News Room : Archives : January 2014

 

Posts Tagged ‘leed’

LEED can learn lessons from Passive House

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

The Passive House building standard wears blinders.  Its sole laser-like focus is on building energy performance and durability.
Karuna House, first green building to earn Passive House, Minergie and LEED certifications. By Portland/Seattle builder Hammer & Hand.
So most Passive House practitioners recognize that broader sustainable construction approaches like LEED, are naturally complementary.  Passive House brings depth, promising revolutionary reductions in the carbon footprint of our built environment.  LEED brings breadth, addressing environmental concerns like toxicity, renewable materials, water conservation, stormwater management, waste reduction, access to alternative transportation and much more.

To truly build “green,” we understand that we need both depth and breadth.

The Karuna House, a project pursued by the client as a case study of green building and green building certifications, certainly bore this out.  (Karuna is the first building in the world to achieve the trifecta of LEED, Passive House and Minergie-P-ECO certification.)  The broad green mandates of both LEED and the “ECO” portion of the Swiss certification Minergie-P-ECO ensured that the Karuna project team look well beyond energy performance in its definition of sustainable construction.

But the Karuna House also proved how powerful Passive House’s advanced understanding of building performance can be for LEED practitioners and their projects.  Because just as Passive House is “blind” to broader sustainability issues, LEED has its own blind spot: it can’t see thermal bridges, at least not without help.  Thermal bridges are elements of a building (steel beams, building junctions, window-wall interfaces, etc.) that allow heat energy to escape across the building envelope.  And while they may sound wonkish and technical, thermal bridges demand respect: they are anathema to high performance building, providing an escape route for heat (or cool) to circumvent super-insulated assemblies and for moisture to penetrate walls and wreak moldy havoc.

In low-load building, where efficiencies are high and tolerances are low, thermal bridges have an outsized impact on both building performance and durability.  Seemingly minor elements,  like a steel plate, can put a real drag on the performance. J. D’aloisio, author of the “Structural Engineer’s Pledge to Improve Building Envelopes,” says this in his article “My Journey to the Thermal Bridge”:

 “… steel conducts heat about 1200 times better than expanded polystyrene (EPS) rigid insulation. This means that if the EPS insulation in an exterior building wall is “bridged” by a steel plate across an area which comprises just one tenth of one percent of the wall’s total area, more heat can flow through the steel plate than the entire rest of the wall!”

At the Karuna House we discovered some bad news for LEED practitioners: the tools for determining building energy performance for LEED projects – the HERS Index as modeled by REM/Rate for residential projects, and eQUEST for commercial projects – generally ignore thermal bridges.  The closest that REM/Rate comes to recognizing thermal bridges is to account for the energy loss transmitted through framing.  In theory, your building’s envelope could be riddled with thermal bridges both obvious (steel beams protruding through walls) and obscure (poorly detailed foundation-to-wall transitions) and perform just as well in LEED’s eyes as a thermal bridge-free building.  The reality, of course, would be much different, full of disappointing surprises for one (wasteful energy performance, mold, and building durability problems) and high performance contentment for the other.  We could have built a Karuna House full of thermal bridges and it still could have achieved LEED Platinum status.  But it would have failed Passive House and Minergie-P certifications miserably.

Chicago’s Aqua Tower (certified LEED-NC) is a beautiful, high design example of LEED’s disconnect around thermal bridging.  Joseph Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation writes in his article about the project, “Thermal Bridges Redux”:

 “It is a beautiful building.  Quite stunning actually.  It is an embodiment of everything that is right and wrong with architecture.  An orgy of glass and concrete.  It is a thermodynamic obscenity while it takes your breath away.  An 82-story heat exchanger in the heart of Chicago.”

Check out the article for some stunning infrared photography of the building, as well as his prescriptions.

The good news for LEED practitioners (and therefore for the rest of us, given what a force LEED is in the green building world) is that modeling tools borrowed from Passive House like the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) and WUFI-Passive understand and address thermal bridges and can be plugged into the LEED process in a straightforward way.  There’s a clear pathway – one that we used at Karuna – for LEED project teams to understand, quantify, and reduce thermal bridging, and therefore deliver on promised building performance.

Thanks to work done by Passive House Institute US and RESNET in creating the PHIUS+ certification, the U-value assembly data from PHPP that includes robust analysis of potential thermal bridges can now be entered into the backend of REM/Rate, allowing the software to incorporate vital thermal bridging data into the HERS Index score of the building.  LEED certifications based on these enhanced HERS Index scores are no longer blind to performance-sapping thermal bridges.

An added bonus of getting tools like PHPP and WUFI-Passive included in the design process for LEED projects is that they are optimization tools, not just verification tools like REM/Rate.  PHPP and WUFI-Passive can be used to analyze hundreds of different design configurations to determine optimal balance of efficiency, cost, and other design goals.  Especially in budget-conscious high performance building, this ability for “parametric analysis,” or simultaneous testing of many design parameters, is mission critical.  And the power of PHPP and WUFI-Passive are available to LEED practitioners regardless of whether they choose to pursue Passive House levels of performance.

Because Karuna’s purpose is to provide lessons for green builders, I’ll close this post with a few findings from the project that we think are relevant to LEED professionals, Passive House designers and builders, and the green building community as a whole:

  1. Not only are the broad scope of LEED and the singular focus of Passive House complementary, a paired approach is actually vital in achieving a truly “green” project.  The Swiss Minergie-P-ECO designation recognizes this, with its “P” roughly equivalent to Passive House and its “ECO” similar to LEED.
  2. Effective energy modeling is vitally important in the design process of high performance building and tools borrowed from Passive House, like the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) and WUFI-Passive, can help LEED projects eliminate the thermal bridge blind spot.
  3. As code bodies reach for increasing levels of building energy efficiency, the success of future performance-based code will depend on the same comprehensive energy modeling borrowed from Passive House that LEED projects can benefit from.
  4. Our big, collective goal – averting catastrophic levels of climate change through meaningful reductions in building greenhouse gas emissions (as called for by the 2030 Challenge) – therefore depends on better modeling that takes things like thermal bridges into account.  Fortunately those tools are readily available, and improving in accuracy and ease of use.

Post from Zach Semke of Seattle-based home designer and builder Hammer & Hand.   www.hammerandhand.com

 

GSA to Abandon LEED Endorsement

Sunday, February 10th, 2013


Rather than releasing its final report on LEED and other rating systems, the agency posts recommendations and asks for more feedback.

A victory for lobbyists? It should be easier to pitch the industry status quo to individual federal agencies that don’t specialize in buildings.

Want to have a say in whether federal agencies keep using LEED? Here’s your chance.

Following up on a 2012 report, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is requesting public comments on its long-awaitedrecommendations about green building certification systems. Here’s our quick-and-dirty summary of the committee’s findings. You have sixty days to get back to GSA.

(more…)

What Makes a Building Green? You Sure Can’t Tell From It’s Energy Star Rating

Thursday, December 27th, 2012


The LEED Bashers are out in force as a study of New York office buildings yields surprising results

In courting tenants over the last six years, 7 World Trade Center has trumpeted its gold LEED rating, an emblem of sound environmental citizenship.

But when it comes to energy efficiency, the young 52-story tower is far from a top performer, according to data released under a city law that tracks energy use in New York buildings. It had a score of 74 — just below the minimum of 75 set for high-efficiency buildings by the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program.

On the other hand, two venerated show horses from the 1930s, the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building, sailed to an 84 and an 80 as a result of extensive upgrades of their insulation and mechanical systems.

And the MetLife Building, a 1963 hulk looming over Grand Central Terminal? It scored 39. Still, solace is at hand for MetLife’s owners: the Seagram Building, Mies van der Rohe’s bronze-toned 1958 masterpiece on Park Avenue, posted a 3.

(more…)

Tips for Buying an Energy Efficient House

Sunday, November 18th, 2012

 

Tips for Buying an Energy Efficient House

Savvy buyers can find the perfect house for their needs and negotiate the best deals.

 

 

undefinedAn energy-efficient house in British Columbia. (Photo: pnwra/Flickr)

Buying an energy efficient home can be a great investment that will save you money on energy costs in the long term in addition to increasing the resale value of your home, when you’re ready to move on. With increasing consumer awareness of environmental issues, it’s growing much easier to find energy efficient homes, but it helps to be armored with some tips before you set out on your home buying journey. Savvy buyers can find the perfect house for their needs and negotiate the best deals.

If you’re using a real estate agent, which is a very good idea unless you’re familiar with real estate transactions, look for one who has experience with green homes. Some may have attended certification programs on green real estate, while others simply have experience based on previous home sales and the community in general. As you conduct interviews to find the right real estate agent for you, ask about prior experience, the kinds of homes on the market, and recommendations the agent may have for you.

(more…)

Report raises questions about value of LEED certification

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

LAS VEGAS â?? The Palazzo Hotel and Casino boasts many features of Las Vegas excess â?? an indoor waterfall, a smoke-filled gaming area, seven decorative fountains, and guest suites with three TVs and power-controlled curtains.

Yet the 50-story complex achieved an unlikely and lucrative milestone after opening in 2008. A powerful private organization declared it an environmentally friendly “green” building, the world’s largest at the time.

The designation won its owner, Las Vegas Sands Corp., a $27 million tax break over 10 years because a Nevada law puts the private interest group â?? not the government â?? in charge of deciding which buildings are green enough for a taxpayer subsidy.

The U.S. Green Building Council, a building industry non-profit, credited the Palazzo for having bike racks in the garage; room cards telling guests when towels are replaced; landscaping that does not use grass, which local law prohibits anyway; and preferred parking for fuel-efficient cars â?? spots that on a recent week were occupied by Ford Expeditions, Chevy Tahoes, Range Rovers, Mercedes E320s, Chrysler 300s, Audi A6s, vans, sports cars and a Hummer.

The council even sidestepped its own policy and allowed smoking in the Palazzo casino, a 2.5-acre expanse between the hotel lobby and the hotel elevators.

Across the United States, the Green Building Council has helped thousands of developers win tax breaks and grants, charge higher rents, exceed local building restrictions and get expedited permitting by certifying them as “green” under a system that often rewards minor, low-cost steps that have little or no proven environmental benefit, a USA TODAY analysis has found.

The council has certified 13,500 commercial buildings in the U.S. as green and become one of the most influential forces in building design by helping persuade public officials and private builders to follow its rating system, known as LEED.

(more…)

New Mexican Adobe, German Efficiency Style

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

I’ve seen several projects pursue both LEED Platinum and Passive House certification, but I can’t think of any that actually went through with the aim other than this Passive House, Platinum-certified home in Taos, New Mexico.  The 2,400 square-foot home has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a garage, and 1.1 acres of land with a serene, scenic view of Taos Mountain to the east, Truchas Peaks to the South, and pasture land to the west.

Construction of this home was with 12″ walls filled with cellulose and covered with 2″ of rigid foam (R52) and a roof of loose-fill cellulose to approximately R102.  The windows and doors, Serious Windows, have double-glazing and a third heat-shield layer in the middle.

In addition, the home has LEDs and CFLs, a radon mitigation system, an ERV for ventilation, and rainwater harvesting for the garden and landscape.

Interior walls were finished with a custom plaster mix of Kaolin Clay, Mica, flour, sand, straw, and coloring, while the exterior is finished with a cement plaster base coat covered by cementitious stucco.

There’s powered generated from a 2.8 kW photovoltaic array connected to the grid and a five-panel drainback solar thermal system with a 650-gallon solar water storage tank for most of the home’s domestic hot water needs.

The Passive House residence was built by Ben van Willigen, BvW Inc Construction; Joaquin Karcher of Zero E Design; Michael Tarleton of Tarleton Engineering; and Wolfgang Meller of Energy Consulting in Shokan, New York.

Continue reading here:
New Mexican Adobe, German Efficiency Style – EarthTechling

Defining Undefined Loss Exposure in Green Construction

Friday, June 1st, 2012

A green heating system that doesn’t heat. LEED-certified units that meet fewer than half the requirements for certification. Clients suing construction firms because of lost tax breaks from promised green buildings.

Welcome to green construction. Even as the green construction movement is taking wing, legal experts are warning of the dangerous territory ahead.

Some such territory includes lawsuits like this: A builder is sued by the client because the client lost a tax break for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, because the building ultimately did not meet the LEED level asked for by the client. Other lawsuits include a luxury condominium complex in Battery Park City, N.Y., where its owners are suing developers for $1.5 million for fraud and breach of contract, stating the building isn’t as green as advertised.

Probably the most prominent lawsuit was one filed against the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Savings. He claimed the organization committed fraud, created unfair competition, practiced deceptive trade practices and engaged in false advertising. The crux of the complaint was Gifford’s contention that green energy was not more efficient than regular energy options. The $100 million suit was dismissed because the court found that the plaintiffs in the class action suit did not show USGBC caused them any harm. Still, Gifford has managed to get the industry talking about what constitutes green and just what is bought when one purchases a LEED-certified property.

What seems to be the most telling statement by the ruling judge Leonard Sand spells out one of the primary issues with green construction: “Because there is no requirement that a builder hire LEED-accredited professionals to attain LEED certification, it is not plausible that each customer who opts for LEED certification is a customer lost to plaintiffs.”

The Uncertainty of ‘Green’

That speaks to the crux of the green problem. What makes a building green and who’s deciding it? That question still goes unanswered as courts and insurers alike struggle to wrap definitions around green construction. For a building to be certified as a LEED design, it must meet a checklist of requirements, and the point values assigned to each requirement determines the level of certification.

Aside from a LEED certification, the definition of “green” becomes a bit more dicey. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), “A green building, also known as a sustainable building, is a structure that is designed, built, renovated, operated or reused in an ecological and resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.”

Just what those objectives are and what constitutes “resource-efficient” use has yet to be defined clearly.

Feds Offer No Help

Don’t look to the federal government to clarify things.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own definition of green building, presented in 2008, is “the practice of maximizing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use resources – energy, water and materials – while minimizing building impacts on human health and the environment, throughout the complete building life cycle – from siting, design, and construction to operation, renovation and reuse.”

There’s a reason for being vague, and Stephen Del Percio thinks it’s a good thing.

Del Percio, a construction and real estate attorney in New York who blogs regularly on green property issues, thinks the definition should match the needs of the owner and any regional circumstances. He explains: “In the desert Southwest, a green building could be one that doesn’t consume a lot of water.” He said LEED certification now comes in a regional credit system to address where the building sits and what those needs are.

Even who is ultimately deciding what the standard is has question marks surrounding it. Lawyers, in Stuart Farber’s view, are working out the details case by case and contract-by contract. Farber, CEO and chair of Preferred Concepts, an insurance services and program administration firm, said there’s plenty to work out. Including direct financial loss, zoning and ordinance noncompliance, lawsuits and legal entanglements are beginning to blossom.

“Many lenders, both mortgagees and in some cases leases, are requiring a targeted LEED rating,” Farber said. “If that is not met, where’s the breach? Where’s the damage? Who pays for it? And who’s responsible?”

Also, the owner of the green building is paying for green construction, Farber said, which comes at a higher price tag. Materials costs, construction techniques, industrial hygiene, and LEED architect/engineering help jack-up the costs quickly. All of these elements and more become relevant when upgrading or building within green standards.

How this affects insurance is still fleshing itself out. Insurers, he said, are writing endorsements and providing property insurance specific to the green construction exposures. While such coverage will be at a premium, that premium may be modestly higher. Farber has a client currently who will pay just 5 percent over a standard endorsement due to the size and level of green in the building.

Premiums aside, what constitutes loss seems to be the larger question. Farber gives the example of an expectation of a gold-standard building, but having a silver-standard property delivered. “Is the damage based on the loss of the gold, or is it limited to the costs of bringing that up to the gold standard?” he asked.

Separating what is a green-related loss and a traditional loss is a sticking point for many insurers. Jim Cooper, co-chair of the Policyholder Insurance Group at Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, said insurers will often deny coverage for building defects or when something goes wrong that damages the building itself or the product installed. Cooper, who works with builders and contractors, said he hasn’t seen much case law just related to LEED or green projects.

The Million-Dollar Question

How do we determine damages? With few cases to turn to for precedent, experts think that answer is a long way from perfected. Cooper said he would examine a defect in this way: “Is that the product not working or the product damaging something?” The former is a product claim; the latter could be a green claim if “the failure to work properly diminishes the value of the building or causes the owner to evacuate the building for a significant amount of time.”

Cooper said many green property policies do cover loss of use and can cover diminution of value. What he sees as challenging is finding the property damage.

Del Percio sees the same problem. “If a building doesn’t earn certification, do you look at what the per square foot value of a LEED rating is versus a non-LEED? The real problem has been there hasn’t been a case where this kind of scenario has played out.”

Without clear parameters, insurance adjusters and the insurance industry are left to define damages on a case-by-case basis. Forget looking to claims history – according to Del Percio, there have been only very few claims to date under insurance policies. Most of those claims have related to advanced building systems used in green construction.

The challenge for adjusters and the insurance industry, he said, is to understand what those technologies are, how they work, and what their performance shortcomings have been.

“Most of the issues that sustainable construction presents are within new technologies and advanced technologies that people may not have familiarity with at this point,” he added.

Contracts, he believes, will be the ultimate deciding factor. “How [green] is defined is going to be in the contract between the owner and professional.”

Original Post from Claims Journal

Study shines a light on builders’ risk when pursing LEED

Saturday, February 18th, 2012


Just how much safer is this flat roof v. your new living roof? A new study tells you

***UPDATE 2/16/12: For those of you that are interested in reading the whole study – hint hint, law firms – you can obtain a copy from the ASCE Library by following this link.***

A new study says that some LEED credits might carry an additional risk of worker injury of up to 41%. The study, published by the Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department at the University of Colorado Boulder, used empirical data to support their finding that a number of LEED credit carry substantial risks. The results might be a little frightening.

The UCB professor behind the study says that his interest was piqued when he saw statistics that suggest worker injury occurs up to 50% more on LEED projects. Instead of making a case study out of this interesting statistic, the professor elected to craft an empirical examination, using data collected from a wide sample of LEED projects. The study looks at each credit in the LEED system, comparing it to traditional construction.  For example – sustainable( living) roofing v. traditional (fabric sealed) roofing.

The findings surprised me:

With the information gathered, Hallowell and his team of researchers were able to identify 14 LEED credentials that may create heightened risks to construction workers. Most notable risks include a perceived 41% higher risk associated with installing sustainable roofing, a perceived 37% increase in risk from installing PV panels for on-site renewable energy, a perceived 36% additional risk of cuts, abrasions and lacerations from construction waste management and perceived 32% heightened risk of falls from installing skylights and atriums to meet the daylight and views credit.

The first thing that I must note is that the methodology behind this study appears to be a strong one. A well-crafted, well-sampled empirical study is about as good as you can get. Apparently, the USGBC agrees. Its spokesman, whose statement is provided in the article, agreed that the findings were troubling and that they were being taken under advisement by the USGBC.

The really great part about this study was that the researchers didn’t just track down a problem – they made suggested solutions. Read through the article for suggestions on how to reduce chemical burns, reduce falls through prefabrication, and increase accountability through monitoring. In short, it’s a commendable list of reasonable recommendations that both owners and builders might want to consider requiring in specifications.

What does this mean for liability and builder risk? Perhaps a lot.

This information is out there now, and that means increased accountability for injury. Contractors should do their very best to consider implementing improvements in their building process. It might also be time to update your safety manual to ensure that your workers know that you intend to enforce these changes. Finally, train your project managers to actually enforce them.

Owners may want to ensure that insurance provides coverage for these increased risks. It’s possible that insurers will look to studies like these to adjust underwriting guidelines, so check with your agent and read your policy. Owners may also want to utilize their contract to ensure that contractors comply with safety guidelines, or risk breach of contract.

Contact your construction attorney if you want more specific guidelines on protecting yourself against these risks.

Original Here

Study: Safety issues could increase with green building projects

Sunday, December 4th, 2011

It’s not easy being green – and it might not necessarily be safer for construction crews building environmentally friendly projects, either. According to new research, these workers suffer more falls than workers on traditional projects; are exposed to new, high-risk tasks; incur more lacerations, strains and sprains; and more.

The study, “Identification of Safety Risks for High Performance Sustainable Construction Projects,” which appeared in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, examined construction projects built to achieve the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. LEED is the largest program in the country for certifying and verifying green buildings.

For their eight case studies on the issue, researchers interviewed dozens designers and contractors who had completed an average of 100 “traditional” construction projects as well as an average of four LEED projects. According to the results, 12 LEED credits lead to an increase in worker safety risks as compared to non-LEED work.

The study found that LEED project workers:

· Face new, high-risk tasks not found in traditional projects, such as constructing atria and installing solar panels or vegetated roofs;
· Work at height – including with electrical current, near unstable soils and near heavy equipment – for a greater period of time than workers on non-LEED projects;
· Incur a 36 percent increase in lacerations, strains and sprains from construction materials;
· Suffer a 24 percent increase in falls to lower levels during roof work, which researchers attributed to the installation of solar panels;
· Experience a 19 percent increase in eyestrain when installing reflective roof membranes; and
· Face a 14 percent increase in exposure to harmful substances when installing innovative wastewater technologies.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” noted Peter Stafford, executive director of CPWR – the Center for Construction Research and Training, which supported the study. “With proper layout of the worksite, recyclables can be sorted safely and efficiently. With properly scheduled breaks for hydration, a reflective roof doesn’t have to mean trips to the hospital. And with proper fall protection solar panels can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without risking workers’ lives and limbs.”

According to the contractors and designers interviewed for the study, such projects could reduce injuries and better protect workers by incorporating prefabrication, effective site layout and alternative products. Using low-VOC materials also could reduce occupational health risks for workers in enclosed environments.

The study was conducted by lead author Matthew R. Hallowell, along with Katherine S. Dewlaney Bernard R. Fortunato III and Michael Behm.

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

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

Henry gifford
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.

Chris Cheatham at Green Building Law Update explains what happened (he nailed it too). Here is a big blockquote used with permission:

When Gifford filed his amended lawsuit, I questioned how he would prove he was harmed by the alleged false advertising. It turns out that this was one of the lawsuit’s fatal flaws. A plaintiff that brings a lawsuit must show standing in order to prove that the right person is bringing the lawsuit. Since Gifford’s allegations of false advertising fell under the Latham Act, he had to satisfy two tests to show standing:(1) The Strong Categorical Test

“The strong categorical test provides that ‘the plaintiff must be a competitor of the defendant and allege a competitive injury.’” The court held that Gifford, a building energy efficient consultant, and the USGBC, which certifies buildings, were not competitors because Gifford does not certify buidings.

(2) The Reasonable Commercial Interest Test

Under the reasonable commercial interest approach, a plaintiff must demonstrate “both likely injury and a causal nexus to the false advertising.” Perosnally, I always believed this test would be Gifford’s downfall. In holding that Gifford failed this test, the court explained that owners could hire any consultant they wanted for a LEED building. Furthermore, the court posited that even if Gifford could show one owner that would only hire a LEED Accredited Professional consultant, it could not be proven that the owner’s decision was based on the alleged false advertising.

In short, the court deemed the lawsuit too speculative. I think the court got it right.

The USGBC is cracking open the biodynamic local bubbly tonight; Rick Fedrizzi said in a press release:

The Court dismissed the federal false advertising claims “with prejudice,” meaning that the Court’s dismissal of those claims is final and that plaintiffs are barred from filing a new suit based on those claims. The Court’s ruling simultaneously dismissed plaintiffs’ state law false advertising claims.”This successful outcome is a testament to our process and to our commitment to do what is right,” said Rick Fedrizzi, president, CEO and founding chair, USGBC. “Thousands of people around the world use LEED because it’s a proven tool for achieving our mission of transforming the built environment. We’re grateful that the Court found in our favor so we can give our full attention to the important work before us.”

Read the full story on TreeHugger

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