By Nadav Malin

In October, a specially convened task force that met last summer to review sustainable building standards prepared draft recommendations to be presented to the board of directors of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) on the institute’s role and policies with respect to the practice of sustainable design.The need to flesh out a position on this matter came from two directions, says Tom Wolfe, AIA’s director of federal affairs. First, AIA members consistently rate sustainability high on their list of priorities, and the institute needed guidance on how to pursue that agenda. Second, various green-building organizations have been lobbying state and local agencies to adopt green-building policies, and policymakers were seeking input from AIA chapters, which in turn sought guidance from the national AIA. To date, the most active lobbying group has been the Green Building Initiative (GBI), which promotes a Canadian Web-based rating system known as Green Globes. GBI was established by industry associations that object to some aspects of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system, such as its definition of sustainably harvested wood, which is based on a system that some manufacturers believe is too restrictive.

The National Association of Realtors in Washington earned a silver LEED rating, one rating system AIA is assessing. Photography: © Robert Lautman

From Wolfe’s perspective, there was little question that LEED, which has become a de facto standard in the U.S., is the superior system. But the fact that powerful industry groups oppose LEED gave him the impression that lobbying Congress for LEED-based tax credits would be a wasted effort. So the AIA convened a two-day policy meeting this July in Washington, D.C., at which the task force heard presentations from various stakeholders. Panelists invited to give presentations included representatives of LEED and Green Globes, the federal government, and the two trade associations that have been most vocal in opposing LEED. The chair of AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE), Vivian Loftness, FAIA, was unavailable to participate, but in her place Bob Berkebile, FAIA, and Sandra Mendler, AIA, both past chairs of COTE, provided the group with its primary green-building expertise. All three are current or former board members of the USGBC.

In an e-mail distributed prior to the Summit, the nonprofit group Healthy Building Network attacked AIA for setting up a panel that appeared weighted against LEED. Questioned about the decision to include industry groups but not environmental organizations, Wolfe pleaded ignorance, saying it was his mistake not to invite the latter. “I believed we were going in the direction they’d be wanting us to go anyway,” he says.

The task force heard from panelists for most of the first day, then deliberated the next day. In the end, they may have been most influenced by a presentation the evening before the event by Ed Mazria, author of the seminal 1970s book The Passive Solar Energy Book, and a leading advocate for energy-efficient architecture. Partly in response to his appeal, “There is a desire to put the institute on record as being behind legislation that will change the nation’s energy policy,” Wolfe says.

The task force’s initial recommendations comprise two components. The first describes a comprehensive agenda in promoting and supporting sustainable design efforts, including aggressive targets for energy conservation, collaboration with other organizations, curriculum development, research, and documentation of its benefits. The second responds to the controversy surrounding green-building rating systems. The task force does not endorse a specific system, but instead describes the elements that AIA values in a rating system.

Based on the issues identified so far, Berkebile believes LEED will come out far ahead of Green Globes, especially now that USGBC has modified its bylaws to allow trade associations to become members. The list includes elements that the rating systems aspire to include but have not yet managed to integrate, such as the acknowledgment of regional differences in priorities.