Standards Board Structure
The proposed governance model separates three distinct functions: standards-setting, auditor accreditation, and public oversight. These functions should not be combined in a single body, as concentration creates conflicts of interest and reduces institutional independence.
Proposed Board Composition
| Seat | Represented Constituency | Eligibility | Term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal / Public-Sector (3 seats) | City, county, or utility district governments | Elected or appointed officials or staff from municipalities with active framework adoption interest | 2-year, staggered |
| Academic / Research (2 seats) | Independent scientific research | Faculty or researchers at accredited universities with relevant expertise (environmental engineering, hydrology, energy systems, computer science) | 3-year, staggered |
| Civil Society (2 seats) | Communities affected by AI compute infrastructure | Representatives from environmental justice organizations, rural utilities, or community water boards in regions with significant compute infrastructure | 2-year, staggered |
| Technical Standards Body (1 seat) | Formal standards process expertise | Representative from an accredited standards development organization (e.g., ANSI-affiliated) with no financial interest in AI compute deployment | 3-year |
| Industry Observer (1 seat, non-voting) | Compute industry perspective | Rotating, one-year terms. Observer status only — no vote on standards. Subject to COI policy. | 1-year, rotating |
Board Powers
What the Board Does Not Do
The Standards Board does not conduct audits, operate enforcement proceedings, or accept payment from operators subject to the framework. It sets standards; it does not adjudicate individual operator compliance. Day-to-day compliance assessment is handled by accredited independent auditors.
Auditor Accreditation
Proposed Accreditation Requirements
To be accredited as a GCTS-1 auditor, a firm or individual must demonstrate:
| Requirement | Detail | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Technical qualification | Demonstrated expertise in at least two of: energy systems measurement, water accounting, AI infrastructure assessment, environmental auditing. | PROPOSED |
| Independence | No financial interest in any entity subject to the framework. No current employment by a compute operator. No revenue from compute infrastructure consulting. | PROPOSED |
| Training | Completion of GCTS-1 auditor training program (not yet developed). Annual update training required to maintain accreditation. | PENDING DEVELOPMENT |
| Professional liability insurance | Active professional errors and omissions insurance coverage at a minimum level defined by the accreditation committee. | PENDING CRITERIA |
| Annual renewal | Accreditation must be renewed annually. Renewal requires declaration that independence criteria are still met and completion of any required continuing education. | PROPOSED |
| Audit capture prevention | No auditor may audit the same operator for more than three consecutive reporting periods. Rotation is mandatory. Violations result in automatic accreditation suspension. | PROPOSED |
The mandatory auditor rotation rule is the primary structural defense against audit capture — the risk that a commercial auditing relationship leads to an auditor progressively softening findings to retain a client. The framework treats this as a structural risk requiring a structural solution, not reliance on professional ethics alone.
Conflict-of-Interest Policy
The framework's credibility depends on structural independence. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed, not ignored. The following rules apply to all persons in positions of authority under the framework:
| Person / Role | Prohibited Interests | Disclosure Requirement | Recusal Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standards Board member | Financial interest in any entity subject to or seeking exemption from the framework. Employment by compute operator or investor in compute infrastructure. | Annual signed disclosure. Public register. | Any board vote that could materially benefit a disclosed interest. |
| Accredited auditor | Any financial interest in the deployment being audited. Personal relationship with operator's leadership. | Per-engagement declaration. Available to board on request. | Automatic engagement recusal. Replacement auditor required. |
| Appeals panel member | Any interest in the outcome of the appeal being heard. | Pre-panel declaration. Signed by all panel members. | Automatic panel recusal. |
| Framework staff / contractors | Employment by or financial interest in any operator subject to the framework. | At hiring and annually thereafter. | Any work that would directly benefit a disclosed interest. |
Undisclosed conflicts of interest that are later discovered constitute grounds for removal from any board or accreditation role, retraction of any affected audit or decision, and referral to relevant professional licensing bodies.
Founder and Author Disclosure
Yuna Alejandra Moon, the author of The Green Code framework, has a direct interest in the framework's adoption and success. She should not hold a voting position on the Standards Board under the proposed conflict-of-interest rules. The framework is designed to be institutionally owned — not founder-owned — as a condition of its long-run credibility. The founding author's appropriate ongoing role is as technical advisor and public advocate, not as a governing authority.
Standards Revision Cycle
Standards documents must evolve as measurement science improves, new deployment types emerge, and field experience generates corrections to proposed methodologies. The revision cycle balances stability (operators need predictable requirements) with responsiveness (errors or obsolete methods must be correctable).
Scheduled Review
In addition to stakeholder-proposed revisions, the full GCTS-1 standard and NBR methodology are scheduled for comprehensive review every two years. This review examines whether the framework's measurement categories, thresholds, and audit requirements remain appropriate given accumulated field experience.
Appeals and Remediation Path
An operator who receives an adverse audit finding has the right to appeal. The appeals process is designed to be fair, transparent, and independent from the original audit.
Community Standing and Challenge Path
The framework exists to protect communities from unaccounted resource extraction. Community members, environmental organizations, and municipal governments must have a meaningful path to challenge operator claims they believe are inaccurate.
Who Has Standing
Any of the following may file a formal challenge to an operator's published NBR or GCTS-1 compliance claim:
- → Residents of the host municipality or county
- → The municipal government of the host jurisdiction
- → Agricultural operators, water utilities, or other entities that share water or grid resources with the deployment
- → Registered civil society organizations with demonstrated interest in the affected region
Challenge Process
Challengers file a written submission identifying the specific claim they contest, the evidence they believe contradicts it, and the remedy they seek. The Standards Board must acknowledge the submission within 15 days and communicate a timeline for review. Challenges that identify a material factual discrepancy trigger an independent investigation.
Public Reporting Expectations
Transparency is structural, not aspirational. The following reporting is expected of all participants in the framework:
| Reporting Entity | Report Type | Frequency | Public Availability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Each G-1+ operator | GCTS-1 compliance report including NBR calculation and auditor report | Annual (G-1), Semi-annual (G-2), Quarterly sub-metrics + Annual (G-3) | Publicly available. Posted to Evidence Room within 30 days of completion. |
| Standards Board | Annual framework governance report | Annual | Fully public. Includes board composition, votes, revision activity, and accreditation status of all auditors. |
| Standards Board | COI register | Continuous (updated at each disclosure) | Fully public. Names, disclosed interests, and dates. |
| Accredited auditors | Engagement log | Annual | Public register of which operators each auditor has audited and in which reporting periods. |
| Framework operator | Complaint and challenge log | Continuous (updated within 15 days of receipt) | Fully public. Challengers may request anonymization of their identity but not their claim. |
How the Framework Can Be Adopted
The Green Code framework is designed to function through multiple implementation channels simultaneously. No single channel is required. Different jurisdictions and organizations may adopt different paths based on their legal context and institutional capacity.
PROPOSED
No ordinance has yet been enacted. Draft language is under development.
PROPOSED
No procurement specification has been officially adopted. Template terms are available on request.
PROPOSED
Certification program not yet operational. Accreditation body pending formation.
PROPOSED
No formal agency adoption has occurred.
PROPOSED
CBA template in development. No agreements have been signed using the framework.
PROPOSED
No investor engagement of this type has been documented.
For Municipalities: Where to Start
A municipality that wants to begin engaging with this framework does not need to wait for the Standards Board to form. The most immediately actionable steps are:
- Review the published GCTS-1 PDF and NBR methodology documents.
- Contact the framework team to discuss the pilot-status model and Texas County experience.
- Assess whether any existing compute infrastructure within your jurisdiction could provide baseline data.
- Identify which implementation channel (ordinance, procurement, CBA) best fits your legal context.
- Request a municipal briefing package tailored to your jurisdiction's infrastructure and governance structure.
Changelog
- Replaced SYNC 3.0 "terminal governance" framing with institutional standards structure
- Added Standards Board composition with explicit COI rules
- Added auditor accreditation requirements including mandatory rotation
- Added appeals and remediation path
- Added community challenge standing and process
- Added implementation channels for municipalities, procurement, and voluntary adoption
- Added founder conflict-of-interest disclosure
- All items marked as Proposed where not yet operational
- 9-model consensus audit framing
- 50 MW compute node containment model
- Municipal pilot authorization focus
- Replaced by institutional governance model in v2.0