Big Green: LEED Certification - Added Value?
Dan Johnson
danjoh99 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 6 13:09:29 EST 2006
It's interesting to look at other building rating systems with regard
to this discussion.
The Swedish government is developing a mandatory rating/labelling
system for buildings that would give all buildings a sustainability
score, which would be made public. Compare this to the public crash
test and MPG information available for cars. I don't know the
administrative costs to the owner for getting the eco-labelling. The
system is being designed to limit the amount of documentation beyond
what is normally required for a planning/building permit and energy
calcs. Existing buildings must be rated and new construction must be
validated whenever they are sold, mitigating the problem of old
ratings superseded by rising standards.
The CASBEE rating system in Japan is similar by being mandatory (for
buildings above a size threshold) and publicly disclosed. It is
unlike LEED because it is a sustainability index, not a point-based
award. It has been in effect for several years and is adopted city
by city. There is good information about CASBEE on the web, try:
http://worldgbc.org/docs/Presentation_Japan.PPT
I am impressed by CASBEE and the Swedish initiative because they are
labelling systems that tell consumers what they are getting. Cars,
furnaces, water-heaters, and food all have mandatory, public
declarations attached to them concerning energy efficiency or organic
content. These systems make more sense to me and I think we should
demand better of LEED.
--Dan Johnson
--- Doug Driscoll <driscoll at firmmother.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all so far. The responses show best what my specific
> dilemma has been. I have no difficulty making the argument for the
> quantifiable benefits; improved efficiencies, reduced absenteeism,
> etc. The question I am asking is related solely to the "soft"
> costs of certification, i.e. USGBC registration fees and the cost
> to the Owner for documenting compliance to the USGBC by the design
> team. They truly are an additional expense to the Owner, as I
> explain a little bit farther down in this post.
>
> Mark clearly understood my question, demonstrated by his answers 2
> and 3 relating LEED certification to a metric, UL labeling and the
> like (thank you thank you thank you M - I included his response
> below for those who may not have seen it). The comparison to
> school testing is perfect (here it's called FCAT), as well as UL
> and FM testing. I think one of his best arguments, which he made
> much more succinctly than I, is;
>
> Why do it? Same question could be applied to the design process:
> Why have a registered architect and structural engineer design the
> structure? Why have professional engineers design the MEP systems.
> Why require UL labels or FM listings on equipment? ANSWER: because
> it shows you're really getting what you paid for and that it was
> done right. Don't go for the certification and those "sustainable"
> design features that everyone promised would be in the final
> product will mysteriously disappear from the project with VE and
> the fact that the contractor "forgot" to do this or that.
>
> For sake of conversation and because I did not make it clear in my
> previous rambling, the clients I am referring to are sophisticated
> and well experienced. Their minimum facilities standards regarding
> efficiencies for new construction and rehabilitation specifically
> related to energy, water, stormwater and IAQ have been green for
> years. Long before USGBC's inception they have been practicing
> these efficiencies, as I think would be expected with any agencies
> that spend hundreds of million dollars annually in capital expenses
> for construction, not to mention operating costs. So in truth they
> are experiencing no savings because for years their minimum
> standards have (by LEED's measurement) resulted in the reduction of
> plant capacity, improved IAQ/absenteeism, water use reduction,
> stormwater quality, etc.
>
> Keep in mind that they experienced previous energy crisises, "sick"
> buildings, and water shortages which were the catalyst for LEED and
> were working on improvements long before LEED. They perceive LEED
> certification an additional expense because they have long been
> compliant with many of the specific efficiencies, and for them it
> is truly an additional expense. Especially when you start looking
> at Material and Resources, and the "soft" cost of certification.
> For example, energy modeling based on the Owner's minimum standards
> and the typical design practices of us as the architect and the MEP
> PE's on 3 projects this year resulted in additional points for
> improved energy efficiencies, and we did not have to change a thing
> from what is normally considered our minimum baseline case. (Not
> sure what that says for ASHRAE :) )
>
> For me Mark summed it up best with
>
> LEED is recognized as the best metric available and shows the
> public that you've made the investment.
>
> Now I just have to expand on this by relating it to specific
> examples showing that this is a value to the Owner, such as IAQ
> litigation and the like.
>
> Thanks to all again, especially Mark and Geoff for prompting me to
> look at percentages and relate them to quantifiable measurements
> and offsets that HR/Facilities departments can relate to.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Heizer
> To: Doug Driscoll
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:39 PM
> Subject: RE: Big Green: LEED Certification - Added Value?
>
>
> Doug,
>
> Three points I'd like to add to the mix (Geoff's point about
> productivity is pretty good and sound data is coming out that LEED
> helps).
>
> 1. If you honestly integrate the design and remove excessive
> mechanical/electrical systems, you'd better be able to build the
> structure for the same as your normal budget (including the cost
> for the LEED registration). If you get rid of 30-40% of the
> central HVAC system plant capacity and design the systems
> appropriately (not rule of thumb), then the construction costs can
> and should go down enough to pay for the certification costs. Most
> LEED buildings should be designed for less; there are some that
> won't meet that level (specialty items, restrictions on the site,
> availability of local market to provide the materials related
> credits, etc.). In our part of the country, basic LEED
> certification should not add to the cost of larger projects ($2
> million plus). Even with skyrocketing materials costs, we've been
> able to keep on track with 2-year old budgets on LEED projects.
> That says that LEED doesn't cost more.
>
> 2. Why do it? Same question could be applied to the design
> process: Why have a registered architect and structural engineer
> design the structure? Why have professional engineers design the
> MEP systems. Why require UL labels or FM listings on equipment?
> ANSWER: because it shows you're really getting what you paid for
> and that it was done right. Don't go for the certification and
> those "sustainable" design features that everyone promised would be
> in the final product will mysteriously disappear from the project
> with VE and the fact that the contractor "forgot" to do this or
> that.
>
> Will you get the energy savings, productivity improvements, water
> savings, lessen your environmental impact if any of the integrated
> measures worked out in the process disappears? And if it really
> isn't a cost increase, why not consider certification an integral
> part of the budget? Washington State has done that.
>
> 3. You've got to have a metric to show progress. Compare it to
> school testing: The public won't be satisfied that the "money
> thrown at education" is being well spent unless you can show
> increasing test results. Can you prove that your building is any
> better than another without that metric? Various applicable
> phrases for your bosses: "Put up or shut up." "Show me the money."
> LEED is recognized as the best metric available and shows the
> public that you've made the investment. While it's not perfect, if
> you aren't willing to invest in the certification, you're just
> blowing smoke and can't show you've made real world improvements
> over a typical building (You can get the Energy Star label for
> less, but that's not looking at the whole picture).
>
> I understand what you're up against, but there are good arguments
> to require certification.
>
> Regards.
> Mark R. Heizer, PE | LEED® AP | Associate
>
> INTERFACE ENGINEERING
> 708 SW Third Avenue | Suite 400 | Portland, OR 97204
>
> direct: 503.382.2689
> office: 503.382.2266
> fax: 503.382.2262
> email: mark_h at ieice.com
> web: www.ieice.com
>
> Consultants of Choice to the Built Environment for over 35 years
> Kirkland, WA | Portland, OR | Sacramento, CA | Salem, OR |
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org
> [mailto:biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org] On Behalf Of Geoff
> McDonell
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:01 PM
> To: Doug Driscoll; biggreen at biggreen.org
> Subject: RE: Big Green: LEED Certification - Added Value?
>
>
> What's the cost of the people in the building- salaries,
> productivity, health, etc,? The best economic argument I use is
> that even a 1% or 2% gain in productivity/reduced absenteeism more
> than covers any first cost of registration and possible premium
> cost to the building.
>
>
>
> Most of the statistics I've seen indicate that the "people
> cost" of the occupant is around $200.00 per sq. ft. per year of
> building. If a better building can reduce absenteeism by even 1%,
> that works out to $2.00 a sq. ft. per year of building as a
> "saved" or offset cost. Consider that the total energy cost for
> the building is likely in the $1.50 to $2.00 per sq. ft. per year
> range, that's significant enough to use as a strong economic
> argument.
>
>
>
> Geoff McDonell, P.Eng., LEED AP
> Senior Mechanical Engineer
> OMICRON
>
> Direct: 604 632 1114
> Fax: 604 632 3351
> Email: gmcdonell at omicronaec.com
> Web: www.omicronaec.com
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented
> in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Omicron. Finally, the recipient should check
> this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Omicron
> accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
> by this email.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org
> [mailto:biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org] On Behalf Of Doug
> Driscoll
>
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________________________
> This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
> by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
> http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions see
> http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
> _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
More information about the BigGreen
mailing list