On July 18, 2007, California became the first in the nation to adopt a state-wide green building code for new construction.  “By adopting this first-in-the-nation statewide green building code, California is again leading the way to fight climate change and protect the environment,” said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in his press release.  The California Building Standards Commission “should be commended for bringing everyone to the table including representatives of the construction and building trades industry, environmental groups and labor organizations, and achieving something no other state has been able to,” lauded Commission Chair Rosario Mario.  Others, however, say that the new code should have been much stronger.

The new California Green Buildings Standards Code, to be published as Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, will become effective 180 days after publication.  The Code covers residential and commercial buildings, schools, health facilities, and state buildings.  It includes standards for planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.  For example, to improve energy efficiency, the Code includes both performance-based and prescriptive elements, such as requiring a 15% reduction in energy use compared with current standards and requiring the use of Energy Star appliances.  To promote water efficiency, the Code requires new buildings to be dual plumbed for potable and recycled water systems for toilet flushing when recycled water is available.  For now, most of these requirements are optional.  Following the next building code revision cycle in 2010, many of the optional standards will become mandatory.  This adjustment period is intended to allow for industry and local enforcement agencies to prepare for, comply with, and test the new standards.  After 2010, the Code will be updated annually to incorporate the latest construction methods and technology.

These new standards have been under development for the past year and a half.  Last fall, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed three green building bills (AB 888, AB 1058, and AB 35) that would have required most commercial, residential, and public buildings to meet LEED Gold by January 2013.  In an October 2007 memo to the General State Assembly, the Governor objected to the bills on three grounds: (1) the proposed requirements would violate California’s earthquake and fire safety standards; (2) building standards should not be statutory; and (3) it would be wrong to allow a private third party to dictate the state’s building standards.  Nonetheless, the Governor stated his support for green building and directed the Building Standards Commission to accelerate work on the green building code approved this month.

Although the new Code sets a “solid floor,” critics say that it falls far short of any groundbreaking regulation.  As Natural Resource Defense Council legislative and regulatory advocate Nick Zigelbaum observed: “The hardest work is yet to come.  In its current form the new code is fairly low and easy to achieve green building standard.  Many substantive standards are still needed to make it stronger.”  Indeed, environmental groups have pointed out that the new standards would actually undermine more than 75 local jurisdictions, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, with stricter green building codes.  For example, whereas San Francisco would require new large commercial buildings to meet LEED Gold by 2012 and residential high-rises to meet LEED Silver by 2010, the adopted new Code would not even require private developers to meet any LEED standard, which many members of the construction industry consider to be too strict.  Although the Code encourages builders, cities, and counties to exceed the adopted standards, Zigelbaum advises that “statutory clarification of jurisdictions’ legal power to enact stronger standards is still important.”  Zigelbaum also expressed concern for appropriate wood certification standards.  An earlier draft version of the Code had recognized both wood certified by the timber and forest products industry and that certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.  Due to disagreement over which certification program was more appropriate, however, the Commission withdrew the proposed provisions concerning certified wood products from this adopted version of the Code.

Over the next two years, we can expect environmental leaders and industry advocates to continue deliberating these issues before the next version of the Code is adopted.  If the policy makers and other stakeholders can strike the right balance among the many disparate interests, then the result can be a truly robust green building code with meaningful and enforceable standards that can help California make the most out of what is frequently referred to as the “low-hanging fruit” of climate change action.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.