Posted on September 14, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
My new friend Timothy Hughes over at Virginia Land Use & Construction Law Blog had a nice piece highlighting the flaws in the New York Times analysis of the Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and US Courthouse (Youngstown, OH) which it used as a primary example of LEED buildings failing to live up to their green claims. Most interesting in his expose was the fact that the Jones Federal Building did not purport to have energy efficiency as its primary goal:
A review of the GSA study on its website reveals a few interesting facts that the Times left out of the article:
The GSA study was of 14 first wave green GSA buildings ; 8 were LEED certified, 2 were LEED registered, one used Green Building Challenge, and three were designed with an emphasis on energy efficiency
The Federal Building project did not seek any credits for energy efficiency under EA Credit 1. Similarly, the project did not seek points for additional commissioning, measurement and verification, or green power
While the Federal Building project did not receive the 75 score required to qualify for Energy Star, it did in fact reach a 58 despite the fact the building did not even try for the energy efficiency credits. Every other GSA project contained in the study qualified for Energy Star
I perceive this as an example of Energy Myopia, which we have seen in recent green building regulation, particularly the Waxman-Markey Bill. Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey bill calls for an energy efficient building code, as described in greater detail here. It does not, by definition, address water efficiency, site selection, indoor air quality, or materials usage, the other components which most green building rating systems, particularly LEED, encompass.
Why is this? There are a few factors at play.
First, energy efficiency is important. With carbon emissions causing global warming, and coal fired power plants producing lots of carbon emissions, reducing energy use is critical. However, with global warming, many are arguing that water efficiency is at least as paramount. Moreover, saving water through reduced use literally makes more water available for other uses--it is a direct resource saving, in a way that the impact of building energy savings is not.
The second reason that energy has been the focus is the same reason people rob banks--because that's where the money is. As I wrote earlier here, of the entire ARRA allocation of $60 billion for "green" programs, the EPA was allocated exactly $0 for green building, and a measley $7 billion over all. By contrast, the DOE was allocated $32.7 billion, with $5 billion for weatherization alone.
Third, energy savings is comparatively easy to measure. How do you measure the environmental savings of selecting an urban infill site instead of a suburban greenfield? In vehicle miles saved? Runoff averted? Stream quality? It is easier for proponents of green buildings and critics alike to use energy savings as a proxy for environmental friendliness.
It is critical for green building regulations to encompass the mulit-faceted environmental impacts of the built environment, and to look holistically at the environmental impacts of so-called "green buildings."
Later this week...Why Holistic Green Building Regulation Is Hard And What To Do About It.
Posted on September 9, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
As I mentioned here, there has been a lot of tongue wagging on the internet about LEED performance issues. Yesterday, Rob Watson, USGBC Board Member and Greenerbuildings.com Executive Editor responded. The gist of his response is that critics of LEED should really be participating in improving it:
The thing that really pisses me off is when people who should be helping something like LEED succeed cut it down. The only thing that benefits is the status quo. So stop your whining and moaning and put your energy into moving toward what Elaine Gallagher Adams calls the seeds of the municipal carbon economy where LEED is playing a key role in getting buildings beyond code minimum.
Many of Rob's points are good ones--tearing down LEED without providing constructive suggestions for how to improve the problem is about as useful as throwing rotten tomatoes. Also, critiques coming from those that are not engaged in the processes for developing the standards--be it USGBC, ICC, ASHRAE, etc.--may not be fully informed about the efforts that are ongoing to fix the issues, and those critics certainly are not participating in the hard work that is necessary to build something, which is much more difficult than tearing down what others have done. As Secretary of the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, member of USGBC's legal advisory board and participant in the ICC green building code team, I try to do my part in being fully informed and active in the process of creating great green building standards.
However, Rob takes a very harsh stick to the dialogue about LEED and building performance:
People need to stop pretending they are providing any insight on issues LEED needs to deal with. Honestly, anyone who thinks that the issues of energy use per square foot, how to get at operations energy though a design standard, how to make energy modeling more representative of what actually happens in a building, etc. haven't been discussed at LEED since 1995, needs to stop sniffing whatever it is they're sniffing. Really . . . it's bad for you.
There is an important role for analysis and critique in any complex process. Not only do outside observers from different points of view pick up on things that participants in the process may not see, they may have constructive suggestions about how to improve either the process or the underlying problem.
But even thoughtless criticism has a place. It serves as an important temperature gauge for the institution about how well it is communicating its message, and where opponents to a given position may have a toehold. The gun-toting, expletive shouting health care contrarians may not have much constructive to say about how to fix the healthcare system, but they gave a big indication of the fact that Obama's message was not being effectively received, and where the plans needed to be shored up.
The New York Times article was, as Rob and I have noted, old news to those of us who have been working in this field. But it gives the USGBC an excellent opportunity to highlight the efforts it has made, as Rob notes, for years to manage the energy issues, and to spotlight buildings which are performing well. When the Grey Lady is choosing to report on energy performance, you know you have made it into the mainstream. Now the USGBC should take its publicity--good and ill--and, like Paris Hilton, use it to promote the brand and move green building forward. As Oscar Wilde once said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Posted on August 24, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
Early in my blogging days, I wrote a post on the problem of green sprawl--the practice of developing "green" buildings on unsustainable sites. Can a building really be considered green if it is built on greenfields in the urban periphery (like green Wal-Marts or Best Buys), or a single family dwelling comprising of tens of thousands of square feet? Twitterer Lauren Glasscock sent along this fabulous link to the 10 dumbest "green" buildings.
I read about a new version of this phenomenon in Chattanooga. Apparently, Unum Group is:
[B]uilding a $20 million project that includes a parking garage to hold about 1,450 cars which will attempt to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.
So now the big question-- Can a parking lot for 1,450 cars ever be "green"?
To be fair, the Chattanooga Times reports:
The garage, expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2010, will open the way for the sale of much of Unum's 28 acres of surface parking lots.
Mr. Watjen said property will likely be turned into development for downtown, but it is unclear exactly how it will be distributed.
A garage structure is more sustainable than surface parking lots, for the runoff factor alone. But I question the "green"-ness of erecting infrstructure for 1,450 cars. Is this something the USGBC should be certifying? Or does it compromise the fundamental credibility of the LEED system?
Posted on August 20, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the International Code Council's team crafting a Green Building Code.
Accoding to the ICC:
The objective of this new project is to develop a Green Building Code for traditional and high-performance buildings that is consistent and coordinated with the ICC family of Codes and Standards.
After LEED, Green Globes, BREEM, Energy Star, NAHB Green and the prospective ASHRAE 189, why on earth do we need another green building standard? Is it simply to give people like me something to do in their spare time (I had thought about taking up knitting)? The answer is definitely not.
As articulated above, the point of the ICC Green Building Code is to be consistent with the other I-codes which most jurisdictions have adopted (or tweaked) as the basis of their building codes. Thus, builders building green buildings must adhere to two standards at least--the conventional I-Code based building code, and the green building standard. This has caused many issues, including the waterless urinal fiasco, in which waterless urinals were prohibited under conventional code provisions. By integrating a green building standard with the building code, these types of headaches can be minimized.
In addition, code officials and policiticians are comfortable with adopting and utlizing I-Codes as the basis for building regulations. Thus, municipalities do not have to reinvent the code wheel when looking to implement green building practices.
Finally, a solid compromise green building code can advance green building as the default standard. In California, which has adopted a green building code, various interest groups, including the California Building Industry Association, have come on board with the code.
There will always be a place for aspirational green building standards. LEED, for example, should provide new and innovative and more challenging ways to reduce GHG emissions, materials usage, enhance energy efficiency, etc. The goal of a code, however, should be to raise the floor of all buildings to a greener baseline. ICC's Green Building Code effort is a step towards making that happen. So, for me, knitting will have to wait.
Posted on July 15, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
I had lunch today with an engineer friend of mine, and we were discussing the recent attention to the possibility of de-certification of LEED buildings based on energy and water efficiency performance measures. As has been discussed here and on several of my favorite blogs (Matt DeVries does a nice compilation here), the USGBC 's announcement that it was incorporating energy and water usage reporting requirements as a precondition for acheiving LEED v3 has elicited a rash of speculation about the legal and logistical implications of de-certification. As we were talking, a potential new model emerged--the green building lemon law.
One of the main problems I see with ongoing monitoring of building performance, and many of the legal implications which accompany it, is the distinction between construction and operations/maintenance. As designed, a building may be very green. It may have all the appropriate siting, technology and other features the architect and engineers could wish to include. However, if the building is poorly operated or maintained, the energy or water performance may not measure up. This is akin to a car's mileage. You buy a Toyota which has been estimated at 35 mpg. But if you don't inflate your tires, and you have a lead foot, it probably won't get the 35 mpg. But it is not a defect of the car, rather the choices of the operator. By having ongoing building performance as a component of LEED NC certification, construction and operations and maintenance are inexorably intertwined.
I propose, instead, a green building lemon law. For LEED NC certification, there can be a requirement of performance within some specified percentage of the energy and water efficiency modelling which would be reflective of the performance of the structure itself, not of it operation. Is this a green building. If the building fails, it is a "lemon" and deserves decertification under LEED NC. Then, using LEED EBOM or other metric, there can be a measure of the green operations and maintenance of the building.
In order to effectively measure the performance of a building, USGBC needs to decouple the operations issue from the construction one. By doing so, the USGBC would be able to monitor performance, and the liability for performance failure would be easier to attribute to the responsible party. In addition, by creating a "lemon" standard, designers and engineers would be more protected from frivolous suits--evidence of a buildings' "failure" to perform would be subject to what amounts to a higher standard of proof.
Posted on July 10, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
Over the past couple of weeks, the USGBC announced that it was incorporating energy and water usage reporting requirements as a precondition for acheiving LEED v3 and Google announced that it will debut a cloud-based operating system some time in the next 18 months. The answer to how these two entities are similar is simple: both entities announced good ideas perhaps before their time.
Let's take a closer look at the reporting requirements for LEEDv3. Projects can comply with the performance requirement in one of three ways:
1. The building is recertified on a two-year cycle using LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance.
2. The building provides energy and water usage data on an on-going basis annually.
3. The building owner signs a release that authorizes USGBC to access the building’s energy and water usage data directly from the building’s utility provider.
Currently, accessing energy and water usage data can be very difficult, particularly without submetering. In addition, I would expect that public utilities would be loathe to turn over water and energy usage data to a third party. Finally, the turnover of operations in buildings from owner to management company and in some cases to the tenants will create layers of reporting and data gathering issues which are intense. For example, a building is submetered to tenants. What if one tenant chooses to report, and another does not?
The reporting issues go beyond the merely logistical. Ongoing reporting and monitoring by the USGBC will create a new body of work for an institution which has already come under fire due to backlogs in certification. Not only will the USGBC's new certifying sister agency have to certify new projects, but monitor old ones ad infinitim. It will create additional issues for states and municipalities which have incorporated LEED standards into their green building regulations and incentives. What happens to a 10 year property tax abatement if the project loses its LEED certification after 2 years due to failed energy savings? Additionally, as Chris Cheatham points out, there are new legal liability issues which emerge, like risks of suit to architects and engineers.
All this is not to say that the USGBC should not incorporate ongoing energy reporting into the LEED process. Like Chrome OS, the idea is a good one. I believe that a green building that does not perform should not be allowed to continue to benefit from the LEED moniker. There are a few things which could make it work better:
1. Create differrent levels of certification as time elapses--LEED at construction, different from LEED at 5 [years] or LEED at 10 [years], which reflects the ongoing achievement of green goals. This eliminates the issue of "decertification", while providing ongoing incentive to report and maintain buildings to the LEED standard.
2. Phase it in--This ensures that the reporting requirements can be complied with, and allows utilities and others to come to grips with the concept of releasing to third parties energy data. As it stands, projects registering for certification now must comply.
How can you envision the reporting requirements working more effectively?
Posted on June 22, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
According to the SF Examiner, LEED "now includes an energy reduction component called Sustainable Food."
Building owners and managers can now gain credit towards LEED certification by using sustainably harvested foods certified by pre-approved organizations including USDA Certified Organic, Food Alliance Certified, Protected Harvest Certified, The Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, and the Marine Stewardship Council's Blue Eco Label, and/or by acquiring food from within a 100-mile radius for food service and catering functions at the building. The threshold for achieving this credit is for 25 percent of all food and beverages to meet one or more of these sustainability criteria. Double points are awarded if the food is both certified and locally harvested.
Is this a good idea? It's true, all buildings will serve food at some point, but I am not sure that integrating an operations component like sustainable food is a good idea for a green building standard. For example, if a municipality incorporates the LEED standard, and a building owner chooses to adopt the sustainable food credit, will the municipality have to police whether 25% of their food purchases are local and organic?
Now using this argument, there should be no operations related credits in the LEED program. This, of course, is not reasonable either. The question becomes, to my mind, what operations credits are integral to the creation of a green building, and what items are merely good sustainable practices for everybody. Once LEED enlarges its mantle to include every sustainable practice, it dilutes its legitimacy as a rigorous standard. There is enough work to be done in managing the
- 72% of electricity consumption,
- 39% of energy use,
- 38% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
- 40% of raw materials use,
- 30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and
- 14% of potable water consumption
that come from buildings directly without frittering away efforts on peripheral matters.
Posted on March 3, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
In today's News-Tribune of Tacoma, Washington (admittedly not on my usual roundup of morning papers) there was anop-ed piece by a conservative columnist calling for Washington (state) to roll back "green" requirements for schools because they are not creating the energy savings promised when enacted.
The 2005 law calls for schools to be designed, constructed and certified to LEED Silver standard. At the time, the Governor Gregoire's press release stated:
According to the State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction’s office, use of sustainable building designs result in:
-
20% annual savings in energy costs
-
20% reduction in water costs
-
38% in waste water production
-
22% reduction in construction waste
-
A potential reduction in student absenteeism
-
A potential 5% decrease in teacher turnover rates
-
A potential 5% to 26% improvements in standardized test scores
In an ideal world, meeting LEED Silver standards would result in the predicted energy, water and other efficiencies. But that is not always the case. Many factors contribute to efficiency, including construction, operations and maintenance. Further, measurement and verification of energy usage is more art than science--which schools are being compared? by what methodology? Finally, what are the overall environmental implications of the building--were fewer new resources used, for example?
Many municpalities and companies are using LEED as a shorthand for high performance building to circumvent the difficulties of determining individual targets for resource efficiency and creating long term verification plans. This is shortsighted. By creating laws which use LEED as a substitute for rigorous environmental standards, well-intentioned municpalities and companies open themselves up to the criticism of the News-Tribune critic--that we shouldn't implement (or we should rescind) green building laws because they don't create environmental efficiency.
Posted on February 20, 2009 by Shari Shapiro
One of the primary considerations in regulating green in whether to incorporate a third party green building standard, like LEED, National Association of Home Builders Green, Green Globes, etc. into the regulations. In addition to determining whether to include a third party standard, regulators must also consider which standard to use and whether to mandate certification. There are pros and cons to each choice which regulators concerned about crafting great green regulations should carefully consider.
1. Third Party Standard, Proprietary Standard or Hybrid?
There are three regulatory models currently being used to determine whether a project is "green". One is to reference a third party standard like LEED or Green Globes--if a project meets LEED Silver criteria, it receives a 10% tax credit. Another mechanism is to create proprietary green criteria--setting out targets for energy efficiency, water usage, etc. Finally some government entities, like Boston, use a hybrid model, tacking on specific green targets on top of a third party rating system.
The third party rating system is easy and inexpensive, but gives local regulators the least control. What if the third party sets a requriement which is illegal or preempted? What if the third party sets a requirement which is inappropriate or impossible for your local conditions?
The proprietary system requires the most in house expertise. The regulators in charge of setting the green targets must understand sustainability and legal drafting very well to make this work. Also, the system must be updated to keep pace with the rapidly changing innovations in the green building industry.
The hybrid model works well to include local considerations into the green criteria, but does not solve the issue of lack of control over the rating system.
2. Which Third Party standard?
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems from the US Green Building Council, a non-profit organization, is the most common rating system incorporated into green regulations. Energy Star, a government sponsored system, is also common.
Some regulations, in an attempt to be neutral, state that projects need to meet LEED "or equivalent" standard. Which standard is equivalent to LEED may be difficult to determine. NAHB Green applies to residential projects only, and Green Globes, while licensed to a non-profit organization, is owned by Jones Lang Lasalle, a real estate money management and services firm. According to their website:
ECD Energy and Environment Canada, which developed the Green Globes™ system and licenses it exclusively to the GBI in the United States, has been acquired by international real estate money management and services firm, Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL). Under the terms of the acquisition, the GBI\'s licenses—both for the New Construction tool and the module for Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings—will simply transfer to JLL.
3. Certification or no?
Finally, local governments need to consider whether certification as "green" by a third party is a requirement of the regulatory scheme. For example, many municipalities make access to tax credits contingent upon acheiving LEED certification. For voluntary financial incentives, this is not as big of a legal pitfall, although the monetary and transaction costs association with certification may reduce the number of green projects being undertaken. However, mandating certification by a private third party could run into legal hot water. For example, the USGBC is under no legal obligation to certify buildings within a specified period of time, or at all. If the developer could not get a certificate of occupancy without the certification, the developer might sue the city. Municipalities have gotten around this by having projects submit third party rating system checklists for review by building officials, without requiring certification. This requires adequate capacity for understanding the green building criteria within the relevant government entities.
Posted on December 11, 2008 by Shari Shapiro
The USGBC membership approved the new version to the LEED rating system for high performance (“green”) buildings on November 18, 2008--LEED 2009. The rollout of LEED 2009 has been many months in the making, being originally released for comment in the spring, and for second public comment in August. The documentation for LEED 2009 is voluminous, comprising several .zip files available here.
The basic changes are as follows:
- Credit “Harmonization and Alignment”—In short, all of the LEED Rating Systems will have common prerequisites and credits so that there are fewer conflicting components across rating systems. The Credit Interpretation Rulings have been similarly harmonized.
- Predictable Development Cycle—LEED will be updated on a set schedule. Next time is in 2011.
- Credit Weighting—A “scientific” tool was used to reweight the credits in the LEED system based on a life-cycle analysis. Now, the total number of points has increased from 69 to 100. Certified requires 40 points, Silver 50, Gold 60, Platinum 80. A breakdown of each category is as follows:
|
Category
|
LEED 2.2
|
LEED 2009
|
|
Sustainable Sites
|
14
|
26
|
|
Water Efficiency
|
10
|
5
|
|
Energy & Atmosphere
|
17
|
35
|
|
Materials & Resources
|
13
|
14
|
|
Indoor Environmental Quality
|
15
|
15
|
The following notable changes were made to specific credits:
- SS Credit 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity
- Credit 2 went from being worth 1 point to being worth 5 points
- If the project is mixed use, it may be considered one of the ten basic services that are required to be located within ½ mile, as long as the service is open to the public.
- SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access
- Credit 4.1 went from being worth 1 point to being worth 6 points
- Walking distance is specified
- SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
- Credit 4.3 went from being worth 1 point to being worth 3 points
- Discounted parking is available as an alternative to preferred parking for fuel efficient vehicles
- Vehicle sharing is a new option
- SS Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity
- Credit 4.4 went from being worth 1 point to being worth 2 points
- Discounted parking is available as an alternative to preferred parking for carpool/vanpool vehicles
- An alternative track for mixed use buildings is specified
- WE Prerequisite 1: Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction
- 20% reduction in water use is now mandatory
- WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50%
- Credit 1.1 went from 1 point to 2 points
- Groundwater seepage is added as an alternative strategy
- WE Credit 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation
- Credit 1.2 went from 1 point to 2 points
- WE Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies
- Credit 2 went from 1 point to 2 points
- WE Credit 3: Water Use Reduction
- Credit 3 is now worth 2-4 points for a 30-40% reduction in water usage
- EA Prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Performance
- Specifies new compliance paths, including demonstrating a 10% improvement for new buildings or a 5% improvement for existing building renovations in the proposed building performance rating compared to the baseline building performance rating per ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007
- EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance
- Credit 1 is now worth 1–19 Points (from 1-10 points in LEED 2.2)
- 12% enhancement for new buildings is now the minimum, up from 10.5%
- EA Credit 2: On-Site Renewable Energy
- Credit 2 is now worth 1-7 points (from 1-3 points in LEED 2.2)
- EA Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning
- Credit 3 went from 1 point to 2 points
- EA Credit 4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management
- Credit 4 went from 1 point to 2 points
- EA Credit 5: Measurement & Verification
- Credit 5 went from 1 point to 3 points
- EA Credit 6: Green Power
- Credit 6 went from 1 point to 2 points
- MR Credit 1.1: Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
- Credit 1.1 went from 1 point to a range of 1-3 points for preserving 55%-95% of building components
- EQ Prerequisite 1: Minimum IAQ Performance
- Requirement is now ASHRAE 62.1-2007
LEED 2009 has attempted to fix one of my major criticisms, that LEED does nothing to prevent “green sprawl”—green buildings built on unsustainable sites—first voiced here. Although there is still nothing to prevent a “green” big box store surrounded by acres of parking lot on the urban periphery from being LEED certified, the increases in points to the Sustainable Sites credits are an attempt to give more weight in the LEED system to green buildings built in mixed-use community settings linked by public transit.
Continue Reading...
Posted on June 30, 2008 by Shari Shapiro
By: Margaret McInerney
Overview
As the green building market increases, a growing number of states, cities and municipalities have passed green building legislation. The level of enforcement and certification varies greatly, but most green building legislation references a green building rating system. The two most common green building rating systems in the United States are the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating SystemTM from United States Green Building CouncilTM (USGBC) and the Green GlobesTM rating system from the Green Building InitiativeTM (GBI).
Both rating systems aim to improve the built environment and emphasize design and construction practices that reduce energy consumption and water use, improve indoor air quality and minimize the impact on the natural environment. These rating systems have many similarities but a few key differences. Both LEED and Green Globes rating systems are structured similarly by awarding four levels of certification and focusing on common aspects of green building design. The LEED rating system is more expensive, but has a more balanced and comprehensive structure. On the other hand, Green Globes is user-friendly and emphasizes unique green building practices. It does not, however, necessarily demand the best green building practices.
Green building policy leaders argue over the extent of these differences when determining the appropriate rating system to reference in green building legislation. There was a recent budget debate in Virginia over whether the Green Globes rating systems should be referenced as an acceptable green building rating system in addition to the LEED rating system.
It should be noted the comparisons in this article consider USGBC's LEED for New Construction version 2.2 (LEED-NCv.2.2) rating system and GBI's Commercial Green Building Green Globes v.1 rating system. A new version of the LEED rating system (LEED 2009 or LEED v.3) was released for public comment in May 2008. The requirements of the LEED 2009 rating system are not considered in this article unless noted.
Brief History of Green Building Rating Systems
The first environmental certification system was created in 1990 in the United Kingdom, called the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). In 1998, the USGBC introduced the LEED green building rating system, based substantially on the BREEAM rating system. The Green Globes rating system was adapted from the Canadian version of BREEAM and was released by the Green Building Initiative in 2005. There are many other available rating systems worldwide. However, LEED and Green Globes are the most common in the United States.
Today, USGBC has rating systems for new construction, existing buildings, core and shell, commercial interiors, homes, schools, retail, healthcare and neighborhood development. GBI has a rating system for commercial buildings which includes new construction buildings and existing buildings. In addition, GBI partners with the National Association of Home Builders to promote green homes.
LEED and Green Globes Similarities
The LEED and Green Globes rating systems are very similar in structure. Both systems have four levels of achievement. LEED projects can achieve the following four certifications (1) certified, (2) silver, (3) gold or (4) platinum. Similarly, Green Globes projects can achieve either 1, 2, 3, or 4 globes. Both LEED and Green Globes share a common set of green building design practices. There are six focus areas for LEED and seven for Green Globes, but the focus areas are similar in many respects as shown below.
LEED-NCv2.2
[1]
Sustainable sites (14 Points, 20%)
Water efficiency (5 Pts, 7%)
Energy and atmosphere (17 Pts, 25%)
Materials and resources (13 Pts, 19%)
Indoor environmental quality (15 Pts, 22%)
Innovation and Design (5 Pts, 7%)
GREEN GLOBES v.1
[2]
Site (115 Pts, 11.5%)
Water (100 Pts, 10%)
Energy (360 Pts, 36%)
Resources (100 Pts, 10%)
Indoor environment (200 Pts, 20%)
Emissions, effluents and other impacts (75 Pts, 7.5%)
Project management (50 Pts, 5%)
[1] The United States Green Building Council,
www.usgbc.org.
[2] The Green Building Initiative,
www.thegbi.org.
Both LEED and Green Globes place an emphasis on energy use. Of the sixty-nine allowable points for LEED, twenty-five percent can be achieved for advanced energy practices and thirty-six percent of the one thousand allowable points for Green Globes can be achieved in the energy category. The common energy criteria for LEED and Green Globes are building energy consumption, proper installation of energy efficient technologies, and on-site renewable energy resources.
The LEED rating system has a balanced point distribution, with four out of the six categories contributing about twenty to twenty-five percent of the potential points. While Green Globes emphasizes energy (over a third of the potential points), site and material resources only account for approximately ten percent of the rating system. This is a potential weakness in the Green Globes system. While reducing a building's energy consumption is very important, a certified green building should not be constructed without significant consideration to its site and surrounding area.
LEED and Green Globes Differences
The two main criticisms of early versions of LEED were that it was too complex and too expensive. When USGBC first introduced the LEED rating system, the application for certification was long and complicated. All certification forms had to be submitted by mail. This was a contrast to Green Globes's user-friendly online certification process that any building team member could complete. The newer versions of the LEED rating system are online; however, the rating system is still complicated and each building team member is responsible for different documentation. LEED registration and certification are still more expensive than Green Globes. LEED registration costs approximately $900-$3000 and certification costs approximately $1,875 to $20,000. Green Globes offers a preliminary self-assessment for $500 dollars and the certification is around $3,000-$6,000.
Another criticism of the LEED rating system is that LEED-NCv2.2 does not address life-cycle analysis. Life cycle analysis (LCA) assesses the complete impact of a building on the environment. LCA analyzes a building's construction materials from pre-manufacturing to post-consumption. For example, the LCA of a building's insulation would consider the manufacturer's location, the resources needed to make the insulation and the disposal/recycling of the insulation when the building is torn down. In the current LEED rating system two buildings could achieve a sliver certification, but have very different impacts on the environment when considering life cycle analysis. USGBC has recognized this deficiency and addresses LCA in its latest rating system, LEED 2009. Green Globes incorporates a life-cycle analysis in its current rating system.
The main criticism of Green Globes is that it does not require a minimum performance level. Therefore it is relatively easy to attain the one globe certification level (350 points out of 1000 points). In contrast, LEED requires minimum performance levels in energy use, erosion control, and indoor air quality. For example, LEED requires that all certified projects create an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Since this plan is required it does not earn any certification points. However, Green Globes awards nine points for a similar erosion control plan. Green Globes does award points for specific best practices that are unique to its rating systems such as, integrating pest management, composting organic waste, monitoring carbon monoxide, and maintaining acoustic comfort.
Another significant difference between the two rating systems is their energy performance measurements. Most LEED certified projects measure energy performance against the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 which sets a baseline for building energy performance. LEED points are awarded if the building reduces energy consumption 20% to 60% compared to the standard's baseline. However, Green Globes projects are awarded points for scores of 75 or better from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Performance Rating. EPA's rating system compares the project to other similar buildings nationwide. For example, a score of 75 in the EPA Energy Performance Rating system means that the project performs better than 75% of the buildings in the U.S.
Builders have different views which rating system most effectively measures energy performance. The ASHRAE 90.1 standard is the industry accepted standard for building performance. Based on performance modeling, LEED certified buildings save approximately 25-35% on average compared to the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline standard. However, there is still a discrepancy between predicted-modeled energy performance and actual-design energy performance. While some buildings perform better than modeled a significant number perform worse. A number of LEED certified buildings do not meet the Green Globes standard of 75 from the EPA Energy Performance Rating system. In contrast, the EPA Energy Performance Rating system only awards certification to the top twenty-five percent of buildings and does not set a minimum performance level or a baseline for improvement. By using the EPA Energy Performance Rating system, Green Globes is not providing incentives to improve the performance of buildings each year.
Conclusion
The USGBC's LEED rating system and the GBI's Green Globes rating system have some differences. However, they share a common core of green building design practices. Both rating systems offer unique benefits and promote good building practices. Referencing the LEED rating system in government legislation will ensure minimum energy performance, good construction practices, reasonable indoor air quality, and basic building commissioning. However, for legislation to completely disregard the Green Globes rating system would ignore a number of good building practices, such as using the EPA Energy Star Performance rating system and having a user-friendly, less expensive incentive for building green. Governments should adopt strong green building legislation that encourages the best green building practices and it may be premature to limit green building certification to only one rating system.
Margaret McInerney is a LEED® Accredited Profession and is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science. She currently is a Senior Energy Consultant at Navigant Consulting Inc. in Washington, DC. The views expressed in this article are those of the author only and not those of any other company or organization.
