sustainable practices. 

Thank you again for inviting the Green Building Initiative to participate in today’s hearing. We look forward to the opportunity to work with all of the members 

of the committee to help make green building the norm, rather than the exception 

in residential and commercial construction. 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

RESPONSE BY WARD HUBBELL TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR SANDERS

Question. In your testimony you talk about the ‘‘green building’’ work being done 

by the National Association of Home Builders through the Green Building Initiative. 

You fall, however, to give details about what this means, such as, how much energy 

has been saved, how much water has been saved, what are the reductions in CO2

emissions, how much have you improved indoor air finality, etc. . . , What concrete 

changes can you point to from your ‘‘green building’’ practices? 

Response. Two related shortcomings of the green building movement as a whole 

have been our tendency to focus on a building’s design instead of its performance 

and our promotion to date of prescriptive tools and guidelines instead of those that 

are performance-based. While a sustainable design is the first step to achieving energy and other savings, it is just one part of the equation. A buildings performance 

is also greatly influenced by the specifics of its occupancy and management. 

As a result, although more than 100 homes have been certified to the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Model. Green Home Building Guidelines 

through work with the Green Building Initiative (GBI), and thousands more have 

started the process. I am unable to point to any concrete evidence of energy savings, 

carbon emission reductions or improved indoor-air quality from their participation 

in the program. Most of the data that our sector uses to encourage sustainability 

is anecdotal, but we intend to change that. 

For the commercial sector, the GBI is preparing to release a new module of the 

Green Globes system—Green Globes for Continual improvement of Existing Buildings—which is currently being piloted. With its emphasis on performance data, the 

new module will provide a practical and cost-effective mechanism, (a) for ensuring 

that high performance designs result in high performance buildings, and (b) for 

evaluating, comparing and improving buildings over the long term. It will also provide some mud, needed data on the type of savings one can expect from sustainable 

construction practices. 

For the residential sector, we intend to commission studies on homes based or the 

NAHB guidelines in order to understand the true performance impacts of the recommended practices and more accurately forecast the benefits. 

As soon as this data is available, the GBI will develop a formal report to share 

with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

RESPONSE BY WARD HUBBELL TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARNER

Question. As you know, some federal agencies, like the Department of Health and 

Human Services, have issued policies Incorporating the Green Globes rating system 

into their guidance for sustainable and high performance buildings. Have the Green 

Globes system provided certification to any federal buildings to date? What kind of 

long-term savings should the agencies expect? 

Response. Taking into consideration that the Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system has been available in the United States for less than two 

years, we are pleased to report progress with a number of federal buildings. 

The William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little Rock, Ark. was 

the first federally funded project to undergo both the initial assessment and thirdparty verification process required before any building can be promoted as having 

achieved a Green Globes rating. 

We are currently working with the Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS), which is piloting Green Globes on the National Institute of Health building 

in Maryland and an Indian Health Services building in Arizona, as well as the Department of the Interior (DOI), which is piloting Green Globes on a building in New 

Mexico. 

The GBI provides interactive solutions that make even the most sophisticated 

processes practical and accessible, and agencies such as these should expect many 

benefits from using the Green Globes system—not only as an assessment and rating 

tool, but as a guide for integrating environmentally-friendly design into new and existing buildings. 

The Green Globes system’s revolutionary interactive platform gives all building 

professionals, regardless of experience, the opportunity to incorporate sustainable 

principles into their projects. The system is designed for use with buildings of any 

size and, in response to the U.S. Government’s creation of Guiding Principles for 

Federal Leadership in High Performance Sustainable Buildings with its Memorandum of Understanding; it has been identified by agencies such as the DHHS and 

DOI for use with all new construction/renovation projects. 

Use of the Green Globes system is also in keeping with the government’s desire 

to increase efficiencies through ‘‘electronic government.’’ As you know, many agen-
90 

cies are being asked to enhance service delivery by increasing their Information 

Technology resources. As an online system that’s also easy to use and cost-effective, 

Green Globes helps to address this growing need. 

RESPONSES BY WARD HUBBELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. There is already one rating system (LEED) used widely in the United 

States, Why Is it Important that other rating systems also be available? 

Response. Obviously, there is some similarity between the GBI and organizations 

such as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Were both private sector, nonprofit organizations that offer tools for assessing and rating green structures. However, while we are technically competitors, I believe share the common goal of a 

much greener built environment—and that our tools have their own unique characteristics that, together, meet the needs of a much broader segment of the design and 

building community. 

What’s important to keep in mind is that as in other segments of society, healthy 

competition among rating systems will drive improvements. lower costs and benefit 

the ultimate consumer which In this case is our shared environment. I also believe 

its necessary to motivate the kind of innovation—both separately and collectively— 

that our Nation needs to address crisis-level problems such as climate change. 

Let me be clear, organizations such as the USGBC have contributed mightily to 

the cause of green building and LEED is a helpful tool. Yet, as with all such tools 

Our own included), it comes with its own unique set of limitations. 

In addition to providing a greater range of options for design and building professionals, an increased level of competition in the green rating field has already stimulated some exciting advancements in the green building arena. These include: 

• Movement toward the development of true consensus standards for green building. The GBI became the first organization of its kind to subject a rating system 

to the rigors of an independent, third party, codified and consensus-based process 

under the rules of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Other organizations have since pursued a similar path. 

• The creation of practical, user-friendly tools to allow owners and designers to 

consider the ‘‘cradle-to-graver’’ environmental impact of materials used in construction. With life cycle assessment tools recently developed by the GBI, designers can 

now make decisions based on the energy, a water, solid waste and climate change 

impacts of more than 400 commonly used building assemblies. We’re incorporating 

this data into our own Green Globes rating system, and we’ve also offered it free 

of charge to any other rating organization or government entity that wants to use 

it. 

• Stimulating the increased use of technology in green assessment. The Green 

Globes interactive platform has helped make green design and assessment both 

cost-effective and user-friendly. This has made it possible for a greater number of 

projects to be built to green standards and has encouraged the increasing use of 

technology in other rating systems. 

In addition, Green Globes and other similar tools play an important role by attracting mainstream design and construction professionals whose needs (and budgets) aren’t met by other systems. For example, in Summit County, Colo., the local 

government and High Country Conservation Center celebrated a sustainable construction milestone last year when the Summit County Materials Recovery Facility 

(MRF) became the first recycling facility in the country to be built green. 

As a mission-driven, non-profit, the Summit County MRF required a system such 

as Green Globes, which offers affordability, flexibility and user friendliness. Without 

this option, it would have been impractical to assess and rate the building’s environmental achievements—and its accomplishments would have gone unrecognized. 

The bottom line: green building does not only apply to big budget projects and cathedrals of architecture. The market can bear—and frankly needs—a variety of options that accommodate a full range of budgets and building types, as well as the 

individual preferences of architects, builders and others in a position to influence 

the adoption of sustainable building practices. 

Question 2. What effect on Green Building innovation would mandating a single 

standard at the Federal level have? 

Response. As indicated above, increased competition since the inception of the 

GBI has already spurred improvements. However, while we have come a long way 

in the work to better our built environment, there is still more to be done. Mandating a single standard at the Federal level would promote a monopoly situation 

and stifle the innovations inspired through a competitive environment. 
91 

Simply put, if the government finds it necessary to mandate green building, it is 

vital that the legislation or executive order be rating system neutral. If we want the 

green building movement to mature and grow, we need the power of competition to 

drive the improvements that will take us to the next level. 

Question 3. Why is a consensus-based approach important in formulating green 

building standards? 

Response. True consensus standards are established when a recognized standards 

developer follows a prescribed process that subjects every aspect of its rating system 

to review, analysis and voting by a balanced group of independent stakeholders. 

In the case of the GBI, we were the first green building organization to become 

a standards developer under ANSI. The USGBC and the NAHB followed suit, but 

the USGBC has not initiated a standards development process. The GBI and NAHB 

are working to establish the Green Globes rating system and the NAHB Model 

Green Home Building Guidelines (respectively) as the first ANSI standards for commercial and residential green building. 

Speaking to the GBI’s ANSI process, the Green Globes system is undergoing a 

thorough review by an independent technical committee and seven expert subcommittees, which will make modifications through a formal voting process. Before 

it can be ratified, the standard must be released for public comment and all negative comments must be addressed by the committee in writing. 

While other green building standards are commonly referred to as consensus 

standards, they are neither developed nor maintained through an independent, 

third-Party process for consensus development. This is an important distinction, not 

only because the federal government has stated that it prefers voluntary consensus 

standards for use in federal buildings, but because standards not developed by consensus are under the control of their governing bodies. 

Utilizing established, consensus-based procedures, such as those required by 

ANSI, to develop a green building standard encourages a fair, equitable and open 

process that helps ensure the best standard will be brought forward to the public. 

Question 4a. Explain why you decided to pursue ANSI certification for Green 

Globes. 

Response. With an estimated 100 million buildings in operation by 2010, it is vital 

that organizations like the GBI and others encourage green building by developing 

third-party codified consensus standards buildings based on sound building science. 

The GBI is committed to offering consensus-based standards that are also practical and affordable, and give design and construction professionals the confidence 

that they are working with the best tools available. Through the ANSI process, we 

are leveraging the considerable knowledge of nearly 100 building science experts 

who sit on our technical committee and subcommittees and will also seek public 

comment We feel confident that the result will be a highly credible and useful 

standard. 

We also applaud the decision of our partners at the NAHB to take their Model 

Green Home Building Guidelines through the same ANSI process, as well as organizations such as the National Institute of Building Sciences, American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and ASTM International, 

which are working to develop minimum standards for green building. Together, 

these Initiatives will provide a variety of options that accommodate a full range of 

budgets, building types and preferences. 

Question 4b. Will you continue to pursue ANSI certification for other rating systems you might promote in the future? 

Response. We will most assuredly evaluate opportunities to seek ANSI accreditation for future tools and rating systems. 

Question 5. In your testimony, you mentioned the prescriptive nature of rating 

systems and the need to move towards performance-based systems. Please elaborate. 

Response. The green building movement is experiencing a fundamental shift in 

the way it approaches sustainable design, away from a prescriptive methodology— 

whereby certain practices or materials are assumed to have environmental benefits—toward one that emphasizes measurable performance. 

For example, many people believe it’s better for the environment to use materials 

produced within 500 miles of the structure being built. On the surface this makes 

sense—since less energy will be required to transport the materials. But there are 

a tremendous number of factors that influence whether or not a locally produced 

material is preferable, including the source of its components, type of manufacturing 

process and mode of transportation. 
92 

Life cycle assessment (LCA), which allows the impartial comparison of building 

designs based on measures such as global warming potential, is widely considered 

to be the best way to determine a building’s true sustainability. 

As such the GBI recently commissioned a software tool that provides LCA results 

for more than 400 common building assemblies in low- and high-rise categories. 

Prior to its integration into Green Globes, the new tool is being reviewed by our 

ANSI technical committee. It is also being created in generic form for use (free of 

charge) by other rating organizations as well as the broader sustainable design community. 

As mentioned previously, the GBI is also preparing to introduce a new addition 

to the Green Globes suite of tools: Green Globes for Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings. Designed to complement Green Globes for New Construction, the 

new module will allow building owners and managers to evaluate, track and improve the environmental performance of their buildings, and to compare multiple 

buildings within a portfolio. 

Question 6. Please provide additional detail on your third-party on-site verification 

process. 

Response. A building cannot be promoted as having achieved a Green Globes rating until it undergoes a rigorous third-party verification process and the information 

submitted has been verified by qualified and authorized assessor. 

The process features two stages. Stage I can be initiated by the design team as 

soon as the Construction Documents questionnaire is finalized. The completed questionnaire is verified against the documentation generated during the design process 

and, providing the building is on target to achieve a minimum 35 percent of the 

1,000 possible points, the design team receives a Certificate of Achievement. However, a final rating cannot be achieved until after a Stage II verification, which occurs post-construction. Stage II includes a site visit and walk-through by the thirdparty verifier and can be initiated as soon as construction is complete. 

The GBI currently oversees a team of Green Globes-trained verifiers, who are primarily licensed architects and engineers with significant experience in building 

science. However, to further strengthen our third-party verification program, we recently announced an agreement with CSA America Inc., a leading developer of 

standards and codes, to develop an independently accredited Green Globes Personnel Certification Program. CSA America is developing the program on behalf of 

the GBI for assessors using the Green Globes system to verify achievements in the 

design and operation of green buildings. It will be the industry’s first independently 

administered certification program or third-party verifiers of green buildings. 

The Green Globes Assessor Certification Program will be based on ISO 17024 

General Requirements for Bodies Operating Certification Systems of Persons. Personnel certification is the assessment and formal recognition of an individual’s competence against objectively identified criteria within a specific subject area. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbell. 

I think that you at this table have won a prize which I will call 

the Noble Prize, which is that each one of you finished on time. It 

is quite a remarkable and a noble achievement, and all of you, despite occasional differences in view, I think presented excellent testimony. I thank you. 

You know, one of the things that is being discussed at some 

length is there are some differences. Senator Warner of Virginia 

has a bill that has similar characteristics to the one that I have 

proposed, but ours is more demanding in terms of the verification 

of what constitutes a green building. 

One of the things that I would ask, Mr. Fox, does the calculation 

presented by Mr. Templeton about the recovery of the extra costs 

in building a green building, estimated to be 30 percent more, if 

I remember, to do it, but recover in roughly a 3-year period of time, 

obviously. Is that consistent with your experience in the buildings 

that you have worked on? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, it is. We are seeing, depending on the type of 

building, anywhere from a 1 percent to maybe a 3 percent increase 

in costs, and the recovery period that we look for in all of the innovations that we propose is 5 years or less. 
93 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What has been the response? You obviously have had clients who support the effort and are willing to 

spend the extra money at the time of development, knowing very 

well that they are going to have a much better product out there, 

believing that they will have a healthier environment more consistent with our mission to reduce greenhouse gases, global warming, et cetera. So it sounds like a good investment, but when you 

see what some of the costs of building is, especially when you talk 

about New York, and I am a little familiar with that. It is a suburb 

of my State of New Jersey, you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We are very interested in what takes place 

there. 

You said that the green design of the B of A Building will result 

in a 50 percent energy saving. Which technologies that are part of 

this design will yield that kind of energy saving and how difficult 

is it to install? 

Mr. FOX. The place where we start is with the building envelope, 

to make that the most efficient, the most energy conserving envelope that we can—the windows, the spandrel panels, the roof, and 

try and make that the most high performance envelope that we 

can. 

We then look at the mechanical systems that are delivering both 

heating and cooling to the interior of the space, and make those 

systems the most efficient we can. One of our innovations was the 

ice storage system, which is 44 large tanks 10 feet in diameter, 10 

feet high, made in New Jersey by a terrific company named 

CALMAC, and get all of those systems in balance so that we are 

using the least amount of energy we can to both heat and cool the 

building. 

All of those technologies are off the shelf. They are current stateof-the-art. The ice storage system has been in use for decades. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about the aesthetics? 

Mr. FOX. The aesthetics? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, of the exterior. I had an opportunity 

to visit with a manufacturer in California of solar panels, typically 

used on roofs, but also could be siding. It is incredible, the volume 

of these things that they are turning out now, the solar panels. 

They have their own character in terms of how they appear. I think 

they are OK, but it is a fairly uniform type of thing, I think even 

in the color. 

So when people are building buildings, they like the uniqueness 

about it, whether it is a gigantic skyscraper or a home. So are you 

able to envelop these programs in the same quality of view and 

aesthetics that you would otherwise be able to get? 

Mr. FOX. Well, the answer is yes. This building is a very transparent, all glass, prismatic-informed building. We looked at photovoltaic panels, which when they are the most efficient are a dark 

purple color. We tried to integrate that into the design, and it made 

the building very stripey, with horizontal stripes. So we elected not 

to proceed with that. 

On the Four Times Square Building, which is also on the same 

block, which has a different facade treatment, we did incorporate 

solar panels in the facade of that building. 
94 

So depending on one’s design aesthetic and design approach, 

some of these technologies fit better than others at different times. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You mentioned the cost of water. Water 

availability is a favorite subject of mine. I traveled to the South 

Pole a couple of years ago to see what the National Science Foundation is doing in terms of ice melt and so forth. Some time ago, 

70 percent of the world’s fresh water was stored in the ice in Antarctica. As the temperatures increase, we see the dissolving virtually of that ice protection, that ice cap. As it slides off into the 

sea, obviously it is less available. One of the problems that I think 

our Country and our world has to face pretty darn quickly is the 

availability of potable water and how we are going to adjust to 

that. 

This mission that all of you are on really deserves commendation. The fact is, there are some different approaches, obviously, 

since I am proposing legislation. I tilt toward the LEED standard, 

but respect Mr. Hubbell and the fact that you see it differently. I 

am concerned about the verification. I think you said that there 

were independent ratings created. Who is the independent that creates that? 

Mr. HUBBELL. We have an ISO-certified organization called CSA 

America that is also an ANSI standards developer. They have developed a training course for our third party verifiers. These third 

party verifiers will look at not only the answers to the questionnaire and the other things in our system, but also look at construction documents and commissioning plans and all that. And then, 

unlike any other rating system that I am aware of, we actually do 

an onsite inspection, so these people go to the building, they tour 

the building, and they spend time understanding what systems are 

in that building and make sure that they match with what the 

building owners have reported. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. There is a board of directors of the organization? 

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How are they appointed or elected? 

Mr. HUBBELL. Well, the board, as you probably know, elects 

itself. We have a very balanced governance model. We have one 

third of our seats devoted to producers; one third devoted to users, 

which we classify as builders, developers, architects, people who actually use our system; and then one third devoted to third parties, 

government, NGO’s, academicians, that sort of thing. 

The other thing, Senator, that we do that I think is unique is we 

have taken the content of our rating system and separated it from 

the organization. The organization, the staff, the funders, the 

board, cannot determine the content of our rating system. That is 

done through an independent consensus process through the American National Standards Institute. 

So if you look on our Website, you can see that have a technical 

committee of 30 individuals that come from places like the U.S. 

EPA, American Lung Association, American Institute of Architects, 

as well as representation from industry and users. They determine 

the content of our standards. We don’t. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Tonjes, what is happening in the 

homebuilding community? Is green a consideration? Are green 
95 

technology standards used today? Is the homebuilding industry in 

part saying that we build healthy homes in their advertising? 

Mr. TONJES. I think it is a big issue to get consensus on, but I 

can tell you that over the last many years, a lot of what we consider green building practices have become mainstream as part of 

the regular construction practices. That includes engineered wood 

products, composite materials made up of grocery bags and grocery 

sacks and sawdust, as you will; increased insulation. 

So one of the things is that I think you will find across the Country one of the major components of green building is the energy factor. Energy programs have been long in practice in a lot of parts 

of the Country. Most of these are regionally incentivized, if you 

will. I like to give the example in my home State and my home 

community, which is Austin, TX. I actually was one of the first Energy Star builders in a program that got started in Austin, TX in 

1984. That program eventually evolved into the first green building 

program in 1991. Subsequent to that, Energy Star was picked up 

by the EPA and has been very successfully branded. 

You know, a lot of green building practices are measured in the 

energy side of the component. Also in my State, we adopted a statewide building code in 2001 and 2003. We adopted a statewide energy code. Being in Austin, where we were already doing those 

things, I was quite surprised at the order of magnitude of what 

that did in our State. Texas, as you might suspect, is a very large 

residential building State, with over 100,000 homes each year. We 

have made significant gains in that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It sounds like your focus is largely, certainly primarily, on energy savings, but I believe, as Mr. Fox says, 

there is more to green building than simply energy. We talked 

about water use. We talked about other kinds of things. How about 

what happens in the buildings that are sometimes so well insulated 

that the air gets stale and it creates its own problems? Is that a 

factor that you see? Or Mr. Fox, the architect, do you see it? Does 

green building have to go beyond just the energy issues, which is 

important, by the way. 

Mr. TONJES. If I might address that? Indoor air quality is certainly a significant part. A lot of that has to do with the design of 

the home, the commissioning of the home, the mechanical system, 

sizing the mechanical equipment, basically your air conditioning, to 

have the adequate availability to both filter the air and get the humidity out of the air, which is a huge problem in our State. 

Our State builders association was very successful when we first 

implemented the statewide energy code, of giving statewide training to our membership on high performance homes. This was done 

through our State Energy Conservation Office, which was supported by the Department of Energy. 

So a lot of these practices go hand in hand, and ultimately the 

result was very startling to improve the indoor air quality. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. Fox, to my earlier question, is there more to green construction than energy saving? Is that the principal component? Or is it 

the emissions that are toxic, or at least greenhouse, there also? 

When you talk about a 40 percent saving of energy on the building 
96 

side of things, that create greenhouse gases, 40 percent of the total. 

It is more than energy, is it not? 

Mr. FOX. Yes. Doing a green building, as I have said many times, 

is 100 little things. Some of those 100 have to do with energy, and 

energy is very important, because this is the primary issue with 

CO2 and climate change. However, health is equally important. 

So to put the right materials in a building is extremely important, those that don’t have volatile organic compounds, known carcinogens, and they have existed in carpet and paint and wall coverings and fabrics and furniture. I dare say most of the furniture 

in this room was made with volatile organic compounds, and probably the carpet. 

In addition, the indoor air quality is very important, so how that 

air gets filtered, how that air gets tempered, how it gets delivered. 

The delivery system in this room comes out of the diffusers in the 

ceiling, and comes out fairly cold, and relies on a mixing of air to 

warm up a little bit before it hits us. In the mixing of the air, it 

is picking up the dust, the pollen and the sneezes in this room and 

delivering it equally to everyone, so air delivery is equally important. 

There is a relatively new science called Biophilia. There was a 

book written a number of years ago by E.O. Wilson and the ability 

of people to connect to the natural environment is extremely important in terms of health, and the sense of well being. I am sure that 

Claire Barnett would agree with me in terms of schools, the ability 

for these students to connect to a natural environment and not be 

in a classroom with little tiny windows is very important. It is the 

same in our homes. 

The other issue is maintenance. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You must keep your eye on the mission in 

order to kind of find your way through the extra things that have 

to be done, the costs, et cetera, the appearances, all of those things. 

Ms. Barnett, you touched a sensitive spot with me. I am a professional grandfather. I have 10 grandchildren. The oldest is 13 and 

the youngest is 3. What I want for them is what every grandparent 

in the Country wants for their kids: good health, able to get an 

education if they have the capacity, live in a peaceful Country. 

So my oldest grandchild who is 13 has a fairly severe asthmatic 

condition, and when he goes to play sports, my daughter will first 

immediately find out where an emergency clinic is nearby, so that 

if he starts to wheeze or otherwise, they can get someplace quickly 

for some relief. 

I see it in the growth of childhood diseases, or at least the awareness of a growth in childhood diseases, autism, for instance. In 

New Jersey in 15 years, we went from 240 cases diagnosed to 

7,500. And so it is I believe for most of the Country. And diabetes, 

with one out of three children born today it is believed will be affected by diabetes before death, before their lives are over. 

So we have a real mission there, Ms. Barnett. I thank you. I 

would guess that there are startling numbers. What percentage of 

classroom conditions are acceptable for the health of the children 

across this Country? Do you have any idea? Because the task is so 

enormous to correct it, but so again, the mission is critical. 
97 

Ms. BARNETT. Thank you for the question. I think that there is 

a tremendous intersection of issues when you begin talking about 

schools and children and environment and health. We know now a 

lot more about children and their environmental vulnerabilities 

than we did 5 or 10 years ago. We know a lot more now about 

healthy indoor environments in the peer-reviewed sciences than we 

did 5 or 10 years ago. 

The evidence is clear that health indoor environments are good 

for children. This really is a back to basics call. In thinking about 

architectural design, what is so interesting about the old, old school 

buildings is that they were built to be very durable, with terazzo 

floors. They had very high ceilings. They had very tall windows 

that opened top and bottom. That was for natural ventilation and 

daylight. 

School specifications for design, going back 100 years out of New 

Hampshire and Maine, for example, and New York, talked about 

‘‘whence cometh the daylight’’ to fall on the desks in the center of 

the classrooms, because people then understood that children needed fresh air and sunshine to thrive and to learn indoors, and needed, lovely views and or having access to playgrounds and parks 

that were safe and usable, both of which are wonderful issues in 

terms of school siting. 

I think that what I want to focus on in my remarks is the real 

need to design out common problems that schools have, and design 

in best solutions. We can all do that for children. 

I think one of the challenges for a volunteer school board member, or locally elected official, or a school superintendent, is where 

in the world do you get the information and make it easy and accessible and usable within your mix of various State education or 

other aid or technical assistance from the State agencies? Connecticut, New York and New Jersey are not the same in how their 

educational systems operate, just as one close to home example. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Ms. BARNETT. The education agencies have different capacities 

and interests and oversight. The energy offices do. The health departments have different interests and abilities. The ability to put 

together environment, energy, education and health and come up 

with what States really need to do to ensure that every child has 

a healthy, high performance school should be made simpler for 

local schools. 

One of the things that happens to us when we are doing either 

public hearing testimony or making community presentations is 

the frequent question of, well, ‘‘I want a green school; I want a 

green building. Do I have to start from scratch? Do I have to have 

a new building? Is that the only way to get one? ’’ 

So my organization talks about the greening of existing buildings 

through greening of the operations and the purchasing of school, 

and then for local districts to plan to gradually upgrade their facilities as renovation projects and minor maintenance and repair take 

place. 

The bigger question is: Is there great national data on who is 

doing what out there. The answer is no. There is no Federal Agency or system of oversight or recordkeeping that addresses the conditions of buildings within the States. There are estimates that 
98 

have been done by U.S. GAO and by the NEA, but there is not a 

formalized structured system. There are systems of facility inspection reporting in a few States, but not nationally. 

Requested. Our office coordinated a national report on the topic, ‘‘Lessons 

Learned’’ with contributions from 28 groups nationally. It provides State by State 

data tables from Federal sources and estimates the numbers of children at serious 

risk. 

[See report on page 123.] 

Requested. As one example of how facility data is important, New York State initiated a system of school building inspection reporting in 1999, primarily to estimate 

school capital needs. In 2005, our NYS program did a study of all 100 schools in 

two upstate counties: we merged the facility data with the school ‘report cards’ (on 

student characteristics and achievement), and found that the conditions of the facilities were related to attendance, test scores, and—very surprisingly—suspension 

rates. 

[See report on page 190.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Templeton, in your testimony, you indicate that a dozen Federal agencies, 22 States, and 75 local governments have created 

policies that use or encourage the use of the LEED standard. Now, 

how does the LEED standard adapt to meet the needs of these different levels of government? How does the standard continually 

evolve to meet new problems and new technologies? 

Mr. TEMPLETON. As you can imagine, the diversity of States and 

local municipalities in particular, but also the building types that 

are addressed within the Federal agencies does require a flexible 

system in order to respond to the diversity of project types and regions and scales of those projects. 

LEED has been structured in a flexible framework that addresses environmental impact categories so that it can be applied universally across all of these factors. So we do see everything from 

school projects to commercial office projects to retail projects to 

high rise towers, all being able to use the same rating system in 

a much more diverse way. There are several dozen different building types that are currently using the LEED rating system across 

these different options. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

One kind of last observation. Ms. Barnett, my bill directs EPA 

to develop model guidelines and provide grants to States to develop 

healthier schools. When we look at the magnitude of the problems 

to make existing buildings greener, and I assume that with rare 

exceptions it is possible to do it, but the cost may in some cases 

not be worth it, as opposed to starting over. 

But without Federal money and guidelines from the EPA, Ms. 

Barnett, would States be inclined to implement these environmental best practices? How are the States doing now? 

Ms. BARNETT. Some of the States are involved and doing very 

good work. One of the largest issues facing all schools nationally 

is the problem of indoor air pollution. Any building which is poorly 

sited, poorly constructed, engineered, designed, operated, maintained is going to have a collection of problems which generally reflect themselves in poor indoor air quality. So it is a layering effect 

of multiple issues. 

There are more than 15 States now, probably closer to 20, which 

have adopted various best practices or regulations around indoor 

environmental quality and indoor air quality, specifically in 
99 

schools. There are more than 30 States that have adopted restrictions on pesticide use in schools. 

So there are States that are taking action. There are a number 

of States, for example Washington, New York, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, California, and I think Oregon is getting involved, 

and Ohio as well, in doing statewide adaptations of ‘‘high performance school’’ design, and applying ‘‘LEED-plus high performance 

school’’ design to school construction. See Collaborative for High 

Performance School design at www.chps.net. 

So it is very possible. States know they have a problem. Parents 

know that there is a problem, and school boards actually know that 

there is a problem. Trying to get your arms around the best solutions and how to accelerate the implementation of best practices in 

the field is a real challenge. That is why we particularly like the 

emphasis in S. 506, your bill of allowing EPA to work with the 

States to help them create comprehensive environmental quality 

plans for schools. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Our mission is green. It takes green to do 

it. Hopefully, that green will come from the Federal Government in 

some part so that we can encourage the development of these 

healthier buildings. 

I think thematically what we ought to be saying is help children 

stay healthy or get healthier, and focus on that, and let people realize that while it may take some resources, that the mission is so 

well worth it. 

I thank each one of you for your appearance here today. You contributed something to the debate. It is very important while we 

have some differences, once again I think the goal is more than an 

appropriate one. I thank you. 

We will keep the record open for questions, and I would ask that 

if we have written questions to submit to you, that you respond as 

promptly as you can. 

Thank you very, very much. 

This committee is adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.] 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 

Æ