Green building has had its ups and downs lately. Many professionals complain about the USGBC’s LEED standards, ranging from it’s too expensive and difficult to get certification to it does not truly result in sustainability. The number of projects in the LEED pipeline has reportedly stagnated lately. Some have talked about putting out new competing standards or simpler ones that will gain interest from more building owners.
But green building and LEED are here – at least for now. Here are some trends that have been reported to occur in 2011 and likely to continue into 2012.
1. The Economy – With the real estate industry and new building construction still stagnant, the focus of green building has shifted to the greening of existing buildings. Owners of existing buildings believe that there is “more bang for the buck” of upgrades to meet LEED requirements with a payback in terms of raising revenues (rents) and property values.
2. Recognition of water issues. Given the growth in extreme weather events in the last few years, there is growing awareness of the issue of flooding and stormwater control, which can be addressed by green roofs and rainwater recovery systems. In some parts of the U.S., there is a growing fear of water shortages. Therefore, water conservation technologies will grow in popularity.
3. Outdoing conventional energy savings. To make a splash and to respond to rising energy prices, more building owners are considering alternative energy, not just wind turbines and solar cells, but geothermal and aquifer air temperature control systems, too. If appropriate, designed right and with the right incentives (government and utility), such a technology can reduce energy bills substantially, a major cost for tenants and make the “green” buildings very competitive.
4. Performance, not design. Given the investment in smart technologies and design, it is important to demonstrate that these systems actually work in real time as advertised and designed. It is not enough to just purchase an advanced technology. Commissioning and other testing is needed and insisted on to demonstrate that it is actually performing as assumed. The USGBC and other entities are waking up to the need for continual superior performance.
5. Government buildings – Governments are becoming one of the biggest segments for green buildings, ranging from the US Army in Afghanistan to the federal government making a bona fide effort to build new or refurbish to LEED standards, as practical, to a growing number of school systems retrofitting “green” for the health and well being of students and teachers. A growing number of local government policies mandate “green” initiatives in new govt buildings.
CCES and our experts can help your company assess the worthiness of potential green building projects for your existing and new buildings with a proper gaps analysis.

November 30, 2010

There is much talk recently about “green” buildings. Many diverse interests from CEOs to governors and banks to customers are interested. What is a “green” building, what are its benefits, and how does one determine if this is real or not? Could your existing buildings already be “green” or meet standards at a reasonable cost with a good ROI?

There are now accepted standards for a “green” building. The US Green Business Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is the most popular system for validating a “green” or – for those not comfortable with that term – “high performing” building. The program has been in place for over a decade with thousands of LEED-certified buildings now in operation. According to the USGBC, LEED-certified buildings use, on average, 30% less energy, 30-50% less water, create 50-90% less waste, reduce employee sick time, and increase productivity compared to non-LEED-certified buildings. While incorporating such “green” features costs extra, that initial extra cost is shrinking as such know-how is becoming more common. In many places, government and other sources of funds are available to defray some of these costs. ROI, the time it takes to make back that initial investment, is shrinking, too.

If you are interested in examining whether your existing buildings can benefit from being “green”, the first thing to do is a gaps analysis to determine the building’s status. If your buildings were well constructed, they may already meet LEED standards. Have a professional assess your buildings against the LEED-EBOM standards and see how many points they have. Such an analysis can also present options for you to assess to obtain the points you need to reach your desired level. You can choose which options are most feasible, affordable, or present the most long-term benefits.

An interesting example is the United Nation’s headquarters campus in New York City, which was built in the late 1940’s and remained virtually unchanged since then. Old design and equipment aging led the complex to be very energy inefficient. The UN’s $1.5 billion Capital Master Plan (CMP) renovation used a group of architectural firms to design the renovation, However, they did not address green design and energy efficiency. I was fortunate enough to manage a great group of diverse professionals who reviewed the initial design and did an assessment of potential “green” upgrades. Our project team recommended about 20 potential design and operational changes to enhance building performance, including sensors to turn off lights and other equipment when not in use; mini wind turbines and solar PV cells; low water consumption fixtures; rain harvesting from the roof for non-potable uses; more daylighting; use of low VOC, recyclable construction materials; energy recovery using heat exchange; converting wastes to biofuels; and several others. The UN CMP incorporated nearly all of these suggestions into the final design to become a high performing renovation.

You can learn more about green buildings and how an assessment of how to upgrade the performance of your building can benefit you by contacting Marc Karell of CCES at 914-584-6720 or at Karell@ccesworld.com. Our website is www.ccesworld.com.

August 8, 2010

There is growing interest in the USGBC’s LEED program. Though criticized, this is an accepted, concrete (no pun intended) program that defines “green” building. Some companies who are cool to climate change (another pun, there!) or sustainability programs have embraced LEED for several reasons. First, it requires outside body certification. One accumulates points until a desired level is reached. If improvements implemented meet USGBC approval, then the building is LEED-certified, no ifs, ands, buts, or accusations of greenwashing. LEED is also called “high performing” building standards for good reason. LEED-certified buildings have lower costs, healthier indoor air, and other advantages with real financial benefits over non-LEED buildings.

So why isn’t everyone doing it? Well, initial investment costs turn firms off, although my recent blog shows that the gap between standard and “green” alternatives is narrowing, plus growing government incentive programs. The other problem is the perception that it is easier to design “green” features into a new building than to make “green” an existing building. While usually true, the reality is that in this economy there will be an excess of available existing buildings, and it makes greater economic sense to re-use them.

Opportunities to improve performance exist. Most pre-existing buildings are less than ideal because they were designed before LEED existed and developers often did not look to include the latest knowledge concerning lighting, energy efficiency, air quality, etc. LEED has a specific standard for Existing Buildings (“EBOM”). Converting an existing building to meet LEED-EBOM standards involves not only its physical structure and operating systems, but also on-going, day-to-day operating procedures and recordkeeping.

So how do you start? Do a “gaps” analysis of your existing building. It’s possible that your building already meets LEED-EBOM standards with no or few changes. If so, you can quickly certify and reap LEED benefits soon. A good gaps analysis will tell you how many LEED-EBOM points you probably already have, how far away you are from achieving a LEED level (Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum), and the most cost-effective steps (those with best ROI) to take to gain the points needed to reach the desired LEED level. A good gaps analysis would present you with extra options to allow you to choose which options you would like to pursue or disregard and still meet the LEED standard.

A “gaps” analysis is a good cost-effective method to determine where your existing building currently stands in terms of LEED and high performance, and gives you an effective road map of options to choose from to improve building performance to your desired level.

Marc Karell, President of Climate Change & Environmental Services, knows all about gaps analyses. He managed the gaps analysis of a “little” project, the greening of the design of the refurbishment of United Nations Headquarters in New York City. He led the team that suggested about 20 options to improve performance; the UN included nearly all of them.

Environmental News for YouTM July 2010

It goes without saying that when developing “green” strategies for a company the first thing that’s asked is “So, what’s this going to cost us?” The assumption is that green strategies – to save energy, to reduce GHG emissions, to reduce water use and waste generation – will always come at a premium, with greater upfront costs compared to traditional (non-green) approaches. While most people and companies understand that green strategies ultimately save money in the long term (reduced energy and water costs, carbon credits), many of these ROIs are out a few years. Our culture has changed to ignore even prudent investments in long term gains as pressure mounts for short ROIs. For example, several senior staffers at municipalities have told me that no project would ever be approved in their municipalities if the payback is realized after the current term of the mayor! And, of course, there is pressure from company boards, shareholders, and others for quick paybacks!

Fortunately, as research and experience grows and green strategies are implemented, the upfront costs of more and more green strategies are declining compared to conventional alternatives. And now in the area of buildings, some green building strategies have now been established to be less expensive upfront than the conventional alternative, while still providing the longer term benefits.

Of course, potential cost savings will depend on a number of variables for each individual project. Bob Faulhaber, “The Green Civil Engineer”, has written about some recent case studies that he is involved in showing that the upfront costs of “green” alternatives can be cheaper than conventional approaches. Here are a few examples. Remember, these may not apply exactly for every situation.

Bob developed a cost estimate comparison for a commercial stormwater management project: a parking lot with distributed rain gardens vs. traditional catch basins and a detention pond. Approximate costs and assumptions were made. The cost of rain gardens for the parking lot is cheaper than traditional lot drainage.

One more example also involves parking lots – pervious surface vs traditional. The data for this cost comparison is drawn from a small parking lot project. The options included underground detention in the form of pipe or chambers or using pervious pavement and stone base for storage. The proposed parking lot built with pervious pavement and underground water storage was significantly less expensive than an impervious parking lot with traditional rain drainage.

The key is the big picture – verify systemwide costs, not focus on individual project portions.

There is also growing evidence that companies that commit to “going green” receive business benefits beyond the traditional ones of reduction in energy costs and reputational enhancement. D&W Inc., a company that supplies glass and mirrors, recently published the story of their green program. This is their words, but they have evidence that their program not only directly saved them money, but also reduced their regulatory profile and increased operational efficiencies. For example, based on some process changes to improve efficiency and reductions in the VOC content of their coatings, they were able to transition to a lower air permit level, reducing annual regulatory costs, red tape, and need for costly audits. In addition, the program simplified operations to enable easier cleanup at the end of the day, saving them labor costs and improving product quality.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
——————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide general ideas on how to implement effective “green” program strategies. You should evaluate these thoroughly before implementing. CCES experts have the experience to assist you in helping to organize, strategize, and implement a “green” program and properly evaluate potential strategies for their economic and environmental benefits.