WASHINGTON, DC-On Tuesday Skanska USA president Mike McNally announced he was resigning from the US Chamber of Commerce because of its backing of the American High-Performance Building Coalition, a lobbying organization that opposes USGBC's LEED version 4. Worse, in McNally's view, the AHPBC, which formed this time last year and consists of some 27 industry associations including the American Chemistry Council, appears to be taking aim at the use of LEED in government buildings. If true, it would undercut one of the chief green building standards accepted in most markets around the world.

McNally argues that this is indeed the case. He points to an amendment made to S. 761, which would "effectively ban the use of pro-innovation and voluntary LEED certification by the government," as McNally describes it.

In support of McNally, hints of this agenda do appear in the group's press release announcing its formation in July 2012.

"The coalition announcement comes as the US General Services Administration is in the process of reviewing the use of green building standards by the federal government and the U.S. Green Building Council revises its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating system," according to the release.

"The AHPBC supports certification systems based on sound data, scientific methodology and developed using a consensus process. The coalition will advocate that position with GSA, other federal agencies and in other venues where green building certifications are under consideration."

And in an earlier release before the group's official debut, it told of its participation in a GSA listening session on the agency's review of green building rating systems.

"GSA should endorse only green building certification systems that are developed through fully open, balanced, consensus-based processes," said Richard Doyle, president and CEO of the Vinyl Institute. "We believe the process for the development of LEED is flawed: the actual credit development phase is not open, transparent, or available for participation to all interested stakeholders."

Other members made similar references to LEED's so-called "closed-door decision-making process." Justin Koscher, vice president of Public Policy at the Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing: "With respect to the federal government's building portfolio, consensus-based processes protect the public interest and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent in the most efficient manner."

William Hall of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute: "We believe that USGBC needs to materially improve its decision-making process to avoid closed-door decisions based on narrow interests in order for LEED to qualify as a consensus and transparent voluntary standard worthy of GSA recommendation."

This, McNally says—with the greatest of respect—is ridiculous.

"LEED is consensus-based," he tells GlobeSt.com. "It forms groups, it solicits opinions, it gives the industry plenty of time to comment." The group's real problem with LEED, he speculates, is that its standards discourage the use of some of the building materials that these member organizations manufacture.

Not so, says an AHPBC spokesman, in emailed comments to GlobeSt.com: "The American High-Performance Buildings Coalition, of which ACC is a member, strongly supports energy efficiency and green building programs. In fact, green building is enabled by our members' products and innovations which improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of today's buildings."

The spokesman goes on to note USGBC's dominance in the green building standard setting community.

"… we do not believe any one single private sector green building rating system should have a monopoly when it comes to designing, building and upgrading federal government facilities," he said. "We believe that Congress should mandate that all federal buildings use green building ratings systems that are true, affirmed consensus standards."

Like their end goal or not, AHPBC's stance in this respect strikes a cord with some players in the environmental movement that have uneasily watched USGBC's LEED program become the de facto building standard over other competing organizations. In a way the building community has encouraged that—it is far easier to have one accepted standard to monitor and adhere.

The USGBC did not respond to GlobeSt.com's request for a comment.

McNally, for his part, sees the USGBC and its LEED standard as the best steward for green building. "The building industry has made mistakes in the past that we cannot afford to repeat for the sake of our children—the use of asbestos, for example, or the use of lead paint."

His greater fear is that AHPBC's push could disrupt the momentum behind green building and possibly even increase its cost. According to the AHPBC spokesman it is seeking for Congress "at the very least" to ensure "greater choice so that federal agencies aren't forced to accept only one green building option; and they should demand that green building systems used by our federal government utilize risk assessment methodology and incorporate Life Cycle Assessment; that they are technology, product and material neutral; and that they are continuously reviewed by the government.

"If a green building rating system can't provide these bare minimum characteristics, America's taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for it."

Read our related story, "McNally: Why I am Resigning from the US Chamber of Commerce."