The Trend in New Construction, to Extreme Green or Net Zero

Saturday, August 25th, 2012

The trend in new construction and retrofits can only be described as “extreme green” or “net zero.” Venture capitalists have plowed more than $4 billion into the development of sustainably designed, energy efficient buildings. Now, they are looking at ground-breaking technologies to further develop this space, according to a report just released by Boston-based Lux Research.

To understand investment activity in the green buildings space, Lux Research analysts have followed 332 venture transactions— amounting to $4.06 billion in 160 companies— since 2000. Of the 332 investment rounds in companies that offer technology and materials for green buildings, 152 were series A investments and 83 were series B. Start-ups from North America have attracted 77 percent—or $3.1 billion— of the green building VC invested so far.

Last year, however, nearly 50 percent of the funding—totaling $445 million—went into 15 late-stage investments, signaling the maturation of the first wave of green building start-ups.

Meanwhile, new opportunities are emerging in a number of leading-edge areas, including integrated design, on-site power generation, energy services and the advanced building envelope.

Exterior shot of Blu Homes’ Breezehouse

“Early VC investors are looking for exits for the first wave of successful green buildings start-ups and the seeds of the next crop are being sown in on-site generation and sustainable materials,” said Lux Research Analyst Ryan Castilloux, the lead author of the report, titled, “Building a Green 21st Century: Tracking Venture Investments in Green Buildings to Uncover New Opportunities.”

Among their findings:

•   Integrated design is the future. Driven by the European Union’s aggressive energy efficiency targets, as well as similar long-term targets in the United States and elsewhere, “integrated design” will attain key importance. Innovative start-ups in this area – including Project Frog (San Francisco) and Blu Homes (Waltham, Massachusetts) – have received $84 million in VC funding since 2008.

•  On-site generation is a growth area. On-site generation materials and systems have become a hotbed for investment, raking in a combined $983 million. This sector —represented by the likes of fuel cell company Bloom Energy (Sunnyvale, California) and solar heating company Himin Solar Energy Group (Shandong, China) — has taken in $585 million, just since 2006. A new framework of incentives for on-site power generation and combined heating and energy is pushing more investment. Companies to watch include Baxi Group ((Derby, England), and WhisperGen ((Union, New Jersey),which both make micro-generators, as well as companies with systems that convert waste heat to electricity, such as ElectraTherm (Carson City, Nevada) and TAS Energy Houston).

•   Low-carbon concrete and cement: The concrete production industry accounts for approximately 4 percent of all global carbon emissions annually. Since 2005, venture capitalists have poured $114 million into seven developers. Lux expects these materials to become the norm in geographies where urban building booms are taking place, such as the BRIC nations.

Henry Gifford’s $100M LEED Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

Henry Gifford, photo by Travis Roozee

TreeHugger has covered Henry Gifford’s $100 Million Class Action Filed Against LEED and USGBC. Lawyers like Shari Shapiro didn’t think much of his chances, and wrote inGreen Building Law:

To the best of my research, Mr. Gifford is not a LEED AP, and indeed, from his website and publications, he has outspokenly denounced the USGBC and LEED. Mr. Gifford does not appear to own any property certified LEED. In short–the USGBC’s actions have not harmed him His career, if anything, has been enhanced by the USGBC’s position.

It appears she nailed it.

… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Originally posted here:
Henry Gifford’s $100M LEED Lawsuit Dismissed “With Prejudice”

Why the D.C. Green Building Act is Fundamentally Flawed and a Solution

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

I can’t believe it has come to this.

We are just over four months away from January 1, 2012. On that date, the D.C. Green Building Act of 2006 requires that all new construction of non-residential buildings greater than 50,000 square feet be LEED certified. While there are many technical problems with the Green Buildling Act, the very premise of the law is fundamentally flawed. Thankfully, there is a very obvious solution to the Act’s flaws and technical deficiencies.

Why is the D.C. Green Building Act Fundamentally Flawed?

How can I make this claim? Because the D.C. Government does not understand what a LEED mandate actually entails.

I was recently reviewing materials published by the D.C. Department of the Environment (DDOE) regarding the Green Building Act (GBA). One slide caught my attention:

Do you see the problem with this slide? The DDOE views the Green Building Act LEED mandate as a “ceiling.” If the D.C. Government believes it has passed a ceiling then it truly does not understand how the Green Building Act and its LEED mandate will function.

A LEED mandate is not a ceiling. Rather, a LEED mandate is a floor. Because the GBA requires all buildings to obtain LEED certification, it functions as a quasi building code. In other words, LEED certification is a minimum requirement, the very definition of a so-called “floor.”

Furthermore, the very premise of putting a “ceiling” on the green building industry is a terrible and nonsensical idea. A ceiling would actually prohibit buildings from being built to be greener or more efficient than LEED. The GBA requires buildings to meet LEED certification and yet there are numerous LEED Platinum buildings in Washington, D.C.. Does DDOE imagine that the GBA will serve as a cap and prevent future buildings from seeking LEED Gold or Platinum certification?

The Solution

The intent of the Green Building Act is to “raise the performance of the District’s buildings so that they are environmentally sustainable, healthy, and more efficient to operate” and to “make the District of Columbia a national leader for green building.” The solution to the problems with the Green Building Act seems obvious to me and ensures the intent of the Act is satisfied.

First, the District needs more time to correct the many problems with the Green Building Act. The deadline for implementation of the LEED mandate should be extended to 2013 or later. It is very unlikely that all of the Green Building Act’s deficiencies, which will be discussed in a later post, can be corrected in the remaining four months.

Second, all of the D.C. government’s green building resources need to be applied to green building codes. The International Green Construction Code will be released sometime in 2012. D.C. can be one of the first cities to adopt a mandatory green building code if it starts reviewing IgCC public version 2.0 now. Adopting and implementing this code will raise the performance of District buildings and shine a spotlight on the city as the first to adopt the code.

For those of you interested in learning more about the D.C. Green Building Act, I would recommend that you attend a D.C. Green Codes Working Group meeting next Wednesday, August 24 at 9:30 am.

Original Post by Chris Cheatham, Green Building Law Update

Why the D.C. Green Building Act is Fundamentally Flawed and a Solution

Does California Green Building Code Signal Future Code Adoption?

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

Every year, as the calendar turns over, a host of new regulations take effect.  In California, January 1, 2011 marked the introduction of CALGreen, the California green building code.  The California government has produced a guide to CalGreen, which I found informative:

“The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California beginning on January 1, 2011. The code is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and is also known as the CALGreen Code.”

If you are interested in a more thorough review of CALGreen, I would recommend Imad Naffa’s post on the subject.  Here are some quick thoughts I have on CALGreen:

• Whenever I read about new building codes, I always wonder whether code officials will be prepared to enforce them.  This question is specifically addressed in the guide: “Chapter 7 of the CALGreen Code provides a guideline for minimum inspector qualification criteria.”

• I noted that CALGreen requires commissioning of new buildings.  Commissioning involves calibrating the building’s systems to make sure they are running as designed.  Commissioning is often cited as one of the more expensive aspects of a green building; but it can also ensure a green building works properly.  It will be interesting to see how the California real estate industry responds to mandatory commissioning.

• California is often a bell-weather state for new green building trends.  Will statewide building codes become more common?

Original Post by Chris Cheatham, Green Building Law Update.

Sordid Green Bulding Litigation Arises in Minnesota

Sunday, January 9th, 2011

This is as confusing and sordid as any green building dispute I have seen.  Consider yourself warned.

Over the holidays, Michael Anschel informed me that the the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) had sued Minnesota GreenStar and filed a restraining order against using a green building standard.

Despite that simple statement, there is a lot more to this story.  Here is the best summary I can come up with after reviewing the lawsuit filed by the BATC and a blog post by Anschel on the subject.

The BATC worked with other associations to create a green building standard, called the Green Homebuilding Guidelines.  BATC and the other entities then created a new entity, Minnesota GreenStar, to run the green building standard (much like the Green Building Certification Institute runs LEED).  At some point, BATC became disenchanted with either Minnesota GreenStar and/or the Green Homebuilding Guidelines, and decided to file a lawsuit to essentially take over administration of the Guidelines.  If you believe the complaint, the reason for BATC’s disenchantment was Minnesota GreenStar’s failure to repay a loan and GreenStar’s intent to license the green building standard to other states.  If you believe Anschel’s post, BATC’s reasons are more sinister and have to do with weakening the Green Homebuilding Guidelines.

Lets start with the lawsuit itself.

On December 9, 2010, the BATC filed a restraining order and lawsuit against Minnesota GreenStar.  BATC claims that in 2006, it developed the Green Homebuilding Guidelines and further asserts it owns the intellectual property rights to the Guidelines.  BATC also points out it that it contributed $50,000 to develop the Guidelines.

In 2007, BATC, along with two other entities, formed Minnesota GreenStar, which began using the Green Homebuilding Guidelines.  At some point in 2008, GreenStar filed registered copyrights for the Green Homebuilding Guidelines, which would give GreenStar intellectual property rights to the Guidelines.

This is where events get a bit confusing.  BATC alleges that in 2010, it provided an additional loan to GreenStar.  Despite this additional loan, BATC claims that GreenStar ran into financial trouble:

“On September 15, 2010, GreenStar conducted a meeting of its Board of Directors and disseminated its Business Plan . . . in which GreenStar relied on continued sponsorships, a one-year deferment on its Promissory Note obligations to BATC, and significant additional funding from BATC. . . . GreenStar also indicated its intent to license the Green Homebuilding Guidelines developed and owned by BATC to other states to raise revenue for GreenStar.”

BATC goes on to ask the Court for four things:

1.  Judgment of $50,000 for an alleged breach of the loan;
2.  Judgment declaring that BATC owns the intellectual property rights to GreenStar and GreenStar is restricted from using or licensing the Guidelines;
3.  Temporary and permanent injunction against GreenStar from using the Guidelines; and
4.  Attorneys fees.

Taken at its face, the complaint suggests that BATC is concerned about the prospect of licensing the Green Homebuilding Guidelines to other states.  But why would a builders association be concerned about this?

According to Anschel, BATC’s motives are more complicated.  In a blog post at Construction Law Musings, Anschel explains that BATC actually intends to develop a new green building certification program that allows for self certification.  Anschel believes BATC’s move is a step backwards for green building in Minnesota.  If BATC intends to create a new green building standard in Minnesota, then it certainly makes sense why it would want to take over and limit Minnesota GreenStar and the existing Green Homebuilding Guidelines.

Original Post by Chris Cheatham, Green Building Law Update.

User’s Manual Key to Meeting Requirements of the Green Standard

Saturday, December 11th, 2010

ATLANTA—Knowing what to do is not the same as knowing how.  A new User’s Manual educates industry professionals on how to meet the requirements of a green building standard published by three leading industry organizations.

Standard 189.1-2009, Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, was published earlier this year by ASHRAE in conjunction with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The standard provides a long-needed green building foundation for those who strive to design, build and operate green buildings. 

A newly published User’s Manual is now available.

“Because of the breadth of the key topic areas covered in the standard – site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality and the building’s impact on the atmosphere, materials and resources – it is important for users to have a thorough understanding of how they come together to create a sustainable building,” Kent Peterson, former chair of the Standard 189.1 committee, said. “The User’s Manual aids architects and engineers in applying the standard to design; general and specialty contractors in constructing buildings that are in compliance; and plan examiners and field inspectors in enforcing the standard where adopted into code.”

The new User’s Manual provides explanations of the standard’s requirements and examples of its application. It contains sample calculations, forms to demonstrate compliance and references to helpful resources and websites. This User’s Manual can also be suitable for use in educational programs.

For complete information on the standard, including a readable copy, visit www.ashrae.org/greenstandard.

Standard 189.1 also serves as jurisdictional compliance option to the International Green Construction Code authored by the International Code Council, ASTM International and the American Institute of Architects.          

To order, contact ASHRAE Customer Service at 1-800-527-4723 (United States and Canada) or 404-636-8400 (worldwide), fax 404-321-5478, or visit www.ashrae.org/bookstore. The cost of the Standard 189.1 User’s Manual is $93 ($79, ASHRAE members)

Green Building Failed by follow-up

Friday, December 10th, 2010

VISITING British expert Roderic Bunn has a sobering message for the ”green” building industry: most buildings with high environmental ratings don’t function as well as promised.

In the US, the warning shots have already been fired, with a $US5 million lawsuit launched against the US Green Building Council. ”Property organisations have accused the GBC of selling green certification,” says Bunn. ”Some people are waking up to the fact they believe they have been miss-sold a rating system that guarantees performance, and the construction industry hasn’t been quick to disabuse them of that notion.

”I’m not saying it [a lawsuit] will happen here or in the UK,” says Bunn, principal consultant of Britain’s Building Services Research and Information Association for 10 years, but he maintains Australian commercial and public sector buildings are suffering the same problems as those in Britain.

”We are piling in often unmanageable complexity into these buildings, so the consequence is unmanageable complexity. It’s the enemy of good performance,” he told BusinessDay during a visit to Melbourne.

”In new buildings, we are trying to drive down energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, and concentrate on the wrong things.

”We are often trying to do it with innovative technology that requires far more attention in design and construction, and needs aftercare support that it does not get.”

It’s not that the buildings are not well maintained. ”However, the premises’ management often does not understand what it’s been given. The building is rarely finished off property,” he says. ”As buildings get more complex, the commissioning of them is squeezed.”

Bunn was for 16 years editor of the Building Services Journal,the official journal of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers. In this capacity, he received funding from the British government to conduct research into Britain’s most prestigious ”green” buildings.

”We found their energy consumption was far too high, systems were not finished off properly, no one knew how to use them and they were misfiring on a whole range of criteria,” he says.

”We did full energy audits, we knew exactly where the energy was going, such as lighting. Office satisfaction was compromised … occupant surveys showed the buildings were not delivering the comfort, usability and productivity that was assumed.”

Bunn says the construction industries in Britain and Australia take the view that a building is finished on the day of practical completion – ”cut the tape and run away”.

When a client needs professional support in the handover period, it is not there. Some defects are noticed, such as water leaking, a door not hanging properly, or lights that go on and off when they shouldn’t.

”But other shortcomings over time become chronic because nobody notices them and nobody fixes them. The consequence is often energy use that is higher than it should be and poor morale,” he says.

Bunn says there are things the engineer has not thought of – what the client plugs in the wall, communication rooms – and wasteful running. For example, British research showed schools where the lights were on all night. ”It’s not been fine-tuned, so they stay on. No one knows it until they get their electricity bill,” he says.

”We have been seduced by the often false promises of new technologies,” says Bunn, who is sceptical about some of the alleged benefits of renewable energy.

”A building can be mounted with wind turbines or photovoltaics, but they don’t contribute nearly as much as designers think they do because they haven’t driven down the energy requirement to begin with.

”We tend to glue these things on to the outside of building before we have actually reduced the loads of the building as far as we can go.

”The mantra should be, ‘Half the loads, double the efficiencies’. Halve the carbon in the fuel supply before we go anywhere near on-site renewables.

”They are often expensive, small, very complex, and maintenance hungry, and the maintainability of these things is rarely taken into account.”

Also, ”just because energy is renewable doesn’t mean you’re allowed to waste it”.

Bunn’s experiences have led him to set up a company, Soft Landings, a professional service for construction industries around the world. ”The project team should remain engaged for a period of time to tune up the building and get as close to the design targets as they can get. Finish it off properly, follow through,” he says.

”The construction industry is very good at designing dreams but crafting nightmares – and it’s the managers who inherit the nightmares … We can’t afford to have sustainable building not delivering what they are supposed to deliver.

”Builders should be appointed on the basis they will stay engaged for a significant period after occupation to fine tune and perform, monitor the energy use to optimum satisfaction.

”On the basis of that, make changes to the building. If you do that up to three years, then it’s a good idea to have set some real targets in the design stage.

”There is a need for more feedback on how buildings really work. I’ve seen lots of sustainable designs but very few sustainable buildings.”

In Australia, Bunn says NABERS, the energy rating tool for office buildings, and the new mandatory disclosure law will start to reveal the gap between design intention and delivery.

There are very few ”get out of jail for free” sustainable technologies.

”Smart glass, highly insulated cladding systems that allow daylight without the solar heat, are one, if they are designed properly, but they are expensive,” Bunn says. Low-energy light-emitting diodes are another.

”It won’t be long before we have general lighting powered by LEDs. There will be revenge effects we haven’t thought of, but energy consumption for lighting is one of the biggest problems for buildings.”

Original Post by Phillip Hopkins, Sydney Morning Herald.

Bio-Based Phase-Changing Material Adds Instant Thermal Mass

Saturday, November 20th, 2010

Images Credit: Lloyd Alter So much on show at Greenbuild, the huge green building convention put on by the US Green Building Council, has been seen on TreeHugger; one has to set some standards. So no products with LEEDING The Way or any other bad punning on LEED will be seen; We want game-changers, products and ideas that are applicable and affordable, or change the way we think about building. One such product is BioPCM (Phase change material), shown above in bottles. It is a mix of soy-based chemicals tuned to change from liquid to solid and vice versa at a given temperature, absorbing and releasing heat, just like water does when it changes state at 32 degrees. it acts like the thermal mass of 12 inches of concrete.

t doesn’t look like much, (especially with my photography) but those little pillows contain the phase change material. If you live in a part of the country where it gets cooler after the sun goes down, it will absorb the heat in the daytime, cooling you off, and release it at night.

BioPCM™ is not insulation. Insulation works by increasing the thermal resistance of a building, slowing the flow of heat in and out of the structure. BioPCM™ works by increasing the thermal mass of a building, therefore increasing the time it takes for the structure of a building to warm up or cool down. The product is designed to help keep a structure at a prescribed temperature.

Thermal mass is a great way of essentially storing heat from solar gain in the daytime and releasing it at night. It is a reason we like rammed earth and trombe walls; their thermal mass evens out the temperatures between day and night. th BioPCM does the same thing, without the mass. Studies show that it can reduce heating and cooling costs by up to 30%

And all you do is unroll it and staple it on like a vapour barrier. A gamechanger fromPhase Change Energy Solutions.

Original post from Lloyd Alter, Tree Hugger

Bio-Based Phase-Changing Material Adds Instant Thermal Mass

For Sustainable Wood, a New and Unloved Standard

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

Next week select members of the United States Green Building Council will begin casting ballots on whether to overhaul how the organization awards sustainability credits for wood products.

If adopted, the standards would fundamentally alter the organization’s approach to rating forestry products. At present, only wood certified by theForest Stewardship Council qualifies for so-called LEED credits, which are used to certify a building as environmentally sustainable and assign it a rating.

The new standards would open up LEED certification, an increasingly popular benchmark for responsible construction, to any timber certification system that meets a series of sustainability benchmarks.

The proposed standards have undergone multiple rounds of revision and public comment. In the process they have been harshly criticized both by environmental groups, which call them a step backward for sustainability, and by representatives of large corporate forestry interests, which have pushed to have the LEED standards substantially relaxed.

To Scot Horst, senior vice president for LEED at the Green Building Council, the fact that the new standards are being attacked from all sides could signal that it has hit upon a winning formula.

“Nobody likes these changes, which might mean that we’re in a fairly accurate place to be,” Mr. Horst said.

Kathy Abusow, president of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which represents some of the country’s largest timber producers and has a less rigorous standard for assessing sustainability than that currently recognized by LEED, said her group was far from pleased with the new benchmarks.

“Man, this is a complicated process,” Ms. Abusow said. “There’s just way too many hoops to jump through for just one credit.”

Whether or not the new standards are passed, she said, her group will probably abandon its attempt to gain LEED certification for its membership’s products. “We’re going to put more energy into rating tools that do recognize our forest certification programs,” Ms. Abusow said. “I think we’ve got to move away from this one credit.”

Yet criticism has also come from the Forest Stewardship Council and its allies in the environmental community.

“This is absolutely a watering-down of the standard,” Corey Brinkema, president of the United States office of the Forest Stewardship Council, said in an interview.

Under the new benchmarks, companies could earn LEED credits simply for clearing a “low bar” of prerequisites rather than meeting the much higher standards being practiced at the forefront of sustainable forestry, Mr. Brinkema said.

“The prerequisite level is pretty darn low,” he said. “There’s actually an incentive to buy more of something of a lower standard.”

Among other concerns, Mr. Brinkema contends that the new benchmarks proposed by the Green Building Council loosen protections for old-growth forest and create loopholes allowing forestry companies to permanently convert forested land to other purposes.

Joining the Forest Stewardship Council in opposition to the revised benchmarks are a dozen leading environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace, all of which recently signed a letter harshly criticizing the new standards and urging Green Building Council members to vote against them.

For their part, Green Building Council leaders say the new benchmarks will help bring an end to a policy impasse that has left many worthy sustainable forestry rating systems unable to obtain LEED certification. “There’s an issue in the market that’s not getting resolved,” Mr. Horst said.

The new, more open standards will require all timber producers to meet a minimum sustainability standard, while rewarding companies that exceed this threshold, he said. The overall result would be that more timber producers being rewarded for behaving sustainably, he added.

“The standard or the credit is not going to get watered down,” Mr. Horst said. “It’s not going to happen.”

Results from the vote are expected to be announced in late November

Original Post by John Collins Rudolf, NYT:
For Sustainable Wood, a New and Unloved Standard

Passive House US, Dew Points in Wall Assemblies, Part 1 of 2

Sunday, October 10th, 2010

Passive House US, Dew Points in Wall Assemblies,

Part 1 of 2

By: Jeffrey Dinkle, Eco Custom Homes, Atlanta Georgia

I have just finished my Phase 3 training, in Golden Co. This week.  We are officially Passive House US consultants.  We plan on being certified next month at the Passive House Conference in Portland, OE.

Today I am going to talk about the effects of Super Air Tight Buildings on wall assemblies / dew points in the Atlanta Climate.  A typical wall assembly on a new construction homes in Atlanta, Georgia contains 2 x 4 studs filled with insulation.  On the exterior we have OSB sheathing, covered by an air tight / moisture barrier (I use Typar), and a veneer, usually brick or a cementitious cladding.  On the interior we have ½ gypsum board painted usually with 2 coats of paint / primer.

Basic problem with airtight construction, is the dew point of the wall assembly is in between the insulation and the OSB.  When it is cold outside, the OSB is approximately the same temperature as outside.  But the insulation is warm.  Moisture wants to travel from the inside of the home, through the drywall and insulation and condenses on the cooler sheathing. Since we have an air / moisture barrier on the exterior of the sheathing, water get trapped within the wall assembly.  This will eventually lead to a failure in the wall assembly and possible mold issues.

During my training, I was introduced to a freeware software program called WUFI.  This program models moisture content in wall assemblies over a period of time, typically 2 years.  I started modeling some of walls I have constructed over the past few years, and was very surprised by the results.

Notice the Dark Blue line in the 1.25 cm section, this represents the moisture content in the OSB.  It is greatest at next to the cold outside. The moisture Content is between 100 and 375 KG/M3.

Passive House building techniques tend to place this dew point in the middle of the wall assembly.  IE: having the same amount of insulation on the exterior of the home as the interior.   In our climate using 2 to 3” of ridged foam insulation mounted to the exterior of the osb, then cover the foam with an air / moisture barrier.  This type of assembly prevents this dew point from occurring, thus keeping water from condensing inside your home.  It also eliminates Thermal Bridging.

Notice the Same graph, this time we added 2in of foam insulation to the exterior of the OSB.  Look at the dark blue line in the 1.25 cm section, it is fairly constant at 50 KG/M3

Another interesting fact, is once you have 5 coats of paint on a wall, it acts as a vapor barrier on a wall assembly, further trapping moisture in a wall assembly.  I am now a firm believer of using breathable paints, such as Lime Based Paints & Stucco, such as San Marco, located right here in Atlanta, GA.

This graph represents 5 coats of paint on gypsum board.  Compare this to graph 1 in this article.  Notice how much more moisture is trapped in the cellulose insulation.  This effect will worsen over time, and with more coats of paint applied to an interior wall.

Coming Soon:  Part 2 of this article is going to cover moisture in the exterior of the wall assembly, one with a cemetitious Veneer and the other using brick.