Development: Green, Yes; LEED, Not So Much

Paul Bubny

GlobeSt.com

11/9/12

NEW YORK CITY-Owners, developers and corporate occupiers are more likely to construct or renovate a building with sustainability in mind than they were two years ago, Turner Construction Co. said Thursday. However, the builder’s Market Barometer survey also found that less than half of respondents would pursue LEEDcertification from the US Green Building Council.

With energy efficiency and ongoing operations and maintenance costs each cited as key drivers by 84% of respondents, the appetite for sustainable building is greater than in 2010, when Turner last conducted the survey. Sixty-four percent said they expect to undertake new construction projects over the next 12 months, while 71% said they intend to undertake renovation projects during the same period. Those numbers are up from 46% and 58%, respectively, in the ‘10 survey, although concerns remain about the costs and the length of the payback period.

Going in the opposite direction, however, is the percentage of executives who said that going for LEED certification on new construction was “extremely likely” or “very likely.” The figure in this year’s survey is 48%, down from 53% in the ‘10 survey and from 61% in 2008.

Among survey respondents who said their companies weren’t likely to seek LEED certification for new builds, the cost of the certification process was cited by 82%. This was followed by staff time required (79%), time required for the process (75%) and the overall perceived difficulty of the process (74%).

However, 41% of executives thought it was at least somewhat likely that they’d consider certification under a rating system other than LEED, with 63% of those respondents preferring Energy Star. A USGBC spokeswoman did not respond to GlobeSt.com’s calls by deadline. 

“We’ve seen from our own work and the continuing growth of the green building market that in spite of this reduction in enthusiasm for LEED certification, respondents are still building green,” Michael Deane, VP and chief sustainability officer at Turner, says in a release. “While some respondents are relying on their own standards or are considering another rating system, LEED certification remains the most widely used third party verification of achievement that is recognized by consumers and that can be used to market and promote a property.”

LEED rating system for green building grows into global phenomenon

By Dana Hull

San Jose Mercury News

10/01/2012

Twelve years ago, the U.S. Green Building Council launched a rating system called LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, hoping that architects, engineers, designers and real estate firms would improve energy efficiency and increase the use of recycled materials and nontoxic paint in their projects to win LEED-certified recognition.

Now LEED has grown into a powerful brand and global phenomenon. There are 14,044 LEED-certified commercial projects, covering more than 2 billion square feet, in 140 countries. Another 34,601 projects are in the pipeline. Northern California is home to hundreds of LEED buildings, including San Jose City Hall, San Francisco International Airport's Terminal 2, the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and the Oakland Public Library branch on 81st Street.

"Green building is not a curiosity anymore -- it's a huge market," said Aditya Ranade, a senior analyst with Lux Research in Boston. "The green building sector will be a $280 billion global industry by the end of the decade. LEED is dominant around the world, but there are other standards. Malaysia has its own Green Building Index, and China has developed its own three-star-rating system."

The Green Building Council offers four levels of LEED certificates. They range from certified, in which 50 percent of the requirements are met, to platinum, in which at least 80 percent are met. Facebook's data center in Prineville, Ore., for example, achieved LEED gold status.

But as LEED has grown and green building technology evolves, so has the need to update the rating system. The Green Building Council, a nonprofit with 14,000 member companies, on Tuesday will release proposed changes known as LEED v4 that member companies can comment on. The draft changes, which will be subject to a public comment period through Dec. 10, include increased technical rigor for energy performance and new categories that focus on integrated design, life cycle analysis of materials used and issues like indoor air quality.

"In order for LEED to be relevant, it has to evolve," said council spokeswoman Ashley Katz. "In 2000, people didn't know what low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint was. Now it's what everyone uses."

Lux Capital notes that venture capitalists have pumped more than $4 billion into green building since 2000. Several Silicon Valley companies, including digital lighting startups Redwood Systems and Adura Technologies, are considered ripe acquisition targets for larger companies focusing on building sensors and controls.

The original idea behind LEED was to make buildings more energy efficient and reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment. But LEED-certified buildings, which are often filled with natural sunlight and access to fresh air, have proved to be popular with employees, improving concentration and boosting productivity.

Hospitals, schools and universities are increasingly turning to LEED standards: The University of California has 100 LEED-certified facilities, followed by Harvard, which has 75. And leading companies increasingly see LEED-certified buildings as a way to recruit top talent.

In June, the Green Building Council's Northern California chapter launched the "California Best Buildings Challenge." Thirteen companies, including Adobe Systems (ADBE), Genentech, Google (GOOG), Prudential Real Estate Investors, SAP and Zynga, have signed on and committed to a 20 percent reduction in energy, water and waste by 2014.

"Improving the environmental performance of our buildings not only helps us reduce waste, save energy and water and improve indoor air quality, but also positively impacts the health and productivity of our employees around the world," David Radcliffe, vice president of real estate and workplace services at Google, said in a statement. "Through our early participation in the California Best Buildings Challenge, we hope to inspire companies of all shapes and sizes to implement innovative approaches to reducing their environmental footprint."

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21673213/leed-rating-system-green-building-grows-into-global

Energy-efficient homes seem to sell faster, fetch higher prices

Some research projects in California, Oregon and Washington offer hints that energy efficiency and sustainability certifications for homes may result in easier sales and higher prices.

By Kenneth R. Harney

August 28, 2011

Home energy efficiency and sustainability have been major policy priorities for the Obama administration, but lurking in the background are two consistent questions: Beyond the documentable savings on utility bills, do such steps add to the resale value of a home? And do they make it easier or faster to sell your property?

Housing groups and housing officials say that definitive statistical data covering multiple regions of the country are scarce. But some localized research projects in Oregon, Washington and California offer promising hints.

In a study covering existing and new houses sold from May 2010 through April of this year, the Earth Advantage Institute, a nonprofit group based in Portland, Ore., found that newly constructed homes with third-party certifications for sustainability and energy efficiency sold for 8% more on average than noncertified homes in the six-county Portland metropolitan area. Existing houses with certifications sold for 30% more.

The raw sales data in the study were provided by the Portland Regional Multiple Listing Service. "Certified" houses were defined as those carrying Energy Star or LEED for Homes designations or Earth Advantage home certifications. (LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.) The latest study was the fourth in an annual series conducted by Earth Advantage, each of which has shown clear price premiums for certified houses.

But officials caution that using average sales prices pulled from MLS data without trying to measure "comparable" homes against one another directly may not be conclusive. For instance, newly constructed certified houses may be more expensive to start, and existing certified homes may be larger and more likely to be in higher-cost neighborhoods where homeowner adoption rates for energy-efficiency measures are higher.

Nonetheless, said Dakota Gale, Earth Advantage's manager of sustainable finance, looking back at four years of studies, "we can still see a consistent trend that third-party certification continues to result in a higher sales price, even during the past year when home sales were down."

A study conducted two years ago by the institute in Seattle and Portland identified what may be another plus: Homes marketed with energy-efficiency certifications appear to sell faster on average than those without. The study tried to come up with rough comparability in appraisal terms between certified and noncertified properties, and it found that in Portland, certified homes spent 18 days less time on the market after listing than noncertified counterparts. In both Portland and Seattle, researchers documented price premiums — 9.6% in Seattle, 4.2% in Portland — in a statistical analysis with a 95% confidence level.

A recent study on houses in San Diego and Sacramento published by the National Bureau of Economic Research took a different tack: When you install photovoltaic solar panels on your roof, how much do you get back in market resale terms, beyond monthly energy savings?

Researchers examined a sample of home sales in the $500,000 range in both metropolitan areas between 2003 and 2010 and found that, on average, solar panel installations cost owners $35,967. But with federal and state subsidies, the net average cost came down to $20,892. This net expenditure, in turn, yielded an increase in appraised value by $20,194 — a 97% rate of recovery on the investment.

Though less than 100%, the rate is much higher than most home improvements in the most recent "Cost vs. Value" study conducted by Remodeling magazine — well above major kitchen and bathroom renovations.

Kevin Morrow, senior program manager for green building at the National Assn. of Home Builders, says that although many newly constructed homes come with energy and sustainability certifications, banks don't necessarily recognize their value when it comes to providing mortgage money.

For example, bank underwriters often do not include reduced monthly utility costs in the household income/household expense ratios that affect the maximum mortgage amounts available to buyers.

"The case needs to be made" to lenders, he said, "that, hey, these houses will cost less to operate, so they should be worth more."

Morrow added that appraisers are part of the issue as well if they don't have the training to recognize and credit extra value to houses that have money-saving solar installations, geothermal heating and cooling, Energy Star appliances, water conservation features and other green improvements.

The Appraisal Institute, the largest group representing that industry, says it has sponsored "green" appraisal courses for 2,300 appraisers during the last two years. It says it strongly supports efforts to better incorporate energy and environmental factors into mortgage underwriting and home valuations, including a possible congressional mandate requiring it.

kenharney@earthlink.net

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-20110828,0,111611.story

Empire State Building to strike green gold

City's tallest spire set for recognition as one of its greenest; $550 million renovation to draw LEED certification as well as 38% energy savings.

  By THERESA AGOVINO

Buck Ennis

The Empire State Building is applying for gold LEED status.

The Empire State Building, which is in the midst of a $550 million renovation that includes numerous improvements designed to improve its sustainability, is on track to receive its LEED certification from the U.S. Buildings Council this month.

Upgrades at the 2.9 million-square-foot landmark include green features such as better-insulated windows and an upgraded air-conditioning system—changes that the management said lower energy consumption by 38%. Anthony Malkin, president of Malkin Holdings, an owner of the Empire State Building and its asset manager, said the changes were motivated by a desire to save energy. However, he said that once he realized the work would qualify for a certification, he opted to pursue it.

“We did the work,” Mr. Malkin said. “Why not?”

Mr. Malkin said the building would merit a gold rating. A U.S. Buildings Council spokeswoman said the organization doesn't disclose which rating a building will receive ahead of time.

LEED, which is named for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, was launched in March 2000. It measures various metrics that contribute to sustainability, including carbon emissions, water efficiency, energy savings and building materials.

In the decade since LEED was introduced, many developers have constructed or renovated their buildings to earn certification, both to help the environment and lure tenants.

However, in recent years other standards have also emerged, especially to measure energy efficiency. Additionally, later this year, New York City will begin requiring building to report their energy use, and those results will be posted publicly. The city hopes the postings will shame energy hogs into making changes that will put them more in line with their peers.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110415/REAL_ESTATE/110419896

LEED revision tightens energy efficiency standards with new credits, categories

By AMANDA PETERKA of Greenwire

The first of two public comment sessions opened this week on changes proposed for the U.S. Green Building Council's rating system for sustainable and energy-efficient buildings.

The update to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, rating system will build upon a 2009 revision. The proposed changes, put together by USGBC's technical advisory committees, include three new credit categories and a variety of reworked and new credits and prerequisites. They touch each of the rating system's sections, including building design and construction, operations and maintenance, and LEED for homes.

The draft revision also includes a "pilot credit library" for the first time, or a collection of credits that are being tested for possible inclusion in the final version of the revision, due out in 2012.

"I'm really excited to see what's in store for the future of LEED," said Tristan Roberts, editor of BuildingGreen.com, a publication that tracks green building information for professionals and policymakers.

One of the biggest changes is a new performance credit category, addressing what has been one of the more controversial issues surrounding LEED. The system was set up in the late 1990s for the design and construction of buildings and not the building's actual performance.

"A lot of the LEED points were based on the design of the building rather than the actual operating performance of the building," leading to "promises of efficiency that weren't delivered," said Clinton Andrews, a professor of planning and public policy at Rutgers University in New Jersey and part of the university's Center for Green Building.

In 2009, when LEED was last revised, it required mandatory disclosure of energy use but did not include it in a separate section. In the revision's performance section, a newly constructed building can gain credit by installing an advanced energy metering system and committing to share energy usage data with USGBC for at least five years from the date of occupancy.

"You get the LEED plaque when the project is done, but you're getting it with the understanding that you're committing to these things," Roberts said.

Putting these types of credits in their own category highlights their importance, said Brendan Owens, vice president of LEED technical development at USGBC. LEED would collect and report this data anonymously through its Building Performance Partnership.

Another significant change is the addition of an "integrated process" category. An integrated approach means that rather than having an architect give drawings to an engineer who then passes the plan to a contractor, "everyone's sitting together and figuring things out and looking for opportunities to improve the performance of the building," Roberts said.

The LEED update outlines a specific set of requirements for the process by which a building is built, requiring a certain number of team meetings and stakeholder input events.

The third new section in LEED, called "location and transportation," contains credits that had previously been elsewhere but puts new emphasis on the fact that location plays a role in determining a building's efficiency.

"It looks like it's going to be a good document," said Mary Ann Lazarus, director of sustainable design at HOK Group Inc., a global design firm. "[It's] moving us along the road a bit and introducing some things that we have done and tried to do where we can but aren't necessarily part of every LEED project. But now they're going to be."

Thinking about chemicals, climate

Public comment on the draft will be open until Dec. 31, longer than the typical USGBC comment period. This was done intentionally, Owens said.

"One of the things we've heard in the past, a fair and unfair criticism but something we needed to address, the public comment that has been run on LEED in the past has been sort of pro forma," Owens said, encouraging people to comment.

The organization will also be getting feedback from projects that have opted to try test credits, which include for the first time a "chemical avoidance in building materials" credit, something that has been pushed for by healthy building interest groups. The pilot credit "acknowledges and supports contemporary and accepted knowledge about specific chemicals of concern that should be avoided." Chemicals to be avoided are phthalates and flame retardants.

According to Owens, more than 200 projects intend to participate in at least one of the 41 pilot credits.

The update on a whole includes stricter requirements for credits -- for example, a credit that required a building have a view has been changed to require a quality outside view, or one of vegetation, animals, water or people. The entire rating system is still expected to be based out of 100 points.

Environmentalist Denis Hayes, CEO of the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, said that USGBC could go further.

Hayes said his organization is designing a building to go beyond the highest level in LEED. He said that sooner or later, the United States is going to put a price on carbon, but there are "today only a dozen buildings that have been constructed that will be attractive in a new energy era."

"As USGBC modifies any of its standards, the objective I think in every case ought to be to make them a little bit tougher and a little bit more environmentally rigorous," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/11/11greenwire-leed-revision-tightens-energy-efficiency-stand-36629.html?pagewanted=print

LEED-Bashing Pile-On Continues On New Fronts

by Lloyd Alter, Toronto  on 10.25.10

DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE 

USGBC
There is a lot of schadenfreude in the air as the lawsuits fly and everyone piles on with everything they have ever hated about LEED, including the bike racks. In New York City, residents of Riverhouse (seen in TreeHugger here) are suing because, according to Stephen Del Percio, "the building's much-heralded 'green' heating system consistently fails to provide adequate heat."

Riverhouse on Green Building Law
Ernest Beck writes in Architect Magazine:

Legal battles over sustainability promises vs. performance are just beginning. But it's not only about design, it's also about contracts, expectations, and (surprise, surprise) money....Now that sustainability is an integral part of design practice and the business and marketing strategies of architecture firms, it's inevitable that legal claims and liability issues concerning green building performance will appear.

On NetGreen News, they describe how a ten year old LEED certified building is being evacuated because it is structurally unsound. The damage has nothing to do with its LEED certification, but their story is entitled "The Lowdown on LEED."
It appears to be a lousy post-tensioning job using sub-par concrete. But Dawn Killough wrote in an article entited Does Salem's Building Disaster Give LEED a Bad Name?

What bothers me most about this situation is that projects like this can give LEED a bad name. Energy efficiency, recycled materials, and green roofs don't do anyone any good unless the building is sound. LEED projects get a lot of press these days, although they are becoming more commonplace, and projects like this can leave the public wondering what designers were thinking. Are they focusing too much attention on being green and not enough on good design?

Meanwhile, the wood wars are getting up to ignition temperature as US Green Building Council members get to vote on changing the rules that currently give FSC certified wood a credit. Big green groups including the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace have written an open letter supporting the current restriction.

The certified wood credit in LEED has been one of the principal drivers for healthy forests ecosystems in North America and around the world ˆ we believe the standards set by FSC should represent the floor, not the ceiling," [FSC President] Brinkema said.

They pull no punches in their letter:

SFI and its industry supporters often argue that choice and competition between forest certification systems is good for everyone. Choice between forest certification systems can indeed be beneficial to the extent that competition can drive improvement among all systems. However, to the extent that "choice" confuses the marketplace and falsely professes equivalence between standards and practices that do not represent the same level of environmental and social performance, it is far from being beneficial. In fact, it is deceptive and harmful greenwashing.

In the New York Times, Sustainable Forestry Initiative president Kathy Abusow appears to not like the new standards much either, and says:

"Man, this is a complicated process," Ms. Abusow said. "There's just way too many hoops to jump through for just one credit."

Finally, Preston at Jetson Green points us to Kevin Pierce of Shaw Sustainable Design Solutions, who gets all Churchillian and writes:

"...democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried..." ~ Winston ChurchillChange a few words and the Prime Minister's commentary on democracy could easily be applied to LEED.

Definitely a literate critic, he then gets Hobbsian calls LEED " clumsy, brutish, long, and expensive."

LEED is not designed to be a good tool for making the goal-seeking process of architecture more efficient or effective. Although certification is dangled in front of us as a reward, the process of dealing with LEED itself is more stick than carrot.....Official LEED reviewers are often uneven, inconsistent, unreachable, and inexperienced, a result no doubt of the incredibly rapid growth the the USGBC and the newly formed Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI). And there seems to be a new fee every time you turn around.

Pierce also accuses LEED of rewarding sprawl.

Commercial buildings, the primary LEED beneficiary, created 19% of total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2008. Personal vehicle use -- driving cars to buildings -- accounted for 17%, nearly as much as the buildings themselves. Yet LEED-NC (for example) has only 14 points available to reward reduced driving compared to 42 points directly related to energy reduction.

More from Kevin Pierce
It is a good point; we have talked about transportation efficiency before. But as soon as you start talking about reduced driving, you get bike rack bashing. Sometimes, you just can't win; Rick Fedrizzi of the USGBC better be prepared for some rotten tomatoes at Greenbuild this year.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/leed-bashing-pile-on.php

Cooper Union so green it's platinum

Newest building at the school that helped give Thomas Edison his engineering chops is a winner in cutting energy use; conservation on a tight budget. 

By Brian Chappatta

Mario Morgado, courtesy of Cooper Union

Cooper Union, in the East Village

In an ironic twist of fate, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, the school that helped teach Thomas Edison the skills he used to harness and transmit vast amounts of energy more than a century ago, is now officially among the leaders in reducing its use.

The East Village-based school's new building at 41 Cooper Square has become the city's first academic structure to earn the U.S. Green Building Council's highest honor: LEED Platinum certification.

The nine-story, 175,000-square-foot, full-block facility was designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Thom Mayne of Morphosis Architecture and the firm of Gruzen Samton. It is one of three academic buildings in the state to receive platinum status, and one of only 38 LEED Platinum higher education and campus projects worldwide, according to U.S. Green Building Council data.

As part of PlaNYC 2030, announced in 2006, Cooper Union became one of a handful of academic institutions to promise Mayor Michael Bloomberg to reduce its carbon footprint. Cooper Union pledged a 30% decrease by 2017. With seven years to go to that date, Cooper Union President George Campbell said his school currently exceeds that goal by 10%.

“We felt that it was our responsibility to make a building that was friendly to the environment,” said Mr. Campbell, who holds a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. “It reflected our value system.”

In addition to being good for the environment, the new building also will be good for Cooper Union's bottom line, Mr. Campbell said. For openers, he said that the school had been determined to avoid any “outrageous” costs that might be associated with producing a greener building. In the end, he said, only about $1.5 million of the $150 million total development cost of the building went toward extra green features. Those lower costs will mean shorter pay-back periods.

A comprehensive analysis of the Cooper Union's co-generation plant, for instance, showed it would pay for itself in five to seven years by yielding major reductions in energy use.

“When you become 40% more efficient, you reduce energy costs by 40%,” Mr. Campbell said.

Mario Morgado, courtesy of Cooper Union

Interior of Cooper Union, in the East Village.

The LEED ranking is based off of five measures: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. Each structure earns points based on its performance in each of these categories, with platinum-level sites “going above and beyond,” said Ashley Katz, spokeswoman for the U.S. Green Building Council.

The Cooper Union Building excelled in water quality, earning five out of five points, Ms. Katz said. It also netted 39 out of a possible 46 points in the sustainable sites, energy and atmosphere, and indoor environmental quality categories. The main weakness came in materials and resources—the Cooper Union Building got just six of 13 points.

“The rating system is designed to be holistic; it's not based on one category,” Ms. Katz said. “It's looking at the building in a variety of different ways. Some places are going to strategize based on their strengths.”

Among other green features, the building reuses water from its green roof to help fuel its low-flow plumbing devices for a total savings of more than 600,000 gallons of water per year. The deck surface of the roof has a layer of low-maintenance plantings, which acts to help in “rainwater harvesting.”

The building's most visible green feature is its semi-transparent mesh screen that coats its windows, helping to regulate temperatures during the summer and winter and minimize use of air conditioning and heating.

“We've shown that it can be done with effective design and effective use of materials,” Mr. Campbell said. “We hope that others will take heed of this and build their future buildings accordingly.”

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20101014/REAL_ESTATE/101019929

Regional Study of Green Buildings First of Its Kind to Study Post Occupancy
Results of LEED Buildings in Illinois



CHICAGO, Oct. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Illinois has been an early leader
in green building construction, currently ranking sixth in the number of
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings built, with the
City of Chicago itself having more LEED(R) certified buildings than any other
city in the country. This leadership continues with release of a report from
the U.S. Green Building Council - Chicago Chapter (USGBC - Chicago) that
provides a first look at post-occupancy performance of LEED buildings on a
local scale.

The Regional Green Building Case Study Project: a Post-Occupancy Study of LEED
Projects in Illinois report summarizes the first year of a multi-year study to
analyze the post-occupancy benefits of 25 LEED(R) certified projects in
Illinois related to: energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use,
construction and operating costs, cost of building green, health and
productivity impacts, and occupant comfort. The study was funded by the Grand
Victoria Foundation and is a collaborative endeavor between the USGBC?Chicago,
U.S. EPA Region 5, the City of Chicago, Delta Institute, and the Center for
Neighborhood Technology, which was the lead researcher for the project.

The study found that sustainability does not stop with building design and
construction. While a building may be
designed to be sustainable, it is often ongoing operational issues that affect
the amount of energy, water, and other resources it consumes. Accordingly,
ongoing performance evaluation is a key component of long-term sustainability.

"Sustainability must be integrated into ongoing operations and maintenance
practices," says Kathy Tholin, CEO of the Center for Neighborhood Technology,
whose Chicago LEED Platinum building was a part of the study. "Constructing to
LEED(R) Platinum was a natural choice given CNT's long-standing commitment to
sustainable development," explains Tholin. "But our job is far from complete.
Now that we're utilizing the space, sustainability means focusing on ongoing
operations and maintenance. We're striving for continuous improvement."

The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is the nationally accepted
benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance
green buildings. LEED provides a roadmap for measuring and documenting success
for every building type and phase of a building lifecycle.

Doug Widener, Executive Director of the U.S. Green Building Council - Chicago
Chapter emphasizes that "with an understanding of operational issues, tenant
behavior, and maintenance practices, building owners and managers can
implement ongoing changes that lead to increased building performance and
sustainability over time." Mr. Widener adds that "this report is an important
step towards achieving our mission of leading the regional transformation of
the built environment to become ecologically sustainable, profitable, and
healthy."

The report compliments the U.S. Green Building Council's recently launched
Building Performance Initiative. Beginning this fall, it will analyze energy
and other resource use data from LEED buildings and provide this data back to
building owners to allow for ongoing sustainability improvements over time. 

The study also found that resource use varies in LEED buildings. Many
participating projects performed better than conventional commercial interiors
and buildings, with projects that focused on energy conservation as a part of
their LEED strategy performing better in relation to energy use and
conservation than projects that focused on other areas of sustainability.
Given that LEED is a multifaceted system that rates a building's
sustainability on a variety of factors (including site, water efficiency,
energy efficiency, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality),
projects that focused on energy conservation performed better in this area
than projects that did not. All buildings in the first year of the study were
certified under older versions of LEED. Newer versions of the rating system
mandate, as well as incent, higher levels of energy efficiency. 

The results of occupant comfort in surveyed projects were very high,
especially related to indoor air quality and lighting. The study also found
that construction costs varied greatly, as do construction costs of
conventional buildings, and that these are largely driven by programmatic
issues. The average premium reported for building green was 3.8 percent; in
line with the national average.

For the second year of the study, 25 additional Illinois LEED projects will be
added to its sample for a total of 50. "We are excited by this initial year of
the study, but are even more excited for the second year when we will add
buildings certified under newer versions of LEED to see if these newer LEED
buildings perform better," notes Widener. "We are also collecting a second
year of data for our first year projects. It will be interesting to see if
operational changes made as a result of the study will result in improved
efficiencies in these buildings."

For the full report and case studies please visit the Chapter web site at:
www.usgbc-chicago.org.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS171154+26-Oct-2009+PRN20091026

San Francisco Chronicle

September 9, 2009

Green buildings standard seen as flawed

Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Revelations that many buildings certified as green under a broadly accepted national standard for energy savings are not performing as well as predicted recently prompted changes to the program and are forcing San Francisco officials to consider amending city rules that are tied to the older guidelines.

The certification program, called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is widely seen as the industry standard for green buildings. It uses a checklist and point system that rewards energy-efficient building designs and features such as low-flow water fixtures, bike storage, nontoxic paints and solar power.

Developers have used the stamp of approval as a way to expedite projects through city bureaucracies and charge high rents. Governments increasingly demand that new buildings adhere to the rules.

San Francisco boosted its reputation as one of the nation's most environmentally progressive cities in August 2008 when the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Gavin Newsom approved an ordinance requiring that all new large commercial buildings be LEED certified.

The legislation was based on LEED standards established several years ago and it cemented the rules in place through 2012.

Meanwhile, studies released this summer by the U.S. Green Building Council, which developed the LEED system, suggested that 25 percent of the new buildings that have been approved nationwide do not save as much energy as expected, and most do not monitor their energy use. In June, the council announced a new requirement: Owners of all newly constructed buildings must agree to provide utility bills for the first five years of operation as a condition of certification.

Some construction and energy experts are urging the council to get even stricter and make certification contingent on meeting specific energy savings.

Council representatives note a gap between energy predictions made during buildings' design phases and how much energy they consume when actually operating. Tracking energy use and making it part of the certification process is an important development in the LEED system, they say.

"LEED is about how a building is designed, but we've always understood the building's performance is really critical," said Dan Geiger, executive director of the U.S. Green Building Council's Northern California chapter. "This is evolving in the direction that it should evolve."

San Francisco officials said Tuesday the city has long followed stringent state energy codes for new construction, which has kept building energy use down even before the rules adopted last year. But LEED's recent changes mean that the city should review its own rules before they expire in 2012.

"We need to reconvene the task force that recommended the legislation and makes some revisions way before 2012," said Rich Chien, the private sector green building coordinator for the San Francisco Department of the Environment. "With the changes coming along we could be out of date and we need to address that."

Architects and other private sector experts focused on the environment say the LEED certification system has placed green building practices on the map and that it is now moving into an important phase.

"LEED has done an exceptional job of raising awareness," said architect Jennifer Devlin of the San Francisco firm EHDD. "And the U.S Green Building Council recognizes that tracking energy use is vital to the sustainable building movement."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/09/BU1A19K7LM.DTL

September 16, 2008 5:07 PM CDT

LEED: City Hall saps Seattle’s energy

by Brian Johnson Staff Writer 

A few years ago, the new Seattle City Hall offered a high-profile example of how LEED’s shining promises can turn cloudy.

The LEED-certified building was hyped as a paragon of energy and resource efficiency, an earth-friendly edifice that would make residents proud and, not incidentally, save taxpayer dollars.

But like a thirsty tourist at a Seattle brew pub, the building gulped rather than sipped energy. The city ended up with monthly energy bills $3,000 to $5,000 higher than the bills generated by its predecessor, a 1960s-era municipal hall, according to a 2005 story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

That year, Seattle City Light, the city’s electric power utility, audited City Hall. The audit found the new building consumed roughly 7,045 kilowatts of energy per day, up from 5,940 in the old municipal building, according to the newspaper.

Sandra Mallory, a green-building specialist with Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development, said the new building is getting a lot more use than the old building, which could explain why it’s using more energy.

In a spring 2008 case study, Sergei Bischak, an architect and project manager for the new Seattle City Hall, conceded energy consumption was “higher than predicted.” The study blamed the performance in part on problems with the building’s under-floor air-distribution system, including “faulty diffusers and leaks at shaft connections between zones.”

Seattle officials are reviewing a new energy study of City Hall and will release the report by the end of the year, Mallory said.

Joe Lstiburek, a licensed engineer and principal of Massachusetts-based Building Science Consulting, doesn’t buy the oft-cited excuse that the occupants are to blame for poor building performance, or that the building is being used more intensely.

“That tells me that the buildings are a dog,” he said. “It’s not like we don’t know how to do them right. Less windows, more insulation. It’s easy.”

The Seattle City Hall’s exterior walls are 50 percent windows.

David Eijadi, a principal with the Weidt Group, a Minnetonka, Minn.-based firm that provides energy and design assistance for high-performance buildings, said comparing the new Seattle City Hall with the building it replaced is not fair.

The new building operates under an “entirely different scenario” with “different expectations about thermal comfort ratings,” Eijadi said.

The bottom line is LEED officials are “trying to find out what is working and what is not,” he said. And at least with LEED, “There is something to check. Without LEED, we would have no metric to check. So it’s still good news.”

http://www.finance-commerce.com/article.cfm/2008/09/17/LEED-City-Hall-saps-Seattles-energy

The Bad News About Green Architecture

Sustainable buildings are virtuous, but they can be ugly. Only a few designs are truly great.

By Cathleen McGuigan | NEWSWEEK

Published Sep 6, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Sep 15, 2008 

I hate green architecture. I can't stand the hype, the marketing claims, the smug lists of green features that supposedly transform a garden-variety new building into a structure fit for Eden. Grassy roofs? Swell! Recycled gray water to flush the toilets? Excellent! But if 500 employees have to drive 40 miles a day to work in the place—well, how green is that? Achieving real sustainability is much more complicated than the publicity suggests. And that media roar is only getting louder. The urge to build green is exploding: more than 16,000 projects are now registered with the U.S. Green Building Council as intending to go for a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)—or sustainable—certification, up from just 573 in 2000.

Among those are various plans to build at least 50 million square feet of new green resorts in Las Vegas, where ecoconsciousness is suddenly as hot as Texas Hold 'Em. The largest LEED-rated building in the country is the 8.3 million-square-foot Palazzo Resort Hotel and Casino, which opened there last January. As it happens, the state of Nevada offers developers property-tax rebates—up to 35 percent—for LEED certification. Don't worry about the tons of jet fuel that will be used to deliver millions more tourists to Vegas each year—those visitors can help make up for that by reusing the towels in their hotels.

When it comes to green, people don't want to hear that size matters. We keep building not just bigger entertainment complexes but bigger houses. "Green McMansion" is one of my favorite oxymorons. Currently the average new house is 2,500 square feet, up 1.5 percent in size from last year—though the shock of this winter's fuel bills may finally slow the trend. Building green houses—or at least advertising them as green—is on the rise, though there are no national standards about what constitutes a green home. People are attracted to sustainable houses partly as a cool novelty, when in fact green dwellings have been around for eons. Think of igloos, tepees or yurts—they took advantage of readily available local materials and were designed to suit their specific environments. Shelters around the world tend to be situated to benefit from the sun in the winter or to shield their inhabitants from chilling winds. But we forgot those basic principles when we plunked down every possible style of house into our sprawling American suburbs.

If you want to understand what makes sustainable sense, check out the classic old shotgun houses of New Orleans that best survived Katrina (and just got a pass from Gustav): these modest homes are built high off the ground to resist flood damage; they are made of local wood that dries out; they have high ceilings and cross ventilation to deal with the stifling summer heat. But the houses that were ruined—whether in the Lower Ninth Ward or more-affluent neighborhoods—tended to be low-slung ranch houses, a style originally developed for the climate of California.

What bugs me most about the fad for green architecture is the notion that virtue makes for better design. OK, I suppose an ugly green building is better than an ugly nongreen building—but it's still ugly. So when I come upon a beautiful sustainable building that doesn't scream green, it cheers me up. TheCalifornia Academy of Sciences, opening later this month in San Francisco, is a perfect example. It replaces the old science museum that was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Its design is sensitive to its place and history: the new building doesn't gobble up more space on its spectacular site inGolden Gate Park, and its architect, Renzo Piano, was careful to go no higher—36 feet—than the original structure. The most obvious ecofeature of his elegantly simple glass-sided pavilion is the green roof: a rolling 2.5-acre terrain, inspired in part by the surrounding hills, it cleverly disguises, under its two biggest bumps, the domes of the planetarium and of the rainforest exhibit underneath. The roof is planted with 40 native species (unlike Golden Gate Park itself, which was created out of a sand pit and includes such glamorous nonnatives as palm trees). The plants are kind of low and scrubby—though they bloom at various times—but they were chosen less for prettiness than hardiness, and the fact that they won't need irrigation.

There are lots of examples of innovative green technology in the building, but perhaps the most surprising is in the museum's offices where, says the executive director, Gregory Farrington, you can see hardware that's rare in today's buildings: handles to open the windows. That's because, amazingly, there's no artificial cool air. The only air conditioning is provided free of charge by the breezes that blow off the Pacific—including those that are naturally pulled down by that curvy roof into a lovely open piazza at the center of the museum. "It's a building that breathes with nature," says Piano. And all the gizmos that make this building even greener—the weather sensors that dim or brighten the artificial lights; the thousands of little solar cells tucked into the roof overhangs; the old denim jeans recycled as insulation—are so carefully integrated into the overall architecture that you hardly notice them. Of course, the green features will be explained in the museum's education programs—each year, 50,000 San Francisco schoolkids will visit its aquarium, alligator pool and other exhibits of the living and the dead. But personally, I like that Piano's trademark gifts for inventive design and great craftsmanship seem to make the sustainable elements disappear. "Making green buildings is a practical answer," he says in the accent of his native Italy. "But architecture is about desire; it's about dreams."

Spoken like a true romantic, but the point is right-on: sustainability is about the practical systems of building, not the beauty of great design. Established architects like Piano—he's 71—have learned to integrate green into their practices, depending on where they're working (the rules are strict in many countries of Europe, where Piano is based). But for the next generation of architects, sustainability will be second nature—they're learning in architecture schools how to incorporate green into design, and some of them will become the innovators who'll devise ever more efficient ecological solutions. And the U.S. Green Building Council is continuing to evolve its suggested standards: access to mass transit, rather than the necessity of cars, gets credit, as does adapting to a specific climate—a principle central to the sustainability of the California Academy of Sciences. It's expected to score a LEED platinum rating, making it the greenest museum in the United States. But I wish we didn't have to trumpet that achievement in the same breath as praising its design. I look forward to a future when green architecture won't be discretionary but required of every architect and builder. Then we could all shut up about it. Sustainable features would become as exciting as the plumbing systems and as essential as a roof that keeps out the rain

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157576