Embodied Energy: How Should it Affect Design Standards?

The issue of embodied energy in building materials is heating up in the Washington Legislature.

Under current state laws, the design of new buildings must include an energy life cycle cost analysis. The ELCCA requires designers to run energy models to project the costs to operate a building over its lifecycle.

But, those models don’t account for the energy used to produce, manufacture, transport and construct buildings. Nor do they account for the energy to deconstruct and dispose of or recycle building materials. In other words, they do not account for embodied energy.

SSB 5485 authorizes a study to evaluate current standards and models for assessing the embodied energy in building materials. It also asks for recommendations about the next steps for taking embodied energy measurements from theory to practice.

The AIA|WA has been at the center of redrafting the bill to ensure that the study is unbiased and produces effective results. AIA|WA worked with stakeholders on all sides of the issue. At a hearing last week AIA|WA testified to the need for such a study, but also cautioned that embodied energy is only part of the picture. But, one must put the parts together to get the whole picture.

The proposed study will provide lawmakers with valuable information on which to make future policy decisions.

A revised version SSB 5485 passed the House Environment Committee this morning, with the AIA|WA’s support. Rep. Christine Rolfes led the efforts in the House to improve the quality of the study.

Watch this video for AIA|WA’s testimony.

Here is the entire hearing on the bill:

Cities and Counties Launch Late Attack on AIA|WA Contract Fairness Bill

Yesterday, with only a few hours warning, a consortium of city and county governments launched a last minute attack AIA’s bill to bring fairness to public contract provisions, EHB 1559.

EHB 1559 seeks to prevent unfair contract language from being forced on architects and other design professionals by government agencies. Many public agencies are putting a clause in their design contracts that require the prime design consultant to indemnify and pay for the defense of any lawsuit arising from the project, regardless of negligence.

These clauses are an abuse of the contract to unfairly shift risk and costs to the consultant that properly reside with the client agency or other contractors on the project. Even more problematic is these requirements are not covered by the design consultant’s insurance. Thus, the architecture firm is directly liable to cover any resultant legal fees and even the individual architect may find their personal assets entangled in the legal battles

AIA worked with our colleagues in the engineering, land surveying and landscape architectural community to develop legislation to prohibit these unfair clauses. EHB 1559 would limit the design consultant’s liability to actions arising out of their own negligence and forestall liability resulting from the actions of those not under the control of the design consultant.

Representatives for design professionals and their insurance providers testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to the need for this bill. They cited examples of contract abuses and explained how EHB 1559 would restore parity of risk in public agency design consultant contracts.

City and county agencies testified against the bill. They stated, “We don’t make anyone sign these contracts; they can always walk away.” Their defense of current provisions rests on the premise that they want someone else to pay for their legal costs, regardless of fault or negligence.

AIA|WA will continue to push hard to get the bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

You can view the full hearing at TVW’s Website.

To see only the AIA|WA’s testimony, watch this segment:

Here is the video for the full hearing:

The Capital Budget: Will there be one?

Tomorrow, the new revenue forecast for the State of Washington will be released. That revenue forecast will determine the size, and to some extent the shape, of the 2011-2013 biennial budget. Projections are that revenue will be down below previous forecasts by $500 Million to $2 Billion. 

This will have a dramatic impact on the capital budget. The state's bonding capacity is tied directly to general fund revenues. The state constitution limits construction debt to 9% of general fund revenues.

The available money to pay for bonds has dwindled. At the beginning of the year, the Governor proposed about $900 million in bonds to be sold. That is down from $1.7 billion in the current biennium and $2.7 billion in the prior biennium.

As the state’s revenues have gone down, so has the available bond capacity. This is further hampered by the fact that prior biennial budgets spent much more on bond projects. So, the previously high spending combined with lowered revenues have hit the next capital budget hard.

Right now, there is talk that there may not be any bond bill for the 2011-2013 biennium. In January, the bond projection had less than $200 million in available capacity. And, that is likely to go down after the next revenue forecast. 

We could very well see a situation where not only is there no available money for bonds, the state could already be over the constitutional limit. 

Should the Debt Limit Be Adjusted?

A related issue is a proposal by some senators to adjust the state debt limit (SB 5181 & SJR 8215). Their stated goal is to lower spending limits in good economic years to free up spending capacity in bad years. That would allow the state to increase capital construction spending at a time when private sector projects are struggling.

The challenge with the proposals is that they rely upon a belief that the legislature would actually spend more in lean years. In the current biennium, rather than spending existing capacity on construction projects, the legislature and the governor transferred nearly a billion dollars from the capital budget into the operating budget. Pressure from state employees’ unions and social welfare advocates over whelmed the economic plight of design and construction professionals.

Thus, any proposals that relies upon trusting the legislature to do the right thing is difficult to support. AIA|WA continues to be in talks with proponents. Our earlier concerns with this approach pushed them back to the drafting table to redesign the proposal. Budget writers are working with the State Treasurer and the State Treasurer's Bond Financing Advisory Committee. 

Stay tuned, this is a big week for architects, contractors and others who work on state projects.