HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreen Sustainability
~~
l67 ~~1?i(
~v-~ can a~
-C~2~tr~ ~-- ~~n.-wt~-~-ct~S -rte 1~~~ ~~
L~ t~C. - 1.,~~- ~ u~ car~s-hrLw~
~-4_SC17zS
Q~ruvn. -ra
~ Cbusn
1 ~t-•
~a
can-- up'r-mss )
Gyt~ It 1: Sl~~c~~-nuJ t ~ ~~-~-t~-~2~ = )
e. 2 : ~• t~ras ~ ~ cx~ as1Z1vE ~
~~ ~ ~ ~- ~~~ut ~~co ~ cwt~a~-
C'~2~c01T 3 •. r~dic~t,c ~~%cv~ 1~u. (~,o ~~~"~~•cl ~'°~
~~12~,A it ~.~ = ~Y3UlC, 7i2.A~lS. ~u-~iS5 ~1~1C~ l ~~c~-~'r~}{~~>
e~o~r ~-I.3 : 1~.~ ~-vtts . v~t~E,uks ~it~o ~ ~T,
cn~ ~~ ~c (_~to iwn,p~4et-
`:~-_ - __
I -ra D~r~,rt~ ~r~/~~u~ ~w~p~,~,~vs '~tAv~ ~ o
`i- ~-O~V • D~SGk4+A~QC~ ~.~c'T._ ~.~Awv~~~Gr k+ir~- l~t-
P~ ~~
-~sr--cam . ~ ~._ tb,gc~n a., v`~,T~.~O
~j rte- r~ Zra°l~ L~
~`r ~~ 2 •_ P~~u .1•rtit cot.l-nnn~ ~ ~trirc~7~.rdl. ~ 2T~s ~
~ ~..1 : ~T Isl.vt,,tb - ~-sou ~ C7.10 tw-ro-c~-l-rt},r~~c-
!~ !%~L~'L7h_ ~-Z : ~T 15tlR~S~ `~ ~1~0 IW~~Q~- •J
~nn,4-r~,c~a ~s ~ ~ ys+~
;v1,~~s~
G~t"cc!> lT '•~, .1 ~M~Arf~tlt c w ~ ,(~~V S~ L~'%~ ~~~~ ~`~- ~`~'~~~
-t~,, ,
~. . ~~ T ~ ~
~ ~~.' ~~ ~ ~- ~ • ~ _ ~-C c~~~O,L d~4--c32c~res ~~ ° %~ ~ ~a~~a~- d 7 a~'i~
~ ~ ~' ~ ~
A~ ~s ~ .
~:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26 2008
Contact: Greg Hall, 479-2160
Public Works Director
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO REVIEW PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WINTER SEASON DURING JULY 1 MEETING
(Vail)-A recommendation that would add as many as _ parking spaces to Vail's
current inventory of public spaces will be presented to the Vail Town Council at its
regular evening meeting on July 1. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the Vail Town
Council Chambers with opportunities for public review and comment.
Tuesday's discussion also includes recommendations by the Vail Parking Task Force for
additional mass transit options. The seven-member group has been assigned by the
Town Council to work with Vail Resorts, Inc., in developing options to address potential
parking impacts related to the new Epic Season Pass which was announced in March.
The pass will offer unlimited and unrestricted use for the 2008-09 ski and snowboard
season at Vail and VRI's other resorts.
The goal of the task force has been to identify expanded parking options and additional
transportation management strategies to limit the number of overflow parking days on
the frontage roads in Vail to days during the upcoming winter season.
Recommended parking space additions to be reviewed Tuesday by the Town Council
include:
• Temporary use of the town-owned Chamonix property in West Vail, 186 spaces,
requires a conditional use permit from the town.
• Use of the west side of the North Frontage Road, Wendy's to Chamonix, 35-60
spaces, requires approval by the Colorado Department of Transportation.
• Limited use of Donovan Park when the pavilion isn't in use, 70 to 90 spaces.
• Park and ride TBD in Avon, 100 spaces.
• .Park and ride weekends at Battle Mountain High School, 100 spaces.
• Park and ride at U.S. Forest Service lot in Minturn, 50-75 spaces.
In addition, the Parking Task Force is recommending increases in mass transit to service
the park and ride lots as well as increased bus service to accommodate the suggested
expansion of parking in West Vail. Also, six designated bus stops are recommended to
be added along the South Frontage Road during peak times. Introduction of a privately-
managed van pool service for commuters is in the works, as well as a recommendation
to allow private parking lots to be used for peak period public parking.
Recent modifications to Vail's summer parking operations also will be reviewed by the
Town Council, which includes a pilot program to provide access to 226 parking spaces
on the top deck of the Vail Village parking structure beginning at 10 a.m. daily to
accommodate requests for close-in parking for shoppers and diners.
Public comments may be forwarded to the Town Council in advance of Tuesday's
parking discussion by contacting the council's voice mail at 479-1860, ext. 8, or a-mail
towncouncil(c~vailgov.com.
Recommendations on winter parking rates will be reviewed by the Town Council at a
future meeting.
The Vail Parking Task Force was formed in 1999 and is convened as needed to forward
recommendations to the Town Council regarding parking policies and related strategies.
Members are: Chairman Farrow Hitt, Town Council representative; Kevin Foley, Town
Council representative; Anne Fitz, business representative; Dan Telleen, business
representative; Chris Jarnot, Vail Resorts representative and Brian McCartney, Vail
Resorts representative.
# # #
P' ,. _ /
., ~ ~ ~ ~
V+
~:
ur ~ ~ ,' `~ ~ ~ ~`' ,, ~ ~~' ~~~ `tea ~ ,`~~~ ~~ ~ = D
\~ T
~,,~~ . ~. ~~ ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ `~ \ ~~ ~ ~~~ '`~ ~ \. `. ~., ~~ ~~ ~~ cam' ~
1 1~ ~ ~ "
,,,
o~~pr ? I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~i ~ ,' ~ --;1 ~ __ ~I ~~~ 1 ; 1 ~~' 11
~ ~ t 1
,~ _ _~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ i~ - --, . ~ a ~ ~ ~ _
5~ m '~ ~~, ~~~ - ,1 ~- - 1 -
a I -~"f-
~ \r ~ __ ~ 1 ~ --- I ) 1; 1 1 1
y 1 1 ~ _:~ ~~- ~ 1 _ ~1~>
p I _.--
'~ ~ ---- I ~- ~ ~ ~_- ~~ 1 I ~I ~' ..--
~ '1 ~ ~wl ~ ~ ~ 1 Li ~ ~
',, 1 Irr ! ~ czco~
rn ~ _ ~~ o
t 1 1 ~~ ~~ ~- ~____-r_ i \ 1 ~ I I 1 a s
I
r _ 1 ~ -
,o
.--~" 1 w
` t 1
' ~ _
\ ~y \ ~ ~ ~ 1
~--` ,'
I 1
y~ . ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~1~
ii -a 1 \ ' ~~ ~ 1,,, 1
~ w n rv o ~ -~ c~ 1 1 ~ I 1 - ~ ~--~ 1 , ~ I -
Z ~ ~ ° o m ~ i ', ~ ~ ~ X111 --~ ~/ --- ~ ~-= _ - I ~ ~ ~1 _ _-_ ~
_ j
~ D Z D ~ D U) ~ I, ° ~ r.- ~ I ~ 1 tip! - 11; ~__ I ~ i ± -:~ y
'DZAZOmmZ ~ 1 X I ~~( 11 = f~ I /~ f Ql
DOrO~mZO Q w1 1 m`~ t 1, ;-- -~ ~~ ~~ y/
ZU1 ~~~Z ~ RI ~ 1 1 °1^,,n y ~ 1
cnm ZZD D ~~ {~ r ~ 11 - ~ 1
r co O cn ~ ~ ~ G ~ 11W CX~ ~ ~~.5~ 1 ~ ' ! ~ ~ 4 '" ~
j- moo,, O 1 O_ I I ~. ~ ~~y ~
~ Z D W C. ~ 1~ _ 1 j ~ I~ 1____'__ 1
' ' C ~ ~ ~ II,O ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ' 11
~_ ~ =r It~ ~ , ~ 1 ' , 11 H 11 O
~ O ~ -~-~ 1
~- ~ IIIIIIIIII ~ ~ J ~ 13 ~ t ~ ;, ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ 1, ~ .__-- 1
Imo ~ ~
~~IZ n ~-r Asa \ ~ ~~ I ~' ~~
~a~l II III ~ ~^ ~~ ~~\ ~' ~\ \ a \` ~ ~ 11
O N O O
M/
~ I~~~I J 1111111 I IIIIIIIIII I ~ ~ \ \ \ ( -„ „_~n '~ 'N ~ ~7 1
I ff I
P:
~. `~.:
\ \ ~ O
~~~ D
~ > s1 \ \ ~ ~ ~ /~
\ ,~~~`~~ I \ tit °, \ ,.` \ \ ~ ~ `0 ~<m\ ~ 9 ~ y
~ ~~ ' ~ ~
Q W .-
1 i
~ ~,, ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l,~ ~~, --'
'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i i 1
~~ g
:°~ ~ ~ ~
. ,
~;~~~' w
; ~~
~,(~
`+' y~4bM
~~~ c y -
~ f
~~ ~,
~o~q
~ ,~ -~~
ti_
.
;~ - --
~
~
~, ,:~ .
~~ s:~{{
'~E~N
_
-~
/ ~A ~ --
,
,, T a
` 'tf;
n
~; ~ ~
\ `
~\, ~.
A ~
~~
~ O
a ~y
rn
r
~: ~ _ _ = ~
~ cJl ;,~ ~ f_- 1, _ ---- 1
~ --
o ~ ~~ , ____- --- ~ ~
~--
-- I ~ ) ~ 1 II ~
t _~-
~ ,1 l ~~o ~~ 1 -' ~ --- ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 111 - -
I ~ 7 '~_ _ ~~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1'>
i l
1 ~ \~"~ I J~ ~ 1 ' , ~ Wit' ~ c G,y
I \ ~ , ,i ~ Ir,- ~ 1 ~~o
' , ~ r , -- ~ ~ II ~N , ~o
~~ `'~ `~
f o I ~ ~ ~, ~ ' I~ III ~ ~~o ~~
,•`" _
~ ~ 1
1 1 ~--'~~ \ 1 1
\\ JI I
I I ~ N 3'
_ ~
o ~ 1~,_ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ -mss ' _ --f~~ - \ \ , ` I~
~c~or~oo-'r~i ~ 11 ~ I l ~ '1~1~I' _ II --~ 1, `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `_-
r ~/
NN N~m~ ~ ~-~ Vr~ ~ ! N 1 ~(~~ 1 ~ I I I I i I/ ~t' ~l
zr `
= on~ _ ~ 1
O ~ D O D D O D ~ ~ III I~ ~_-- 1,' ~ I ~ /~ '.) \\-
,` I ~~
~ o vii ~ o ~ Iw ~ I ~~~~ ~ 1 I I j y ~
c_r~ I N ~ I, 1
r- ~ 1'` ~ ~ ti ~ ~ w I ~ni ~ ~ I / -- I ~' I t:~)II N 1 I
' ~ I
_ ~ ~` ' l 1 ;~ II
O ~ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ ~ I ~ \II 1 ~
~ ~ \ "~ 1 ' 1
~III~ m , 1 r~
o D IIII IIII ~ s ' ~.. `~ ~ ~ \ ~, ~, 1 \~ \ o~" ~ X11
~ ~
n N I D y ~~ \ ~ ` 'i1
°~~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ u' ~ --- .___ }`mss 1 ~"'_ ~ ~,\, ~ 1~ 11
N ^ m I i O O "y~ ~ ~ C~1 \'}"-'n7 ,...._ -3 ~ ,, ~ ~t ...C),C~~, j/ N ~~ 1\
° ~III~ ~ I II II I I I \ "~~ \ ~ ~ ,\ \ \ \ / '~ ~ " --'--n.: _~n~'"" 1 jY y 1 Y ..--'..
E. ~:~!
ca
-_
ry __
~,. ~ I t B~~• q
4 J 2g`
\~ II ''
4 Ij. ,.
~ ~
~ "
:.~..~ ~ y
a. a
fi,_x _`t
~t~ t
~~~}
-~'/
d
it
dr~t~ ~~
--
,'`_ ,~ ,
~', ~y~
~ _ ~
rein ui in C sts >n in~n~ial ~n+~its
by Gregory H. Kats
Sponsors
Barr Foundation
Environmental Business Council of New England, Inc.
Equity Office Properties
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Massport
In co-operation with
The City of Boston Green Buildings Task Force
Greater Boston Real Estate Board
Boston Society of Architects
Western Massachusetts AIA
Green Roundtable & Developers Roundtable
Northeast Sustainable Energy Association
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Real Estate Finance Association
Health Care without Harm
Springfield Chamber of Commerce
New Ecology Inc.
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the state's development agency for renewable
energy and the innovation economy. The agency administers the Renewable Energy Trust,
which is maximizing the benefits of clean energy and helping to create jobs for the
Commonwealth by stimulating new supply and demand for green power. The Trust was
created in 1998 through the electric restructuring law and is funded through a monthly
surcharge on electric utility bills. For more information, please visit the agency's website
www.masstech.org.
Captions for cover photos (top to bottom)
The J. F. Williams Federal Building in Boston includes 3o kW of solar photovoltaics and a 7S kW cogeneration system. Through an MTC
grant, a data acquisition system has been installed at the site to monitor the production and savings of these systems.
Artists for Humanity is building a new facility in the Fort Point Channel district of Boston to house its arts education programs. The building
has been designed to reduce energy use by G5% and to include significant daylighting and other green building features. Up to ioo% of
remaining energy needs will be met by the installation of 45 kW of solar photovoltaics funded by MTC.
In its redevelopment of an historic mill building as a mixed-use once and commercial facility, Alternatives Unlimited has focused on the
design of green building and energy e~ciency features that will best meet occupant needs. The capstone of this project will be the restoration
of a hydropower system in Whitinsville's Mumford River adjacent to the mill to provide the facility's electricity.
Published in USA for Massachusetts Technology Collaborative U Copyright zoo3
GREEN l~tllLCliNG Cos~rs ar~l~ FINaNCIaz B~n~~~l~rs
~ rf'r~ ~eci~'.5, ~.c~~}11:d~
Iwr~c~ra~~cTlc~r~
Massachusetts is a leading state in the rapidly
growing green building movement. Buildings
consume 70% of the nation's electricity and a
large part of the materials, water and waste used
and generated in our economy. Buildings have
traditionally been viewed as a relatively static
sector of the economy experiencing relatively
little change in technology or resource
consumption patterns. To date there has been a
widespread perception that green buildings-
though more attractive from an environmental
and health perspective-are substantially more
costly than conventional design and may not be
justified from a cost benefits perspective. This
perception has been the single largest obstacle to
the more widespread adoption of green design.
This paper reviews a major recent report on the
issue of green building costs benefits, "The Costs
and Benefits of Green Buildings," Kats' et al.,
October 2003 z (the Report). Led by Capital E,
the Report was prepared in partnership with the
US Green Building Council and California's
Sustainable Building Task Force for 40+ California
state agencies.
Wl~al ~,~~ c~z~r~~; aul~uiwcs~
"Green" or "sustainable" buildings use key
resources tike energy, water, materials, and land
more efficiently than buildings that are just built
to code. With. more natural light and better air
quality, green buildings typically contribute to
improved employee and student health, comfort,
and productivity. The United States Green
Building Council (USGBC), a national non-profit
membership organization, developed the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) SystemT" to provide a guideline and rating
system for green buildings.
It is generally recognized that buildings consume
a large portion of water, wood, energy, and other
resources used in the economy. For example, US
buildings alone are responsible for more COz.
emissions than those of any other entire country
in the world except China.' If building green is
cost effective, a broad shift to green construction
offers a potentially promising way to help address
a range of challenges facing Massachusetts,
including:
Address growing costs of transmission and
distribution congestion. The growth of
Time of Use rates (TOU) by Massachusetts
utilities, and the creation of congestion
pricing in the form of locational marginal
pricing `allows building owners to capture
some of the benefits associated with lower
overall and tower peak energy use in green
buildings
1 The author is founding Principal of Capital E, a national clean technology deployment and strategy firm. Mr. Kats served from 1996 to 2001as the
Director of Financing for the 81.1 billion dollar Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the US Department of Energy -the largest clears
technology R&D and deployment program in the US. He is Chair of the Energy And Atmosphere Technical Advisory Group for LEED and serves on the
LEED Steering Committee.
2 "The Costs and Benefits of Green Buildings', A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Farce, October 20003. Principal author Greg Kats,
For full text and summary slides see www.cap-e.com
3 Kinzey et aL, "The Federal Buildings Research and Development Program: A Sharp Toot for Climate Policy," 2002 ACEEE proceedings, Section 9.21.
4 see: http://www.iso-ne.com/iso_news/SMD_Reference_Guide/02_Locational_Marginat_Pricing_(LMP).pdf
The Woods Hole Research Center received a total of $Soo, o0o in MTC
awards to install ~6.q kW of solar photovoltaics and a ioo kW wind turbine
at the site of its new headquarters. Combined with innovative energy
e~ciency measures and high-performance design, these renewables will help
Woods Hole achieve its goal of a "Zero Energy" facility, producing more
energy than it consumes. Pictured here, the Ordway Building.
a Reduce or stow rise in electricity and gas
prices through expanded green
construction and building retrofits and
reduced energy demand 5
Help cut pollution from fossil fuels
(Massachusetts fuel mix includes 28°lo coal
as of 1999 - US DOE) including fine
particulates in urban areas
^ Help Massachusetts meet EPA mandated
emissions reductions targets
Improve quality of educational environment
and improve school test scores
Enhance competitiveness by providing work
and living environments characterized by
superior health and comfort and work
environments
The cost of green design has dropped in the last
few years as the number of green buildings has
risen. The trend of declining costs associated
with increased experience in green building
construction has been experienced in
Pennsylvania, as well as in Portland and Seattle.
Portland's three reported and completed LEED
Silver buildings were finished in 1995, 1997, and
2000. They incurred cost premiums of 2%, 1%
and 0% respectively. Seattle has seen the cost of
LEED Silver buildings drop from 3-4% several
years ago to 1-2% today.
Figure 1
Average Green Cost Premium vs. Level of Green Certification
for Offices and Schools
7.00%
N c~ti~ nn u c rs M c~ ~ E l~<>
GREEN EStJILE7iNGS Cf75T~
Green buildings are commonly perceived to be a
lot more expensive than conventional buildings
and often not worth the extra cost. For example,
an early 2003 article in the New York Times was
entitled "Not Building Green Is Called a Matter of
Economics."
In order to determine the cost of building green
compared to conventional design, several dozen
building representatives and architects were
contacted to secure the cost of 33 green
buildings from across the United States compared
to conventional designs for those same buildings.
The average premium for these green buildings is
slightly less than 2%, or $3-5/ft', substantially
lower than is commonly perceived (See Figure 1).
The majority of this cost is due to the increased
architectural and engineering (A&E) design time,
modeling costs and time necessary to integrate
sustainable building practices into projects.
Generally, the earlier green building features are
incorporated into the design process, the tower
the cost.
6.00%
E
a 5.00%
d~
..
~° ~ 4.00%
a
~ 6
~ C
a `" 3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Source: USGBC, Capital E Analysis
C.,REEN E3iJit~C"IN(,S FINANC~I~C EIENEFiTS
Green Buildings provide financial benefits that
conventional buildings do not. These benefits
include energy and water savings, reduced waste,
improved indoor environmental quality, greater
employee comfort/productivity, reduced employee
health costs and lower operations and
maintenance costs. This paper will focus on two
of these benefits: lower energy costs, and health
and productivity benefits.
5 See for example, "Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas Markets", Elliott et at., ACEEE, Sept, 2003. See;
http://aceee.org
3
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Certified Silver Gold Platinum
(8 bldgs) (18 bldgs) (6 bldgs) (1 bldg)
Energy
Energy is a substantial and widely recognized
cost of building operations that can be reduced
through energy efficiency and related measures
that are part of green building design. The
average annual cost of energy in Massachusetts
buildings is approximately $2.00/ftz. On average,
green buildings use 30°/0 less energy than
conventional buildings-a reduction, for a
100,000 ft2 state office building, worth $60,000
per year, with a 20-year present value of
expected energy savings at a 5% real discount
rate worth about three quarters of a million
dollars.
A detailed review of 60 LEED rated buildings,
demonstrates that green buildings, when
compared to conventional buildings, are:
On average 25-30% more energy efficient
Characterized by even lower electricity
peak consumption
^ More Likely to generate renewable energy
on-site
More Likely to purchase grid power
generated from renewable energy sources
(green power and/or tradable renewable
certificates)
Figure 2
Reduced Energy Use in Green Buildings as Compared with Conventional Buildings
Certified Sii~;,r GoEd Rverage
..,~iency (abave standard code) 1B'?~a " ~ 28~r~
On-Site Renewable Energy 0% 0°io 4% 2%
Gz__:.i rawer 1G°ro D", 7Sz, ~'?'~
Total 28% 30% 48% 36%
Source: USGBC, Capital E Analysis
Green building energy savings primarily come
from reduced electricity purchases and
secondarily from reduced peak energy demand.
On average, green buildings are 28% more
efficient than conventional buildings and
generate 2% of their power on-site from
photovoltaics (PV). (See Figure 2.) The financial
benefits of 30% reduced consumption at an
electricity price of $0.08/kWh are about
$0.30/ftZ/yr, with a 20-year NPV of over $5/ftt,
equal to or more than the average additional cost
associated with building green.
The environmental and health costs associated
with air pollution caused by non-renewable
electric power generation and on-site fossil fuel
use are generally externalized (not considered)
when making investment decisions. The larger
Report this paper draws from quantifies two of
these benefits: the value of peak power reduction
and the value of emissions reductions associated
with the energy strategies integrated into green
building design. The Report calculates these
additional financial benefits are equal to about
one third of that provided by energy savings
alone.
4
The Genzyme Corporation's recently completed once in
Cambridge is a world-class example of green building
construction, including advanced daylighting and thermal
technologies. In addition to a photovoltaic installation
funded by MTC, one of the most prominent features is a
combined heliostat and reflective panel system designed
to channel daylight deep into the 8-story building.
Productivity and health
There is growing recognition of the large health
and productivity costs imposed by poor indoor
environmental quality (IEO) in commercial
buildings-estimated variously at up to hundreds
of billions of dollars per year. This is not
surprising as people spend 90% of their time
indoors, and the concentration of pollutants
indoors is typically higher than outdoors,
sometimes by as much as 10 or even 100 times.b
The relationship between worker comfort/pro-
ductivity and building design/operation is com-
plicated. There are thousands of studies,
reports and articles on the subject that find sig-
nificantly reduced illness symptoms, reduced
absenteeism and increases in perceived produc-
tivity over workers in a group that lacked these
features.' For example, two studies of over
11,000 workers in 107 European buildings ana-
lyzed the health effect of worker-controlled tem-
perature and ventilation. The Report relies in
large part on recent meta-studies that have
screened tens or hundreds of other studies and
have evaluated and synthesized their findings.
Following are some relevant attributes common in
green buildings that promote healthier work
environments:
On average 25-30% more energy efficient
Much tower source emissions from measures
such as better siting (e.g., avoiding
locating air intakes next to outlets, such as
parking garages, and avoiding
recirculation), and better building material
source controls (e.g., required attention to
storage). Certified and Silver level green
buildings achieved 55% and Gold level LEED
buildings achieved 88°!° of possible LEED
credits for use of the following:R less toxic
materials, low-emitting adhesives &
sealants, paints, carpets, and composite
woods, and indoor chemical & pollutant
source control.
T ~ r
' ~~~ t ,~
~ ,:' -ltd ~~} ~ ~ ~ , ` f_
T
r ~ c ~ ~ ~t ~' ~.;: ,
mss,` ~ _ _ _-_ -i~r_ ~:; ~ __ ~.~~,
Urban Edge is developing a pioneering example of green building opportuni-
ties in affordable housing. Through an MTC grant, the non-profit will install
6j kW of solar photovoltaics at the new Egleston Crossing development in
Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. This installation, in combination with multiple
energy efficiency measures, will reduce the project's electricity needs by 50%.
Significantly better lighting quality
including: more daylighting (half of 21
LEED green buildings reviewed provide
daylighting to at least 75% of building
spacer), better daylight harvesting and use
of shading, greater occupancy control over
light levels and less glare
Generally improved thermal comfort and
better ventilation-especially in buildings
that use underfloor air for space
conditioning
~ Commissioning, use of measurement and
verification, and COz monitoring to ensure
better performance of systems such as
ventilation, heating and air conditioning
Measuring the exact financial impact of healthier,
more comfortable and greener buildings is
6 US Environmental Protection Agency, "Indoor Air Quality," January 6, 2003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/.
7 Judith Heerwagen, "Sustainable Design Can Be an Asset to the Boktom Line -expanded Internet edition," Environmental Design & Construction,
Posted 07/15/02. Available at: http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/A rtideInformation/features/BNP_Features-Item/0,4120,80724,OO.html.
8 Capital E analysis of USGBC data (based on analysis of points actually achieved in building performance data submitted to USGBC), November and
December 2002. For more detail on achievable reductions from some of these indoor emissions sources, please see: Hodgson AT. "Common Indoor
Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds: Emissions Rates and Techniques for Reducing Consumer Exposures." University of California, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. 1999.
Prepared for California Air Resources Board.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/indoor.htmgioxic%20Air%20Contaminants.
9 Capital E analysis of USGBC data, November and December 2002.
difficult. The costs of poor indoor environmental
and air quality-including higher absenteeism
and increased respiratory ailments, allergies and
asthma-are hard to measure and have generally
been "hidden" in sick days, lower productivity,
unemployment insurance and medical costs.
However, four of the attributes associated with
green building design-increased ventilation
control, increased temperature control, increased
Lighting control and increased daytighting-have
been positively and significantly correlated with
increased productivity. Increases in tenant
control over ventilation, temperature and lighting
each provide measured benefits from 0.5% up to
34%, with average measured workforce
productivity gains of 7.1% with lighting control,
1.8% with ventilation control, and 1.2% with
thermal control. Additionally, significant
measured improvements have been found with
increased daytighting.
There are also quantifiable green building gains
in attracting and retaining a committed
workforce-an aspect beyond the scope of the
Report. Attracting and retaining the best
employees can be linked to the quality of
benefits that workers receive, including the
physical, environmental and technological
workplace. Green buildings are designed to be
healthier and more enjoyable working
environments. Workplace qualities that improve
the environment of knowledge workers may also
reduce stress and lead to longer lives for multi-
disciplinary teams.
LEED rated buildings alt address some
combination of measures that help reduce the
pollutants that cause sickness and increase health
care costs; improve quality of lighting and
increase use of daytighting; and increase tenant
control and comfort. LEED Green buildings
consistently include a range of material, design
and operation measures that directly improve
human health and productivity. Gold and
Platinum level LEED buildings are more
comprehensive in applying IEQ-related measures
and therefore should be viewed as providing
larger productivity and health benefits than
Certified or Silver level green buildings.
Given the studies and data reviewed above, the
Report recommends attributing a 1% productivity
and health gain to Certified and Silver level
buildings and a 1.5% gain to Gold and Platinum
level buildings. These percentages are at the low
end of the range of productivity gains for each of
the individual specific building measures-
ventilation, thermal control, light control and
daytighting-analyzed above. They are
consistent with or well below the range of
additional studies reviewed in the Report.
6
The Blackstone 1/alley 1/ocational Regional School District is planning an ambitious 80,000 square foot addition to
accommodate four new vocational programs, and will renovate the existing building which has some systems that date
back to the ~9Go's. Daylighting will be accomplished in this project by using light tube technology, which will save aver
Soo kW a year. Other e~ciency measures include e~cient air conditioning equipment and variable speed drives for the
air handling unit. The school will also incorporate photovoltaic panels mounted on the roof and a solar thermal
domestic water preheating system.
A 1% increase in productivity (equal to about 5
minutes per working day) is equal to $600 to
$700 per employee per year, or $3/ftZ per year. A
1.5 % increase in productivity (or a little over 7
minutes each working day) is equal to about
$1000 per year, or $4 to $5/ftZ per year. Over 20
years and at a 5% real discount rate, the present
value of the productivity benefits is about $35/ftZ
for Certified and Silver level buildings, and
$55/ftZ for Gold and Platinum level buildings. The
relatively large impact of productivity and health
gains reflects the fact that the direct and indirect
cost of employees is far larger than the cost of
construction or energy. Consequently, even small
changes in productivity and health translate into
large financial benefits. Assuming a longer
building operational life, such as 30 or 40 years,
would result in substantially larger benefits.
It is worth noting that:
Nearly one-fifth of Massachusetts'
population spend their day inside schools
Only 43% of high-volume chemicals have
been tested for potential human toxicity,
and only 7°/° have been tested for their
effect on children's development '°
Asthma is the leading cause of admission
of urban children into hospitals and the
leading cause of days absent from school
Green building improvements-especially for new
buildings-appear to be very cost effective
compared with other available measures to
enhance student performance. Under the
recently adopted Federal Education Bill, schools
and states stand to lose billions of dollars in
federal funding if students do not perform well on
annual standardized tests. School and university
systems should consider adopting whole building
green design at the LEED Gold level or
corresponding MASS-CHP scoring as a standard
requirement in new school design and school
retrofits.
r~.,~ .. -
- --~"`~,
~'
F, '~_
,,
_~ ;,
~~ . ~~: - r.~ .
~~ ~ ,__ ;
. .. { _ 1 _ -
_~ s
s'ue' } .t --
The MITRE Corporation is developing a new state-of--the-art
campus center at its Bedford facility to be built according to a
comprehensive energy plan and green building standards. With
assistance from an MTC grant, the project will incorporate 16.,5
kW of rooftop photovoltaics and 1s.5 kW of advanced semitrans-
parent solar photovoltaic panes installed on a covered walkway.
SO Philip Landrigan et al, "Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of morbidity, Mortality, and Costs of Lead
Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer and Developmental Disabilities," Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 110, Number 7, July 2002.
Available at; http://ehpnetl.niehs.nih.gov/dots/2002/110p721-728landrigan/abstract.html.
ll Ibid.
7
OVERALL ~:CJ5T5 AN C7
FlNANCIt~L Cif;NEFITS
Green Buildings provide financial benefits that
conventional buildings do not. As indicated in
Figure 3 below, the Report concluded that
financial benefits of green design are between
$50 and $70 per square foot in a LEED building,
over 10 times the additional cost associated with
building green. The financial benefits are in
tower energy, waste and water costs, lower
environmental and emissions costs, and tower
operational and maintenance costs and increased
productivity and health.
Massachusetts already has established national
leadership in green buildings, including achieving
the first gold rated federal building (at EPA's
Chelmsford Lab), and is well positioned to build
on this. Doing so will involve developing policies
that allow green buildings to capture the
financial value of benefits associated with green
design. Although this issue is beyond the scope
of this paper, two disparate examples are worth
noting:
Accelerated permissioning for the Manulife
Financial Headquarters building in South
Boston 'Z resulting from the perceived
benefits associated from its green design
suggests one way to make these links more
clearly.
An expected shift from zonal to nodal
pricing system for load and generation
pricing is a step towards allowing more
accurate mapping of real cost into price
signals that might allow green buildings to
better capture the financial benefits
resulting from green construction.
The benefits of building green include cost
savings from reduced energy, water, and waste;
lower operations and maintenance costs; and
enhanced occupant productivity and health. As
Figure 3 indicates, the total financial benefits of
green buildings are over ten times the average
initial investment required to design and
construct a green building. Despite data
limitations and the need for additional research
in various areas, the data demonstrates that
building green is cost-effective today, particularly
for those projects which start "green" design
early in the process.
Figure 3
Financial Benefits of Green Buildings
Summary of Findings (per ft2)
Category 2Q-year Net Present Value
Energy Savings $5.80
Emissions Savings $1.20
Water Savings $0.50
Operations and Maintenance Savings $8.50
Productivity and Health Benefits $36.90 to $55.30
Suk~total 55~,'~C to $71.3f1
Average Extra Cost of Building Green (-3.00 to -$5.00)
Tota120 year Net benefit SSO to ~£i5
Source: Capital E Analysis
12 See: http:~/www.bankerandtradesman.corn/pub/4_97./commercial/785123-1.htmt
WWW.MASSTECH.ORG
M~assaac~~s~rT~
~:~~.~.A~3~JR~aTiV
MASSACHUSETTS TECHNOLOGY COLLABORATIVE
75 NORTH DRIVE, WESTBOROUGH, MA o~58i
508.87o.o3i2 FAx.508.898.9z26
WWW.MASSTECH.ORG
Quill.com ~ Order Recap
C<~QU/Ll
Thank you for your quill.com order, LYNNE
Order Recap Number: 21594682
This order will display in your order history within 2 business hours .
Monday -Friday 7 A.M. to 9 P.M. (CT) and Saturday 7:30 A.M. to 4 P.M. (CT) LIYf hlelp
7AM~7AM c57
Mononr~rRlonv
> Chet now
If prices shown do not reflect your company's negoliated d iscount, actual prices will show on your a-mail order
confirmafion.
n 2e~~p Number 13'r 5~ahmittv'd BV D.:.. S[rh niltpl rc N ,;nibLr
21594662 LYNNE CAMPBELL 7/142008 3-..26.09 PM EST
Order Inftarmafion
o.crar„<, Pdu,/ R.omsted r r-anie t.~llvery r .,eo!e~ ,~i,rorri
OuNntiy QUanfity
SPW-BSXVL606VA90 $59.07 4 Each 4 Wed 7/16/08 -Thu 7/17/08 f238.28
Basyz"' Armless Gueet
Chair; Navy
901-64 4 3 9 $43.19 1 Each 1 Tue 7/15/06 -Wed 7/16/08 543.18
Rubbermaid®Ecanamy
Low-Pile Chair Mat;
46x60" Rectangular
901-351700 $5.39 3 Box 3 Tue 7/15/08 - Wetl 7/16/08 518.17
Carnatic~
Coffeemate® Flavored
Liquid Creamer Cups.
French Vanilla, 3/B
Fluitl-oZ
90135110 $5.38 2 Box 2 Tue 7/15/08 -Wed 7/16/08 510.78
Carnation®Coffee-
mate® Liquid Creamer
Cups; Original
SPW-PAP61371 $2.81 2 Each 2 Wed 7/16/06 -Thu 7/17/00 35.62
Liquid Paper® Dry Line
Tear-Proof Correction
Tape; 5mm z 12mm
Merchantlise Total-. f312.04
FreioM, f20.04
Estimated Tax. None
Totai: $3J2.08
Based on today's 0uill purchase, your savings are $7.80. Detailg
8iliiny Address Shipping Address
TOWN OF VAIL TOWN OF VAIL
75 S FRONTAGE RD W 75 5 FRONTAGE RD W
VAIL VAIL
CO 81657 CO 81657
Shipping Information
• We expect this order will be shipped in multiple deliveries.
• Your a-mail confirmation will include delivery details.
Shipping Options
• Attention to Individual or Department: Attn: Community Development
f'aymnrlY information
• Method: MasterCard ""3265
• Cardholder Name: C. Lynne Campbell
• Ouill Account Number: 1464962
Make this order ono of your Llata
Simplify your shopping -use My Lists to save the names of the products you buy the most.
•s ur!
Can't find what you needy cnmacl lis
®Ouill Lincolnshire, Inc. 2007. All Rlghls Reaervetl.
This Web site is intentletl only for use by U.S. resitlents.
Page 1 of 1
https://wwwOS.quillcorp.com/Checkout/SubmittedOrder.asp?order_id=VPFKSEKGEFF... 07/14/2008
USGBC In The News
Page 1 of 3
Sign In ~ Your Account
Search
Horn News & Events In the News
U~C.~B Ire ~h~ N~'WS C}et~Il~
Title: Costar Study Finds LEED, Energy Star Bldgs. Outperform Peers
Author: Andrew C. Burr
Source:
Date Written:
Costar Group
3/26/2008
A new study by Costar Group has found that sustainable "green" buildings outperform their peer non-green assets in key are
rental rates, sometimes by wide margins.
The results indicate a broader demand by property investors and tenants for buildings that have earned either LEED® certific
strengthen the "business case" for green buildings, which proponents have increasingly cast as financially sound investment:
According to the study, LEED buildings command rent premiums of $11.24 per square foot over their non-LEED peers and h<
rates in Energy Star buildings represent a $2.38 per square foot premium over comparable non-Energy Star buildings and ha
And, in a trend that could signal greater attention from institutional investors, Energy Star buildings are selling for an average
peers, while LEED buildings command a remarkable $171 more per square foot.
Andrew Florance, president and CEO of Costar, called the findings a "strong economic case for developing green buildings"
Columbia Building Industry Association (DCBIA) where he presented results from the study this month.
"The information we've discovered is very compelling. Like all good science, we discovered it by accident," Florance said. "Gr
rents and higher occupancy, they have lower operating costs, and they're achieving higher sale prices."
Florance conducted the study with Jay Spivey, Costar's director of analytics, and Dr. Norm Miller of the Burnham-Moores Ce
San Diego. The group analyzed more than 1,300 LEED and Energy Star buildings representing about 351 million square feet
of roughly 44 billion square feet, and assessed those buildings against non-green properties with similar size, location, class,
generate the results.
"We wanted to take each and every one of these green buildings in our database and compare them to the buildings they dirE
Florance said at the seminar.
One factor for the "green" premiums would appear to be the constricted supply of green buildings, which account for just a frs
than 1 percent of space in Costar's database.) The study indicates that while the number of LEED-certified and Energy Star t
not kept pace with demand.
Costar began tagging green buildings in its database about two years ago with the help of the U.S. Green Building Council (l
created the LEED certification system, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which administers the governor
Although often lumped together under the 'green building' moniker, LEED and Energy Star address distinct -- if not related -- ,
LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, indicates a property's overall sustainability by awar
feature imaginable, from bike racks and rainwater collection and reuse systems, to energy-efficient lighting and low-flow plum
http://www.usgbc.org/News/USGBCInTheNewsDetails.aspx?ID... 07/15/2008
USGBC In The News
Page 2 of 3
programs tailored for new buildings, existing buildings and tenant build-outs, and awards different tiers of certification such a~
Over the past few years, LEED has emerged as the industry's de facto sustainable property rating system and become nearly
building'. So much so, "There's a bit of urgency now that the value of buildings could be affected if they are not LEED-certifies
with law firm Miller Canfield who specializes in green building and climate change issues.
Bennett recently chaired the National Green Building Finance and Investment Forum, a conference involving financial sector
Francisco, where he says LEED was a matter of discussion for many of the nation's top institutional investors. "In large part, 1
a component in the definition of a Class A office building," he said. "They basically said, 'If you're building today without LEEC
Many would pitch the same argument for EPA's Energy Star program, an energy-benchmarking tool and a flag for the nation'
program bypasses the bells and whistles of LEED by targeting simpler strategies such as installing energy efficient windows,
motion sensors to control lighting, to great effect: buildings that have earned the Energy Star label use an average of almost
buildings, and emit 35 percent less carbon.
In fact, according to EPA, as many as 500 buildings out of the 4,100 or so total commercial buildings that have earned Energy
than average buildings. And many of those efficiency practices, such as upgrading light bulbs or office equipment, pay for the
On top of that, premiums that the market is willing to pay for Energy Star buildings, as indicated in the Costar study, are a cle
energy efficiency on property value, says Stuart Brodsky, national program manager for the Commercial Properties division o
"The business case for energy efficiency is indisputable," Brodsky told Costar. "The business case is so strong that the finan~
through increased NOI [net operating income], or leveraged to pursue other aspects of green buildings that do not show as si
But the benefit of Energy Star extends beyond asset value. Aside from the actual Energy Star designation, which owners may
energy reductions, the program also serves as a stand-alone energy benchmarking tool: an energy report card, so to speak, ;
transparency in the industry Florance has routinely called for.
"For a lot of people, it's where the rubber meets the road," Brodsky says of the benchmarking aspect, which saw participation
2006 to 2007. To date, almost 8 billion square feet of U.S. property has been benchmarked through Energy Star.
One sharp contrast between Energy Star and LEED is where the responsibility for implementation falls. With LEED, where th
fall under the program's flagship brand -- LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) -- the burden for certification is largely on ai
stage.
But with Energy Star, which looks exclusively at energy consumption in existing assets, responsibility shifts to property mana~
a "quantifiable indicator of superior management practices across the property, which may otherwise be intangible," Brodsky
Other contrasts are closer to the surface. Energy Star is often seen as just one piece of the sustainability puzzle, while LEED
LEED-NC, don't always correlate to high levels of energy efficiency (USGBC has, perhaps in response, re-tooled its building
Buildings (LEED-EB)).
But in many ways, those differences have benefited both programs, allowing them to serve the same customers without beco
commercial real estate service providers, including CB Richard Ellis and Transwestern, run Energy Star and LEED programs
portfolios.
So does Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel LP, an Energy Star partner since 2005 and one of only a handful of U.S. ii
recognized as an early adopter of green strategies.
"We think of Energy Star and LEED in concert with each other," says Bob Ratliffe, an executive vice president of portfolio may
http://www.usgbc.org/News/USGBCInTheNewsDetails.aspx?ID... 07/15/2008
USGBC In The News
Page 3 of 3
which also has broad development operations. "LEED and Energy Star come up in every investment we make, they come up
up in asset management committee meetings. Both are part of our fabric."
Under its Responsible Property Investing (RPI) platform, which promotes energy conservation, sustainable development and
of more than $9 billion in assets under management, Kennedy's LEED and Energy Star activities are extensive. It has about
well as another pool of buildings valued at around $1.5 billion that are either pre-certified for LEED or planned for certification
more than 45 office buildings for enrollment in the LEED-EB portfolio pilot program.
Its portfolio also includes 35 Energy Star-labeled buildings, a number that includes more than 60 percent of all Energy Star-la
firm's benchmarking efforts currently include more than 160 buildings totaling 22 million square feet of office and industrial sp
Kennedy says it sees higher occupancy and rent rates, as well as quicker lease-up and better tenant retention, in its LEED ar
of factors, including market demand. "If we lease buildings faster and hang on to tenants longer, that adds to the economic ec
executive vice president and principal with Kennedy who oversees the firm's largest client, the Multi-Employer Property Trust
"And obviously, if you're selling a building at a lower cap rate, that's additional icing on the cake," he said.
But the benefits extend beyond that, Ratliffe says. "Our investors recognize we are a national leader in [sustainability] and pu
advisors, they see the leadership we're taking in RPI and give us points, if you will, as they assess us amongst our competito
In large part, Kennedy is able to balance Energy Star and LEED because the programs fit well with each other. "They're coml
LEED-Accredited Professional and assistant vice president of Kennedy's RPI program, who points out that LEED-EB building
score as a prerequisite for certification.
"In a recessionary environment there's more than one way to cut costs," Ratliffe says, referring to the energy and operational
Star and LEED-EB. "It's not just cutting employees."
About USGBC ;Policies & Guidelines !Frequently Asked Questions (Contact
Coi:>yright tc:, 20(7£3 U,S. Green Building Council. AH Rights Reserved.
http://www.usgbc.org/News/USGBCInTheNewsDetails.aspx?ID... 07/15/2008
AUTODESK® REVIT® WHITE PAPER
Building Information
Modeling for
Sustainable Design
Building Information Modeling facilitates complex proces-
ses and analyses that were previously too laborious or
expensive to perform. This white paper details how
Autodesk® Revit® Building, Autodesk's purpose-built BIM
solution, supports key aspects of sustainable design and
"green" certification.
Over the last 20 years information technology has revolutionized the design and produc-
tion of movies and music, airplanes and toasters, machinery and holidays. The design of
manufactured items in particular has benefited from design software that enables the en-
gineering and analysis of every conceivable characteristic of an assembly, from physical
and operating characteristics to thermal behavior and fabrication requirements. The adop-
tion of digital prototypes in manufacturing has made products more efficient and suitable
to their purpose, less costly, and more stylish.
Architects and engineers are now applying similar tools to building design. The most
sophisticated of these tools deliver continuous and immediate feedback on a far greater
range of characteristics than conventional design tools. Material quantities and properties,
energy performance, lighting quality, site disturbance, and what-if comparisons between
new construction and renovation are some types of information that are easily available
from these tools. This approach to building design is so different from using conventional
CAD software that the industry has a new name for it: building information modeling
(BIM).
As building growth intersects with environmental concerns and the rising cost of energy,
a growing field within building design has emerged -sustainable design, the practice of
designing, constructing, and operating buildings in a manner that minimizes their environ-
mental impact.
Green Architecture
For most people, the environmental impact of buildings is startling. In the United States,
commercial and residential buildings consume close to 40% four total energy, 70% of our
electricity, 40% of our raw materials and 12% of fresh water supplies. They account for
30% of greenhouse gas emissions and generate 136 million tons of construction and
demolition waste (approx. 2.8 Ibs/person/day).'
' U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN).
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development, 2003
CONTENTS
Green Architecture....... ..1
Standards for Sustain-
able Design .................. ..2
Green Report Card....... ..2
What is BIM? ................ ..3
BIM and Sustainable
Design .......................... ..3
Design Optimization ..... ..4
Design Optimization
Case Study:
Skyscraper Digital ........ ..4
Visualization ................. ..5
Visualization Case Stud y:
Little Diversified Archi-
tectural Consulting ....... ..6
Daylighting ................... ..7
Daylighting Case Study :
Little Diversified Archi-
tectural Consulting ....... ..7
Energy Analysis ........... ..8
Energy Analysis Case
Study: Architectural
Resources .................... ..8
Computation of Material
Quantities and LEED
Documentation ............. ..9
Specification
Management ................ 10
Reducing Waste and
Inefficiency ................... 11
Summary ...................... 12
O
`~"'~
Sustainable design seeks to mitigate this negative impact through the use of environmen-
tally sensitive design and construction practices. The goal of sustainable design is to pro-
duce green buildings that are "environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy places
to live and work."2
The concept of sustainable design is not new. For instance, NYC's Rockefeller Center,
built during the 1930s, used roof top gardens and operable windows -design aspects that
we now term as "green." But the energy crisis of the 70s coupled with an emerging envi-
ronmental movement launched the modern era of eco-friendly design.
Standards for Sustainable Design
Conservation efforts and sustainable design gained momentum during the 80s and 90s,
as focus shifted from point strategies like solar heating to a holistic approach to green
design. A national sustainable design organization, the U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC), was created in 1993 -formed by a group of leaders from the North American
building industry.
Today they are the guiding force behind the voluntary LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System®, widely accepted as the national
standard for sustainable design. The LEED® rating system awards points for satisfying
specified green building criteria in five major categories: site design, indoor environmental
quality, and efficient use of energy, materials, and water.
In the United States, the LEED standard has been adopted nationwide by federal agen-
cies, state and local governments, and interested private companies as the guideline for
sustainable building. A high LEED rating (out of a 69 point theoretical maximum) recog-
nizes the excellence of a green building design and qualifies the project for an array of
financial and regulatory incentives from state and local governments, and even from pri-
vately funded organizations promoting sustainable design.
Non-Profit Corporation;
19%
Private Sector Corporatio
25%
Governments
24%
State Governments
13%
ederal Government
10%
9%
Internationally, similar standards are emerging. Canada has joined the LEED program,
and several European countries have their own green assessment programs, including
U.K.'s BREEAM® (Building Research Environment Assessment Method), Holland's Eco-
Quantum, and the Swiss ecoinvent life cycle analysis methodology.
Green Report Card
Although the majority of today's building projects are still designed and built with little
regard for environmental impact, the recent surge of interest in sustainable design is
Figure 1
LEED certification is
being pursued by a
variety of building
owners.
(Source: USGBC,
Sept 2004)
z U.S. Green Building Council, Mission Statement, 2004
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
I
undeniable. The USGBC reports that the number of LEED-certified projects doubled
between 2002 and 2003. And in a 2003 survey of the building industry3, nearly half the
firms surveyed had initiated at least one project based on green-building principles.
But what is the cost of sustainable design? Depending on the building project and the
"green" measures selected, the net change in construction and operating costs can range
from a savings to unaffordably expensive. Long-range lifecycle assessments may paint a
rosier picture but in today's tight economy, building developers and owners are especially
sensitive to the value that their design and construction dollar buys.
Complicating the cost analysis, the design process can require more resources as many
of the engineering and analysis tasks that used to be conducted later in the design pro-
cessare shifted towards earlier phases to assist in evaluating sustainable design options,
and others that may never have been done at all (such as daylighting studies) become
routine.
BIM, supported by appropriate technology, has the potential to reduce the cost of sustain-
able design by making the information required for sustainable design, analysis and cer-
tification routinely available simply as a byproduct of the standard design process.
What is BIM?
Building information modeling is an innovative new approach to building design,
construction, and management that was introduced by Autodesk in 2002. It is charact-
erized by the continuous and immediate availability of project design scope, schedule,
and cost information that is high- quality, consistent and reliable.
While many technologies can be used to support BIM, Autodesk Revit Building is
purpose-built for BIM and delivers its highest benefits because it is based on parametric
building modeling technology, which uses a relational database together with a
behavioral model to capture and present building information dynamically.
Just as a spreadsheet is a tool for thinking about numbers, software built on parametric
building modeling technology is a tool for thinking about buildings. And just as a change
made anywhere in a spreadsheet is expected to update everywhere with no further inter-
vention from the user, so a change made anywhere in a parametric building modeler is
immediately reflected everywhere.
BIM and Sustainable Design
In current practice, many digital building models do not contain sufficient information for
building performance analysis and evaluation -the building blocks of sustainable build-
ing design. As with traditional physical models and drawings, evaluating building perform-
ance based on the graphic representations of conventional CAD orobject-CAD solutions
requires a great deal of human intervention and interpretation, which renders the analyses
too costly and/ortime-consuming.
The Revit parametric building modeler represents the building as an integrated database
of coordinated information. Beyond graphically depicting the design, much of the data
needed for supporting sustainable design is captured naturally as design on the project
proceeds. In addition, the integration of Revit Building with commercially available analysis
tools greatly simplifies the often cumbersome and difficult analyses. By linking the building
model directly to the analysis software, Revit Building gives architects easy access to
s Building Design & Construction White Paper Survey, 09/03, Source: Reed Research Group
The Revit building
information model has
changed the way in-
dustry professionals
think about how tech-
nology can be applied
to building design,
construction and
management.
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
tools that provide immediate feedback on design alternatives early on in the design
process.
As such, Revit Building is particularly well suited to address the kinds of problems
sustainable design professionals encounter every day -and may eventually open up
new building characteristics such as embodied energy and complete lifecycle costing for
evaluation and optimization. For projects pursuing LEED certification, many LEED
credits require that drawings be submitted to support the qualification for the credit.
Although most of these drawings can be prepared using conventional CAD software,
Revit Building produces these drawings more efficiently as part of the building
information model and has the added advantage of parametric change technology, which
coordinates changes and maintains consistency at all times. The user does not have to
intervene to update drawings or links. A LEED requirement documented in the Revit
building information model is far less likely to fall out of synch or be overlooked (and
inadvertently violated) during project design than a requirement documented in a
conventional CAD orobject-CAD-based application.
The Revit model carries a wealth of information necessary for many other aspects of
sustainable design and/or LEED certification. For instance, schedules of building compo-
nents can be obtained directly from the model to determine percentages of material
reuse, recycling, or salvage. Various design options for sustainability can be studied and
tracked in the model. Advanced visualization techniques can convince an otherwise
skeptical client that green design performs well and looks good.
Design Optimization
During any design process, the architectural team needs to track various design options
until enough information is available to decide between them. For example, an open office
scheme providing daylighting and views may need to be tracked with a more partitioned
layout for programmatic and environmental comfort purposes well into the documentation
phase. These two options could then be used for detailed daylighting design analysis.
Building information modeling with Autodesk Revit Building supports design optimization
by letting architects develop and study multiple design alternatives (green or not)
simultaneously within a single model. Design options can be toggled on and off in the
model for visualization, quantification, and analysis as needed, and can be maintained for
as long as required (which sometimes can be quite late in the design process) and then
incorporated, discarded or archived as key design decisions are made.
In this fashion, what-if analyses examining different sustainable design options for varying
levels of LEED certification (or alternate ways of achieving the same level of certification)
can be easily examined and thoroughly documented within the Revit building information
model -keeping good ideas on the table as long as required for evaluation.
Design Optimization Case Study: Skyscraper Digital
Skyscraper Digital began in 1992 as the digital imaging studio for its parent company,
Little Diversified Architectural Consulting, but quickly evolved to serve a wider audience
seeking to use 3D technology and services as an effective business tool. Today
Skyscraper's unique digital tools have applications spanning all industries including
institutional, educational, corporate, government, resort and entertainment.
One of Skyscraper's recent projects is the rehab of a 14 story headquarter building of a
large financial services company located in Charlotte, North Carolina. To support daylight-
ing analysis, Skyscraper developed a host of design options for the project, all of which
were maintained in the building information model.
Today, Revit Building
customers are using
building information
modeling for a variety
of sustainable design
activities including
design optimization,
visualization, day-
lighting, energy anal-
ysis, quantity takeoffs,
and specifications
management - to
name a few.
Skyscraper Digital
(www.skyscraper-
digital.com) has been
using the Revit building
information modeling
solution for four years,
and has recently made
extensive use of its de-
sign options feature for a
building rehab project.
4
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
O
By keeping these various design options active as the design matured, Skyscraper was
able to study several daylighting scenarios during the schematic, design development and
construction document phases. Having multiple design options available within the same
file allowed them to quickly go back and forth between the options as the design progress-
ed. For example, they were able to toggle between very early, simple massing forms to
more refined and detailed solutions as shown in Figure 2 below.
o- rr AsG=~`®®m
o+
Q - ^ C~ie.xn aorm.
-- _._
oslec;r.~ ~ ---`
OPTIO~RfIROSFYF 1
fnION}flfl0`.E/F J
Gn RM}OWSM4
GvllUl}CIAUI
nRlxnsuvs
Cn YJN}YU1a1 ~,~
P1..I,YIa-.•. - '~~ d w.~
CMgxePWn> (~~~~ ~`nY
4.1}4„ .R
cnulcamw44w -~
cw4xlcovRl.sw ~
11E~N~« ,
Cn KKK_SIFibWI.
~1.11.1.t~v,«I
f+'IRaI^P~ ? ~ i
fntlN!PLOTAIO
4k1[.i1lh..
INIRII: c4WSnt l
onnR=anoslx:
fM'IM',-+4R1~K ~
cnnN 41o Ex
t
OnRW P
Cn R11U ~W6
CP1R1N ~
.. ~
c~Y1Em ~:<.
cP1uN amsE,E ,
OP14N 410 M Wl4 ~ ~ ~~ /- , ~ .
'.
onRw.R44xn uar ~,
fMUN
rc~
~ ~
(~
. ~
C4'1gM IPO EWI
Gf'IRM Uv.LW
.~Emo ~wu E I.wf.
~ ~ /~~~,
=
I
~
f
/ i
1~
u(4'14M~04D%M 1JPIidI
~'
l /
rCnONJ paCSEfE:bM[ - '
~
/
L:
~ EW>.a4 ~ ' swd /
y~ /~
/
RsRV a10~1b+G ieaa4 / ~C
4y. ~~,, rore:..e
Visualization
During the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, master builders designed and built
their projects using on-site, life-size models (i.e., the actual built project). As the centuries
passed, those processes that were used to create St. Peter's Basilica and Notre Dame
Cathedral evolved into what we now think of as the design/construction process, where
architects -separated from the construction process -uses two-dimensional drawings to
visualize and document their design.
BIM allows architects and engineers to become "digital" master builders who are able to
see the building, its materials, its structure, and its performance in real time as it's being
designed, and (more importantly) before the design is converted to very expensive bricks
and mortar - or more likely metal studs and gypsum board. At the same time, this model
can very efficiently provide a fully coordinated set of conventional documents that is
accurate and reliable.
This is the power of building information modeling with Autodesk Revit Building, and is
critical to many aspects of successful sustainable design. The building information model
can be used in conjunction with software tools for energy analysis, lighting studies, and
so forth, to quantify the green effects, while 3D visualization and walk-throughs allow the
design team and the client to see the greener design.
Figure 2
Skyscraper Digital
made extensive use
of design optimization
for this building rehab
project.
Taking advantage of
the centralized data-
base, Skyscraper's
team was confident
that they weren't
repeating or duplicat-
ing themselves any-
whereand were able
to make informed
decisions throughout
the design process.
Some design profes-
sionalsare seeing BIM
as an opportunity for
increasing their influ-
ence over the entire
building project -
perhaps bringing the
architect closer to the
"master builder"
Renaissance ideal.
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
Visualization Case Study: Little Diversified Architectural Consulting
Little Diversified Architectural Consulting (http://www.littleonline.com) recently used the
visualization capability of Autodesk Revit Building to communicate the merits of a reduced
exterior light pollution design to their client, the University of North Carolina.
Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, with offices across the United States, Little
has expanded its core design services to include sustainable design analyses for work-
place, retail, and community clients. They were commissioned by UNC to renovate a
1960s dormitory into an updated, high-end residence hall -improving interior comfort and
energy use as well as updating and improving the exterior appearance. One green aspect
of the project was how to minimize light pollution.
Lighting the night sky with extraneous light is both unnecessary and expensive, but it's
done routinely in North America and elsewhere -partly through carelessness and partly
due to lack of time and tools to deal with it effectively. Also, "light pollution" to one owner
may be "security lighting" to another.
For the rehabilitation project, UNC required the use of the LEED rating system as a guide-
line for this project, which is in the State of North Carolina's pilot program for greening
state buildings.
Figure 3
Little Diversified Archi-
tectural Consulting used
high-quality images from
Revit to communicate
the merits of this re-
duced exterior light
pollution design.
Little's team used Revit Building for the project, and were able to visually analyze the
effects of custom lighting fixtures on the facade, designed to reduce light pollution. They
also used Revit Building to develop an effective light-shelf design to maximize bounced
daylight to the windows on the walkway sides of the 10-story dorm. By using their
standard design environment for these specialized functions, the decision-process
became more efficient and informed. And by being able to literally "see" the building in
advance and analyze lighting levels, UNC was able to rapidly approve this aspect of the
project design.
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
Daylighting
Daylighting, the practice of using natural light to illuminate buildings, not only makes peo-
ple more comfortable and productive, it can sharply reduce the electrical lighting load and
subsequent heat and energy loads. A sustainable, high-performance design can derive
much of its ultimate success from effective relationship to, and integration of, the sun's
energy into the design of the building envelope and fenestration.
However, effective daylighting is rarely performed due to the complexity of formulas re-
quired to accurately analyze daylighting characteristics. There have been computer soft-
ware programs available for years that can accomplish these tasks, but the cost to use
them was prohibitive because of the cumbersome and difficult methods for entering the
building design information.
Revit Building changes this by allowing the design team (rather than expensive lighting
labs) to undertake the modeling, measurement, and documentation of complex interior
daylighting designs within their standard design environment.
Daylighting Case Study: Little Diversified Architectural Consulting
Turning again to an example from Little, they relied on Revit Building for an innovative
green design of the new Living/Learning Center at the University of South Carolina in
Columbia. The complex offers housing for 500 students, assembly space, classrooms,
and offices. Incorporating state-of-the-art sustainable design strategies, the Learning
Center is partially underground and features a turf roof that helps to absorb rainwater and
becomes an integral part of the existing campus landscape.
In the past, Little sent projects like this out to a laboratory for daylighting analyses, but with
Revit Building they can now perform them in-house. During planning, the firm combined
Revit Building and AutoCAD® software to select the best site and orientation to maximize
solar access for balanced natural lighting and energy conservation. During design, Little
used Revit Building for interior daylighting design and exterior bouncelight between
buildings. And Revit Building was essential to Little for calculating points for the building's
targeted gold LEED rating.
Figure 4
Little used models from
Revit to produce high
quality realistic render-
ings for daylighting
analysis (left) and nu-
mericallyquantifiable
pseudo-color intensity
radiosity models (right).
Construction of the Living/Learning center has recently been completed, and the project
delivers the promises made to USC for ahigh-quality sustainable structure that uses 45%
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
less energy and 20% less water than typical construction, that has virtually no water run-
off, and that costs no more to build than a conventional building.
Energy Analysis
According to the Department of Energy, there are more than 76 million residential build-
ings and nearly 5 million commercial buildings in the United States today. The beginning
of this white paper contained a remarkable figure relating to those structures that bears
repeating: buildings consume close to 40 percent of all energy used in the United States.
Contrast that figure with the amount of energy consumed by SUVs, mini-vans and light-
duty trucks on the road (approximately 7 percent) and one can see that scolding SUV
owners for depleting our oil supplies might be considered a tempest in a teapot.4
Sophisticated energy analysis is critical to a building design strategy for reduced energy Reducing our depen-
consumption. And like software for daylighting analysis, energy analysis programs have Bence on fossil fuel is
been available for years, but rarely used by the design firm. Many firms outsource energy not a battle cry com-
monly associated with
analysis (due to time and cost), and as a result building energy performance information is architects. But in fact,
available only at fixed points in the project, usually later than needed for supporting the best it's one area that sus-
decision-making about the project. tainable design (and
therefore architects)
But now, Revit Building provides robust design information with the necessary level of detail can directly impact.
and reliability to complete these analyses earlier in the design cycle, and makes possible
routine analysis done directly by designers for their own baseline energy analysis.
Revit Building is linked directly to the Green Building StudioT"^ (GBS) service from
GeoPraxis (www.geopraxis.com), an industry leader in the development and
implementation of building energy analysis tools and web-based solutions. The GBS
service creates a geometrically correct thermal model of the building, applies local building
code assumptions, creates aDOE-2 input, runs the analysis, and returns summary results
to the designer's browser.
In this fashion, energy analysis can be performed throughout the design process. In early
design phases, massing studies can be used with resulting energy analyses to make de-
cisions about how the building is placed on the site. As the design progresses, various
daylighting options can be evaluated for energy savings. When appropriate, the DOE-2
model input files can be used with engineering analysis systems such as eQUEST°,
EnergyPlusT"', or Trane® Trace® 700 for detailed analysis. This automated input of geo-
metriccoordinates can save hundreds of hours of manual labor.
Energy Analysis Case Study: Architectural Resources
Architectural Resources (www.archres.com) is a 27 person architecture, interiors and
planning firm with offices in Buffalo and New York City. Since 1991 Architectural
Resources (Alr) has provided high quality, personal design and project management ser-
vices to owners and individuals throughout New York State.
They are using Revit Building on a new project for the State of New York -the Queens
Psychiatric Center Community Services, a 45,000 square foot educational/health facility
designed to meet the requirements of a LEED building without increasing the original
budget. Part of the strategy to reach this goal is to reduce the total energy consumption in
dollars (Energy Cost Budget or ECB) by twenty percent.
Alr's traditional method of estimating a building's performance is to work with consulting
engineers who redraw the entire building in engineering software, then analyze the build-
` Mazria, E. It's the Architecture, Stupid! Solar Today, May/June 2003
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
ing at a base case (code
minimum) and then at higher
efficiency levels to produce a
percent difference in savings.
This process usually takes
weeks to complete, often with
additional services charged to
the client.
With the use of Revit Building
and GBS, Alr designers easily
export the model of the building
in a format compatible with
major engineering software
applications, and run a base
case study within ten minutes.
This process can be repeated
as desired to compare prior re-
sults to reconfigurations of
spaces and features. The
Figure 5
Architectural Resources
use Revit for a variety of
energy analyses, such
as this solar/sun study.
consulting engineers can then use the base case information, edit the HVAC system,
modify building R-values and produce an ECB. The total time takes less than a week with
no additional services required and gives Alr the confidence that the spaces being
analyzed by the engineers match their design intent.
Computation of Material Quantities and LEED Documentation
Repeating another statistic
from the beginning of this white
paper, buildings account for
60% of the raw materials used
in the United States. So the
selection of building materials
is crucial to sustainable design.
Specification and procurement
of green building materials rely
on the accurate computation of
a project's material quantities.
This is one of the underlying
strengths of Revit technology -
its ability to provide information
effortlessly.
Figure 6
Skyscraper Digital used
Revit to create these
phased images of a
hospital project in
Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Other technologies scatter
building information across
multiple CAD files or require
user intervention to make sure
that all of the building
information is internally
consistent. This sets the stage
for unreliable information
retrieval. In Revit Building,
every drawing, every view,
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
every schedule is a direct presentation of information from the same underlying database.
` Schedules and quantities of building components that are live views of the building data-
base, and therefore always accurate, deliver an enor- mous benefit for any design.
For sustainable design there are many LEED points that require calculating areas, vol-
umes, or costs of building assemblies or materials for credit. The submittal requirements
for these credits in- volve listing each material or product used to meet various credits -
demonstrating that the project incorporates the required percentage of reused, recycled,
locally sourced, rapidly renewable, or certified wood products based on percentage of
cost.
Quantification of a project for cost estimating is especially easy using Revit Building, as is
associating quantities with properties such as "reused material."
The calculations for these LEED credits can be embedded in a schedule directly in the
building information model and will be maintained dynamically as the project moves for-
ward through design, including any design options that are being considered. In addition,
quantities can be exported to third party databases orcost-estimating packages via
ODBC.
The capability of Revit Building to track information about the development of a project in
time (sometimes referred to as "4D"analysis, the fourth dimension being time) allows
existing conditions to be stored directly in the building information model. This "phasing"
information is the foundation for calculations that assess the extent of demolition and new
construction on a project, critical for green design and LEED certification.
As portions of the project to be demolished are identified, calculation of quantities based
on volume (for structural reuse) and area (for shell and interior reuse) can be calculated.
Demolition and renovation drawings can be produced using time-specific views of the
building information model, reflecting the evolution of the project from phase to phase.
Specification Management
The environmental impact of extracting, processing, and transporting building materials
makes their careful selection an important aspect of sustainable design. But communi-
cating the materials needed for a green project is often a stumbling block for sustainable
design projects because material specifications are usually created in isolation from the
design model, so their development and upkeep are time-consuming and error-prone.
To remedy this disconnect, Revit Building is integrated with a popular specification
management software solution called e-SPECS®from InterSpec, a provider of
construction document management solutions and services. Using a-SPECS For Revit,
the development, editing, and (most importantly) coordination of the project specifications
can be highly automated. a-SPECS is linked directly to the Revit building information
model via ODBC, a robust and well-established standard for database interoperability. As
a result, a-SPECS For Revit extracts product and material requirements directly from
Revit Building, ensuring that the building model and project specifications remain
coordinated as the design progresses. For instance, when a new building component such
as a type of window or roof is added to the Revit Building model, the a-SPECS project
specification manual is automatically refreshed, to reflect the current materials and
properties in the building model.
10
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
~.
~ x Figure 7
FE, ea• Yom. I~ P~ L+d~ ice,. ~~«. >a~
M
~a J_1~J ~~
$ ~ ,
~~
Material specifications
~~<
~ «~ •
~ • ~ • r I I-I I~ I(~J
- , . ,
...
...
. " produced automatically
REVIT 5
.
"` '` ~ ~ by a-SPECS For Revit
EXECUi'lVE SUMMARY
also contain cross-
PROJECT NOTES
- PROJEOMANWJ-
- SECTION 01352 -LEED REQUIREMENTS
references to LEED
a' CUVER SHEET Regl~ed Sabmaals /7
uirements
re
=1i iABLEOFCONIENTS .
q
[) 00 BK10NW OOCLMENI4 LEED ACTION PLANS (CREDIT MR 11)
:- U 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS LEED PROGRESS REPORTS
SECt10N Ot~i2~LEE0 PE LEED DOCUMENTATION SUBMTITALS
U 02511EWORK
(] 03 CQNLREiE
U 01 MASONRf QyoiaF AEEUEiMH
(;] 05 METALS
U6 WOOD AND (W,TICS
~] OI MOi51UPE PROTECTION
- (]OB DOORS AND WINDOWS
~. SECTION OB110~STEEL ~~~~~
-'~. SECTION OWtO-DOOR NA R LOW-EMTITING MATERIALS (CREDrT EQ 4.1)
[]09 FINISHES REFRIGERANT REMOVAL(CREDIT EAdO)
(~ tO SFEEIALNES CONSTRUCTION INDOOR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
U n EDOIPMENr CONDUCT ATWO-WEEK BUILDING AIR FLUSH OVT (CREDIT EQ 3 ?)
l-] t2 FURNISNINGS WASTE REDUCTION PROGRESS REPORTS (CREDIT MR 2.I)
L)vSPEGAi [ONSTRUCiION SALVAGED AND REFURBISHED MATERIALS (CREDIT MR3Q
U t1 CONVEl7NG MTEMS RECYCLED CONTENT (CREDIT MP.4.1)
~]f5 nR~~ REGIONALLY MANUFACI'URE'v MATERIALS (CREDIT MR5.1) '.
(j t6 ELECTRIfN- SALVAGED AND REFURBISHED MATERIALS (CREDIT MR 3 I) `~
U t7 COMMONCATgNS RECYCLED CONTENT OF MATERIALS (CREDIT MR 4 I)
REGIONAL MATERIALS (CREDIT MR 5. p ~j
CERTIFIED WOOD (CREDIT MR 7.0) ,
SECTION O8I10 -STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES -
Regwed Su6tmltals J
~ 1 ~ C ~ Reeb
The LEED rating system encourages the use of green products and materials, and pro-
jects pursuing LEED certification need to identify LEED-compliant materials and track
submittal requirements related to those materials. a-SPECS references MASTERSPEC®
(AIA's licensed master specification system), which includes hundreds of references to
LEED requirements for material selection. As a result, specifications produced auto-
matically by a-SPECS from a building information model also contain these cross-refer-
ences to LEED requirements, an enormous coordination benefit and time savings.
Furthermore, for specific products and materials identified in Revit Building as applicable
for LEED credit, the corresponding specification language will be inserted into the
appropriate specifications by e-SPECS. If a firm has created agreen-version of its master
specification, a-SPECS can also link to existing office masters, to encourage greener
choices wherever possible.
Reducing Waste and Inefficiency
Waste and inefficiency is a huge problem in the building construction industry, and is
fundamentally unsustainable in environmental terms as well as economic terms. The
Economist reported5 in 2000 that inefficiencies, mistakes, and delays account for $200
billion of the $650 billion spent on construction in America every year; almost one third of
the total spending is lost to waste. The IT Construction Best Practice service notes that in
the United Kingdom the annual cost of rectifying construction defects caused by poorly
detailed drawings and incorrect instructions has been put at £1 billion (about US $1.66
billion).
A large source of this waste and inefficiency is on-site rework required by poorly coordina-
ted drawing sets. Every change order that costs the owner or builder money but doesn't
a New Wiring, The Economist, January 13th, 2000
B Botched Plans, Engineering News Record, May 2000
17
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
add to the value of the building is wasted resources. Every wasted move and effort on a
construction site is wasted energy and materials, potentially contributing to the waste
stream, consuming fossil fuels, and so on.
Revit Building strikes at the heart of that waste by eliminating the source -construction
documents that aren't consistent or coordinated, and don't accurately reflect the design.
Parametric change technology ensures that the Revit building information model -
including the documentation - is, at all times, coordinated, consistent, and complete.
As the design team works in familiar drawing and schedule views, Revit Building
coordinates their design information across all other representations of the project - in
model views or drawing sheets, schedules, sections, plan, and so on. As the design
progresses, Revit Building preserves all information from beginning to end. The same
model that is rendered in design is used to prepare construction documents and
generates specifications.
Capturing more value in the building itself by reducing squandered effort and resources
during construction is fundamentally green and a direct product of Revit Building.
Summary
The Autodesk Revit Building design and documentation system is ideally suited for
delivering the kind of information that can be used to improve design and building
performance. Much of the data needed for supporting green design is captured naturally
during the design process and is extracted from the building information model as needed.
Revit Building facilitates the very complex processes of sustainable design like daylighting
and solar access, and automates the drudgery of activities like material takeoffs -all the
while capturing and coordinating information in the documentation set.
The partner products it leverages such as Green Building Studio and a-SPECS (available
separately) expand its natural capacities to provide specialized functions like bouncelight
calculations, energy analysis and specification management. Linking these products to
Revit Building makes this technology far more accessible than before, giving architects
easy access to tools that provide quick feedback on green design alternatives.
For LEED certification, up to 20 points can be facilitated through state-of-the-art building
information modeling using Autodesk Revit Building. Its proven ability to deliver cost-
effective sustainable designs gives firms the assurance they need to pursue an
aggressive LEED ranking for their projects and market their sustainable services
competitively.
Ina 2002 sustainable design briefing' of the U.S. Senate Green Building Roundtable, the
USGBC reported that "Continuing advances in technologies, integrated design practices,
and growing industry awareness will no doubt continue to transform a building industry
characterized by relatively slow rates of innovation." Building information modeling and
Autodesk Revit Building are playing a key role in that transformation, delivering significant
innovation to an industry on the brink of change.
To find out more about Autodesk's building information modeling solutions, visit
tvww. autodesk. com/bim.
Building Momentum, National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings, USGBC,
April 2002
12
Building Information Modeling for Sustainable Design
~,, About Autodesk Revit
The Autodesk Revit platform is Autodesk's purpose-built solution for building information
modeling. Applications such as Autodesk Revit Building and Autodesk® Revit® Structure
built on the Revit platform are complete, discipline-specific building design and
documentation systems supporting all phases of design and construction documentation.
From conceptual studies through the most detailed construction drawings and schedules,
applications built on Revit help provide immediate competitive advantage, better
coordination and quality, and can contribute to higher profitability for architects and the
rest of the building team.
At the heart of the Revit platform is the Revit parametric change engine, which
automatically coordinates changes made anywhere - in model views or drawing sheets,
schedules, sections, plans... you name it.
For more information about building information modeling please visit us at
http://www.autodesk.com/bim. For more information about Autodesk Revit and the
discipline-specific applications built on Revit please visit us at
http://www. autodesk. com/revit.
Autodesk~~
Autodesk, AutoCAD, and Revit are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., in the USA and other countries. All other
brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter
product offerings and specifications at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical
errors that may appear in this document. Computer aided design software and other technical software products are
tools intended to be used by trained professionals and are not substitutes for your professional judgment.
®2005 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
FRfQUfNTlYASKED
FA
STIDNS
LEED° for New Construction
What is LEED for New Construction?
LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations is a rating system for buildings that
was designed to guide and distinguish high performance buildings that have less of an
impact on the environment, are healthier for those who work and/or live in the building,
and are more profitable than their conventional counterparts.
The LEED for New Construction Rating System can be applied to commercial,
institutional and high-rise residential projects, with a focus on office buildings.
Practitioners have also applied the system to K-12 schools, multi-unit residential
buildings, manufacturing plants, laboratories and many other building types.
How does LEED for New Construction work?
LEED for New Construction is aperformance-oriented rating system where building
projects earn points for satisfying criterion designed to address specific environmental
impacts inherent in the design, construction, operations and management of a building.
The LEED certification system is organized into five environmental categories:
Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources,
and Indoor Environmental Quality. An additional category, Innovation and Design,
awards points to LEED projects that develop new solutions, employ new technologies,
educate, or realize exemplary performance in another area.
What is the point breakdown for LEED for New Construction?
LEED for New Construction ratings are awarded according to the following scale:
Certified: 26-32 points
Silver: 33-38 points
Gold: 39-51 points
Platinum: 52-69 points
What are the benefits of LEED for New Construction?
LEED for New Construction offers many benefits including environmental, economic,
and occupant-oriented performance and health advantages. LEED certified projects
cost less to operate and maintain, are energy- and water-efficient, have higher lease-up
rates than conventional buildings in their markets, and contribute to occupant health and
productivity.
Why would a building choose to get LEED Certified?
LEED certification is an achievement that signifies that the building is designed and is
operating exactly as it was intended. LEED certification is third party verification from
the U.S. green Building Council (USGBC) that helps owners can measure and manage
LEED for New Construction
Frequently Asked Questions
their properties. LEED Certification is very similar the nutrition label on packaged foods
- it is information about the building that will help guide decision making.
Who should use LEED for New Construction?
LEED for New Construction was designed primarily for new construction office buildings,
but it has been applied to many other building types. Commercial occupancies include
(but are not limited to) offices, retails and service establishments, institutional buildings
(libraries, schools, museums, places of worship, etc.), hotels and residential buildings of
four or more stories.
How was LEED for New Construction developed?
LEED for New Construction was developed through an open, consensus-based process
in USGBC committees. Each volunteer committee is composed of a diverse group of
practitioners and experts representing across-section of the building and construction
industry. Any USGBC member can serve on a committee, and all committee procedures
and proceedings are available at www.usAbc.orq.
Where can I get an updated copy of the LEED for New Construction Rating
System?
The LEED for New Construction Reference Guide is available for purchase on the
USGBC Web site. The LEED for New Construction Reference Guide Introduction
Chapter is now available for free download on the LEED for New Construction Web
page.
What is the process for LEED certification?
LEED Certification steps:
1. Register eligible building via www.usgbc.orq
2. Identify and implement operational improvements and equipment upgrades
necessary to obtain certification
3. Prepare your application by documenting building performance data and
operational procedures
4. Submit certification application to the USGBC via LEED Online for review and
provide any supplemental information deemed necessary by the reviewers
5. Receive a final LEED certification review from the USGBC
What educational programs are available to learn more about LEED?
USGBC has developed LEED training workshops and they are listed on the USGBC
Web site as they are scheduled or by clicking here.
Is professional accreditation available specifically for LEED for New
Construction?
Yes, USGBC offers three exam tracks towards earning the LEED Accredited Profession
(LEED AP) credential, including New Construction. The LEED for New Construction AP
track is designed for professionals participating in the design and construction phases of
high performance, healthful, durable, affordable and environmentally sound commercial,
institutional and high-rise residential buildings.
LEED for New Construction
Frequently Asked Questions
Other tracks in the LEED AP program are available for professionals in the commercial
interior industry and for facility managers. LEED Professional Accreditation
distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully
steward the integrated design and LEED certification process. LEED Accredited
Professionals have demonstrated a thorough understanding of green building practices
and principles and familiarity with LEED requirements, resources, and processes.
i t ..
F E A T U R E
Peter Morris, Duvis Lungdon
What Does Green Really Cost?
The most common reason cited in studies far not incorporating green
elements into building designs is the increase in first cost. People who are green
averse are happy to relate anecdotes of premiums in excess of 30% to make their
buildings green. These numbers are simply not, however, borne out by the facts,
as evidenced by many studies of the cost of green building. Even though there is
noone-size-fits-all answer to the cost question, it is clear from the substantial weight
of evidence in the marketplace that reasonable levels of sustainable design can
be incorporated into most building types at little or no additional cost.
In addition, sustainable materials and systems are becoming more affordable,
sustainable design elements are becoming widely accepted in the mainstream
of project design, and building owners and tenants are beginning to demand
and value those features. It is important to note, however, that advanced or in-
novative sustainable features can add significantly to the cost of a project and
that these must be valued independently to ensure that they are cost- and/or
environmentally effective.
The cost for incorporating sustainable design elements will depend greatly on a
wide range of factors, including building type, project location, local climate, site
conditions, and the familiarity of the project team with sustainable design. In most
cases, these factors have a relatively small but still noticeable impact on the overall
cost of sustainabilily. Cumulatively, however, they can make quite a difference;
for example, the cost of greening a laboratory building in Houston will be quite
different from the cost of greening an office building in San Francisco.
Clearly there can be no single, across~#he-board answer to the question "What
does green cost?" On the other hand, it is possible, and quite easy, to answer the
question "What will green cost me on my project?'' It is also possible, and quite
easy, to manage those costs so that sustainable features can be delivered in a
cost~ffective and efficient manner.
5
.
Peter Morris
PREA ~)uarterly, .Sumrrrer 2007 55
-- -~-
~. ,
F E A T, u R E
Haw Green?
The first step in the process is to set sustainabi.liry goals.
Defining the level of green can be a challenge. The most
widely used measure, at least in the L7riited States, is the
U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
for measurement, is the recent proliferation of alterna-
tive systems, each seeking to address some perceived
imbalance ur inadequacy o[ the LELD system, such its
the amount of paperwork, the lack of weighting of cred-
its, or the lack of focus art specific issues. Among dlese
Environmental Design (LEEDI rating system. This system alternative measures are broad-based approaches, such
has four levels-Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum-
diat can be achieved by earning a series of points from
five categories: Sust~~tinable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy
and Atmosphere, Materials and Rescnrrce, and Indoor
Environmental Ciualiry. Points can also be earned for
Irwovation and Design Process.
Perhaps a measure of the success of the LEED sys-
tem, which was developed to provide a common basis
as Green Globes, and more narrowly focused measures,
such as calculations of a building's carbon footprint or
measurements of a building's energy efficiency (the
ENERGY 5 TAR rating).
All these systems are valid measures of sustainable de-
sign, but each reflects a different mix of em~irunmental
values, and each will have a different cost impact. It is
therefore necessary fur the. building owner or investor to
"the Cost of Green Revisitedz Reexamining the Feasbility and Cost Impact of
Sustainable Design in the Light of increased Market Adoption"
Lisa Matthiessen, Peter Morris, Davis Larzgcion, 2001
Intl:r,4'«utiv<I~kvt~~l,tn~;cltiznt~~itill~,1/EZ~u<:a.lvfZk.:,ttttcl~u ~nderilt)t17-'I~h~ C"ar;t_c~t (,~~~cn E~rv~~,ttz~d
This update. to the previous report ("Ctiisting Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodologry") re~~isits
the question of cost of green construction. "1 he report. ulxlates original building cost axnparisons and examines both a
larger sampling of buildings and additional builduig types. The report concludes that projects continue to achieve LEED
standards within their established budgets, despite the tt:cc:nt dramatic rise in overall construction costs.
"the Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings"
Davis Larzgdort, 2007
http:/Iwvvlvda~islan,,ian . tt. ','~~112• ~.~<arch'1;t~~~~.:ttrh 1 tn<~°rflnl<~-l.),ata E't.t?~hc~ata~~n:Jl~t~?lo~(?,.tta trc~•tt It~tild.in~*t>
This report assesses the cost of achieving specific levels of green (using the Australian Green Star system) by comparing the
budgets of green buildings co snnilar non-green buildings and a~ncludes that there is a 3% to 5% premium fora 5-Star
building, with an additional 5% for a 6-Star building. The report notes that standards in the country have been set so that
rE:aching 4 Stars is usually easily achievable.
"SustainabBity Offices"
Simon I2crwlirrson, Davis LangcJcm, 2007
hu{'i11~~wtiu<h~tic~lnn<....=,cacn i.~rn/`cMi~ti~ .~.~~ ~~; " n~deri~u~t ~it~abil3;yPu1:'i ~~ "~ ~ ~ zural»hiy(~>fFus Y_J~tnO~
This is a mst study of an office building deigned to meet a BTZEEAM Excellent ratutg. The report concludes that a 6%,
prenuum is due to sustainable design features for the building.
"A Businexs Case far Green Buildings in Canada"
prepared (or Utdttstry Canada, 2005
;,
http:/1~~ti~,~1<~,tkh~ :n~uhl~a,tcl:/:~;''~~Zt?(' .,, '~i~_ to 1,:_'Of~~~ /..t3i..,rt,tt;. ~CiI' . ?t}(:~t~t,z~l.tpdf
This report focuses on initial and long-term financial nnplictuuns of building green in Canada. It concludes that green
buildings have a higher first cost, due to longer design times and use of "nonstandard" materials or systems, but that long-
term cost benefits (money saved on energy, water, u1d sty an) outweigh this first-cost premium.
S6 PREA quarterly, Summer 2007
choose the rating system and the success level that most
closely matches his or her own value profile.
Clear goals are critical for managing the cost. It is not
enough to simply state "We want our project to be green ;
the values should be determined and articulated as early
in the design process as possible and incorporated into the
project at every st<zge during the delivery process so that all
team members are on board with the specific green ele-
ments the project is meant to possess.
How Committed?
C)nce the sustainabiliry gals have been defined, it is es-
sential to uuegrate diem into the design and to integrate
the design team. so that the building elements can work
together to achieve those goals. Buildings can no longer be
broken down and designed as an assemblage of isolated
components. The building sku-r and the interior space
planning contribute to energy performance, lighting den-
sity and indoor tar duality as much tts the mechanical and
electrical systems do. Materials and finish selections can
aflect. air duality, lighting, and. energy loads. if the com-
ponents are designed urdependently, there is likely to }~.
redwzdancy nr conflict hetween the systems. Integrated
design is one of the most eflective factors in delivering
cost-efficient green buildings.
Integrating the construction team into the project team is
also highly desirable. Many sustainable design features can
be defeated or diminished by poor construction practices.
"Managing the Cast of Green Build'mgs"
G. Syphers, et al., Kema, 2003
httpafur~a°w.i tu~ttrh ~ a.<,c.>v; atu~cniarail lu isJi)rw}~,1~9zzna~ is tnt.ostptft
This report fixuses on managing costs for greening public buildings in California. It concludes that in California, new state
construction projects should be able to reach at least LEED Silver within available budgets.
RJCosting Green: Q Comprehensive Database and Budgeting MethodOMgy"
Lisa Matthiessetr, Peter Morris, Davis Iangdotr, 2004
futpliw~vw<,tavislangdonaiu't,tiA/I:: ;~~arch/E2~ .~~,irr}.al~mcltr:l7i)CS-F (.ustint, {rr~~r~cr~~l C rnnpreh~~rxsiti~e ~.v~t 1~~3,~ah.t~:_ar7c
Rndietinit-111t~tfrc dol~,py
This c:omprehensivc: assessment of the cost of green uses several different nzethalologies, including comparing original bud-
get to final budget acrd comparing green buildings to non-green buildings of similar type and use. The relxrn alsci includes
a point-by-point assessment of the cost premiums asso<:iated with L-F..ED.
"LEED Cos# Study"
prepared for tlu US. General Services Administration, 2004
!1np:Ihvtititic°<<vbdp,~a-,~jrrew~.~r~~nt:Jne~UC_t>.-K7lt}~ pl-cl;~
This study, commissioned by the GSA to estimate costs far greening new federal building constnaction, focuses especially
on tvvo building types: federal courthouses and office buildings. A baseline cost for each building type was established as
well as cost impacts resulting from any modifications to bring the design into LEED compliance above and beyond what is
reduired by the GSA. The snzdy concludes that cost premiums could range from about 1% to 8%, depending on the level
of LEED achieved.
"The Costs and financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable BuRding Task Force"
Greg Kctts, Capital E, 2003
i.tt,~:i/~i~ti~.wcncn~~l~<<t.t;ov/t,i~.~~ti'~t,;, ~ "[a~ '.nark..~~yE>etx~litr'l~~lx~nf7df.
A number of recently carrstructed green buflduzgs were assessed to detemrine financial benefits as well as initial costs. The
report compares original budgets to completed budgets to calculate the green premium and concludes that green adds, on.
average, about Z% to die original cost of a builduzg. I-EED was used as the measurement of green.
PREA ~uarteriv, Summer 2007 s7
'. ~~`
F E A T U R E
s
--.~.-
- ,~
"~ ~ .~~,
For Example, inattention to sealing or flashing details can
dramatically decrease energy performance of the envelope,
and poar material handling and site, cleanup can crcatc: fu-
ture indoor environmental quality problems. In some cases,
the site shortconings are simply due to a lack of training or
unders~rnding by site operatives; at other times, the pml>-
lenrzs can arise. when a design. team does not understand the
difficulties of site conditions or when developing details or
requirements are. not practical. Many such problems can be
elimir-rated by engaging the construction team, including
sulxontractors and site operatives, in the design and pro-
curement process.
The integrated team should alsci include building users
and operators wherever possible. These are the people who
vtnll have to live with the design decisiurLS fur many years.
Susr<~tinable features that require specialized maintenance or
sophisticated operation are often bypassed or overridden by
building occupants or managers. "fhetz are many e~tmples
of buildings desilmed with ligh levels of "daylightitng" where
teik'tnts have covered over windows and fumed nn elec-
tric lights beatuse they perceive. the space to be too bright.
Similarly, building users have taken over shower facilities
intended for bicycle comrrtnters to use Ior office storage,
and building maintenance staff members have overridden
energy management controls because they find there too
complicated to ttse. Engaging with the users and operators
during the design process can lead to better designs and a
better understanding by the users of the function of the sus-
tan~able features.
Wow Muth?
Having set the goals and incorhorzted them into the desisrt
a<1d cor>strucuon proxess, there is still tine question of what
the stzstainahle features will cast. Underlying this question,
however, is another question: "Compared to wl><at?" In many
cases, this question is left unasked or is undefined.
The most common comparison, at least in anecdotal
repomng, is comparing the cost of the green project tv~ith
the original project budget or the c>tiginal anticipated cost
of the project: "The final project cost. me this much.; t ongi-
n:ally thought it would cost that much; the clifference must
be. whit I spent on n>1zk~ing it green." Clearly, this approach
has two sttbstantial problems:lt assumes the original budget
w,u adequate in the first place., and it assumes that no other
changes or enhancemenu were made. Nevertheless, this is a
widely used methodolog}~ and is found u1 msuny of the satd-
ies i~f the cast of green projects. It can also be viewed as the
ultunate measure of aflordabiliry because the budget, if prop-
erlyset, represents the cost-value breakpoilt of the project.
tlrtother concern with this approach is that very rarely will
projects report corning in under budget. ['he range of re-
ponedcosts, therefi~re, typically runs from no added cost to
same added cost, the result of which is that the reponeed cost
premiums air always lwsitive. In addition, statistically, the
distnbtuion is very skewed, with a large rnaniher of projects
reporting zero or very low premiums, and a small number
reporting much larger premiums, up to 10`%>. This means
that the average (mean) cost premium is typically higher
than the cost premium for the average project (median). The
averages are also very sens7tive u) changes irz the. population
of buildings studied. Because. n~:uty of the studies are based
on relatively small populations, the averages must be viewed
.ts indicative, not conclusive.
Most of the stuclies that trse this methodology report aver-
age green premiums in the. range of I `% to 2`% to achieve a
moderate level of sustainable des>`grr, generally equivalent to
a LEER Silver rating. Higher levels of strstainability are usu-
ally finked to higher green premiums, although the small
S8 Yi2EA ~hiarterly, .Summer 2007
F E A T U R 6
population of such bufldings available for analysis makes sta-
tistic:alcalculations impractical. it should also bc: noted that
though the studies show average premiums of 1 % to 2%,
closer anal}-sis of the data shows that a signific ant number of
projects--often in excess of 50`% of dze populahort-repun
no increase in cost. over the budget to incorporate sttst:ziz-
able features.
An alternative approach, also used in marry green cost
analyses, is to look at the cost of individual added green fea-
tures,effectively comparing the building to itself without the
green featurs. La>king at the added cost of green features
presumes that the features are, in fact, additive, and that they
can be readily priced as separate items anti makes assump-
tions regarding what would have been built. For example,
it is easy to look at the cost of avariable-frequency drive on
a fan motor. Either you halve one or you don't. It may even
be possible to establish the cost of efficient zoning of an air-
conditioning system by comparing it with a corn>entional
zoning. layout. However, assessing the added cost of im-
proved dazylightitzg through good orientation and space
planning is vimktlly impossible. 71tis approach is also not
practical with a truly integrated design process.
"I lzis individual add-on methodology afro tends to rt°tum
positive values for the green premium because it views most
green features as additive. tv a l><aseline project It doFS not
reflect design choices and trade-offs that are typically made
during the design and construction proxess. For example,
sttsr~•zinable finish materials such as linoleum, bamboo, and
cetufied wail are generally more expensive than many typi-
calfinish materials and su would show up as added cults for
susi<ainable finishes. Many design teams, however, will offset
trese costs by reducing the extent of other high-end Cmish
materials, such as stone or wood paneling, rruzking the ttse of
sustainable finish nuterials budget neutral in practice. Also
difficult can lx assessing which feanzres would have lien
incorpc:rrated in the base scheme in tre absence of spetcific
sustainable goals: For example, would the building have
been designed to a minimum energy performance, or would
some. energy efficiency nmeastzms have been incorporated re-
gardless ufgreen?
Most of the studies that use this individual add-on meth-
alology report somewlmat higher green premiums, in the
range of 2% to 6%, to achieve a moderate level of strstaimable
design (such st LEED Silver). Higher levels of sastainability
tis Hazy be expected, have higher premiums, but how these
higher levels are achieved varies widely between st udies, and
rte. costs become nmvre h}> f~vthetical.
A third approach is to compare the cost of a population
of buildings with similar programs but without green cae-
ments. Ttils approach eliminates some of the subjectivity
of deciding what you would have built, or what. it should
hzve cost, but adds ii the challenges of finding an adequate
population c,~f comparable buildings and deciding whether
buildings are truly comparable, given the significant varia-
tions bcxween buildings. It also nece~s-sitates adjusting costs
for time and kxation it order to bring the corn[~arable huild-
izgs m a common base.
Because of the data demands, trLS approach is not widely
ttsr d. The one_ major study undertaken by Davis l arzgdon
that used this approach found trat for ttre selected bttikiirrg
types, there was no statistically significant diElerE:ncc. between
the average cost of green buildings and the average cost oI
non-green buildings.
Now Average?
Each of these approaches provides valid and awful i-rfonna-
tion and can give. a broad indication of the likely impact of
sustainable goals for a project but should not be used as a
predictive ta~1 [or an individual project, any more than a
table of average costs for construction should be aced as a
predictive tcx~l for budgeting a project 1'unhermore, ~~csign-
ing aset percentage to a buildings budget to "cover green"
also t; ves the impression tl>ilt there will be a cost premium;
more imtxtrlantly, it su~gcsts that green is something that is
added on to a building, not sortnething that is pan of the
building from tze very beginning.
How To?
The studies do nut and cannot answer the most irnpor-
tant c{uestiuu ;zbuut the oust of green: "W hat is the cos[ of
green for me/you?" This can be answered only by good
cost planning within the context of clear values and a
committed project team. The studies do dernorrstrate
that sustainable design is within reach for mast project`s
and that buildings that are better [or tre errvironrnernt and
for the occupants can be delivered in acost-effective way.
Sustairability goals, strategies, and budgets can readily be
established and integrated during the project program-
ming phase in exactly the same way any other project
goals, strategies, and budgets can be established: through
the use of good planning processes. The real duestion in
pfanning and budgeting should not be "How much more
will dmis cost?" but "How will we du this?" Sustainability
is not abelow-the-line item. ^
60 YKEA nuarterly, Summer 2007
~~gUllD~tiC
~ ~
Q. o
~ c
~~~~,~
~SGB~' ^
1800 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
T: 202 828-7422
F: 202 828-5110
www.usgbc.org
GREEN BUILDING FACTS
Green Building by the Numbers
July 2008
The value of green building construction is projected to increase to $60 billion by 2010.
(Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Analytics, SmartMarket Trends Report 2008)
The construction market accounts for 14.2%
of the $10 trillion U. S. GDP (Source: 2006 DOE Buildings Energy Data Book).
By 2009, 80% of corporate America is expected to be engaged in green at least 16%
of the time, and 20% will be engaged in green 60% of the time (Source: McGraw Hill
Construction, Greening of Corporate America SmartMarket Report, 2007).
The green building products market is projected to be worth $30-$40 billion annually
by 2010 (Source: Green Building Alliance).
U.S. Green Building Council:
Membership
• 16,345 member organizations including corporations, governmental agencies,
nonprofits and others from throughout the industry.
• 91,000 actively engaged individuals.
• Since 2000, USGBC's membership has increased ten-fold.
LEED®Green Building Certification System
• The LEED for New Construction rating system was first released in 2000.
• LEED for Commercial Interiors and Existing Buildings became available in
2004 to address the tenant market and the operations and maintenance of
existing buildings.
• LEED for Core & Shell became available in July 2006 for spec developments.
• LEED for Homes was launched in December 2007.
• LEED for Neighborhood Development, Retail and Healthcare are currently in
pilot test.
• Over 3.6 billion square feet of commercial building space is involved with the
LEED green building certification system.
• By 2010, approximately 10% of commercial construction starts are expected to
be green, according to McGraw Hill Green Building Smart Market Report 2006.
• Every business day, $464 million worth of construction registers with LEED.
1 of 4
July 2008
New Commercial Existing Core & Neighborhood Schools Retail
LEED Construction Interiors Buildings Shell Development Tota
Registered
Projects 7,562 1,288 1,503 1,653 234 362 94 12,69E
Certified
Projects 1,134 277 90 82 2 1,58!
• There are LEED projects in all 50 states and 69 countries.
• Owners of LEED-registered and certified projects represent a diverse cross-
section of the industry.
Education ~ Accreditation
• LEED workshop attendance: 81,269
• LEED Accredited Professionals: 55,391
• Greenbuild Attendees 2007: 22,835
• Greenbuild Attendees 2006: 13,382
Size and Impact of the U.S. Built Environment
Construction yields an annual output of U.S. $4.6 trillion, contributing to 8-10% of the
global Gross Domestic Product encompassing a workforce of 120 million people and
billions of transactions each day. Source: Asia Construct, Euro Construct and National
Statistics, 2006.
Comprises 14.2% of the $10 trillion U.S. GDP. This includes all commercial,
residential, industrial and infrastructure construction. Commercial and residential
building construction constitutes 9% of the GDP. Source: 2006 U. S. DOE Buildings
Energy Data Book.
Energy consumption
• Buildings represent 39% of U.S. primary energy use (includes fuel input for
production). Source: 2003 U.S. DOE Buildings Energy Data Book.
• Buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account
for a significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions that affect climate
change. In the U.S., buildings account for 39% of all CO2 emissions. Source:
ElA Annual Energy Review 2005. U. S. Energy Information Administration, U. S.
Department of Energy.
2 of 4
July 2008
3. Improvements in sustainable materials.
Source: FMI's 2008 U. S. Construction Overview.
4 of 4
July 2008
Electricity consumption
• Buildings represent 70% of U.S consumption. Source: 2003 U.S. DOE
Buildings Energy Data Book.
Water use:
• Buildings use 12.2% of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year. Source:
U. S. Geological Service, 1995 data.
Materials use:
• Buildings use 40% of raw materials globally (3 billion tons annually). Source:
Lenssen and Roodman, 1995, "Wor/dwatch Paper 124: A Building Revolution:
How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction,"
Wor/dwatch Institute.
Waste:
The EPA estimates that 136 million tons of building-related construction and
demolition (C&D) debris was generated in the U.S. in a single year. Source:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/debris/about.htm, and U. S. EPA
Characterization of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,
1997 Update.
• Compare that to 209.7 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the
same year. Source: U.S. EPA Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1997 Update. Report No. EPA530-R-98-007
Sectors Expected to Have Green Building Growth
• Education
• Government
• Institutional
• Office
• Healthcare
• Hospitality
• Retail
Source: McGraw Hill Construction 2007.
The three largest segments for nonresidential green building construction -office,
education and health care-will account for more than 80 percent of total
nonresidential green construction in 2008. Source: FMI's 2008 U.S. Construction
Overview.
What's Driving Green Building
These factors are expediting the growth of green building:
1. Unprecedented level of government initiatives
2. heightened residential demand for green construction
3 of 4
~~~
L ~
~
_
~ L ~ v ,
~ U
O 40-- ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~
C ~
~A
~
L O ~ 3
Q ~
Y L
~ ~ C
~
~ ~ ~
L
Q G>' ~
~ ~ Q) o
~,}
~' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U
~
_
Y
"'aaavvvlll L
.a
-a ~
~ O
~ ~ O
- ~
_
~ ~ a
I
Q ~~+ p
N
V ~ L
~~ ~
L C V)
O N
N~ ~ N ~ ~ O O ~ ~' U
Q~ = C
(0 ~
~
O (Q .C Q
'C In ~ 4-.
O
O N
~ ~ ~
C
V i
i N ~,,,
o ~ (Cf O
`~- ~ ~ ~
~ ~
o ~ ~
~ ~.~.. C •~•' p N O U
•
. ~-+ ~ (~ ~ ~ C ~ L
Q
~ ~ (n I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O
a~ v . I ~ Q> tQ
U ~
A
O
cv
O
o- O _
L •_ _
.~ -Q ~ N>
O
O
~
L~~
.,_,
~
I.L
~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~N~~ cv a?E~ E
_ ~ N N N "O ~ ~ N ~ ~ `t ~ N
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ O `~ ~
w/ O ~ fn ~ ~ _
_ ~
~ , y_ L V
a o o mo ~oo~cn co ~ pcam ~
°
K = ~
~ •~ ~ trU ~aaw~ ~ ~ ~~~ c
~O
V1 ~ J N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
G1 ~~ r. N
m
Q~
.~-+
~ >
O ~ ~
O
_ U ~
o~~ I a~
O ~ N O N O_
~ ~ ~+ _~
~ ~ ~ ~ U_
~ ~ ~ ~ _ Q
C (a ~~,, ~ ~ .a
•~ ~ ~ ~ a
>+~ ~ O c ~ O
N B C N~ E ~ U
~ (6 ~ ~ •~ ,~ ~ ~
~ 'C O ~ p~ ~ C ~ ~ N
~ ~0.. ~ OU (~0 ~ N fn ~ L ~
O (p (Q ~ _ N i
f~ _ ~
W .~ ..C ~ ~ ~ C_ ~ L ~ ~ E
I (Q N O cv C~ C U ~ ~ O
~ Q_ U N ~ N '~ (0 L O ~ ~+
T O O
c cn C ._
~ ~ ,4? ~ o v cv ca .O ,a? O ~
~ ~
N ~ (6 ~ U ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~
a c v ~ Q~ o >, c p~~ v~ N~
.L O~ O ~' ~~~~ N N O c v U
t6 > (6 NJ~~OJO~'~W -O Q
C G1
2 O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
M ~
C
O
C
O
~ ~
O ~
~_~
•~
N ~
O
~ N
0
QO
M
M
W
~i-+
C
c~
C
Q
O
N
N ~
O ~
._ a~
L ~
d
O
~ ~
~ ~
v ~
f+ ~~
C
~ U
N
Q ~
a~
_O ~ ~
G1 O •-,
' ~ O
~ O O.
p `~ ~
c ~
~ Q. N
~ C (0
J '3 ~
~ o .~
G1 0 ~
~ ~ ~~
L O .Q
F- o
L
~1L+
O ~ C
Q
~ Q O
X C O
O O
L
~ ~ L
3 ~ U
a~ ~
.n
co = vi
o ~ ''
c~
°- n 3
.~ 3 O O C
N ~ O N
~ 3 c
L
~_ O ~ 0 .p
3 to ~ (~ >
C Q) O C C
_o c U 3 a~
'~' dj O (B
_N ~ a - L to
N (p O
~ ~ U +r N U
~ ~ p ~ ~
C O ~ ~ m'om'
. C
c 3 ~~ ~°~ 3 ~ o c
O (0 N ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ U ~
~ `~V~~•c ~ILQU
~ ~ ~
• • • .
.~ 4 ~
M
C
O
U
N
0
Q
>+
cQ
(Q
3 U
p2S C
L .O
N
O
in a°
N
0 3
U C
~o
~~
~~
L U
a~
-~
~a
U ~
c
I cB
~-
U
_ ~
~ ~
.+ +~
= C
L
•~ ~
W •~
O ~
~ O
~L
N
~ "r
_ .C
~~ ~
O .C ~
p, .-°_ .c
~~.~
~ o
~~ ~
~~
O
~ 4 9 ~~
~~ ;~
C
O Q
.C C
N
L
O O
C O
.- Q C
O
.; ~ U ~ ~
"'' C O
O ~ O O ~ ~
~ C ~ p O O
i 0 0 0 U U
O ~ U
O ~, ~ O
~~o~a~o
O N ~ ,~~ U
~> ~~F-Q
\~
~ i
0 ~ ~ ~?
U ~ ~~ ~ ~ Y~
`~ ~ ~~~. ~~ ~3
N
~,
o ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~~ o~~
~° U
~~
~- ~
.~ a~
~ _~ ~
C O U ~
a~
~ o o y~ °'
o
L C A ~ O
.~ ,~ ~ N ~ O
~ _ C ~ ++ p ~
L C
U O O U O N .~ "O ~ ~
O ~ L.. ~ ~
~/ L
LL (~ ~ Lp .1~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 'N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O
,C ~, C U N C L- ~ _O
0 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C ~ > O C U O ~
01 ~ C C O U O ~~C-,, .O (6 ~ 0 ~ ~ U ~
AO 'p ~-p ~ ~~(A~m2U' X200 Ov
~ to O U O C C ~
C ~ N -
W N ~
cc
M
l:~
t~v~c,D ~~C~.
-Z,Z yS~k'3~. ot/L~r- ~7 ~.~. ~ Q~z~~ /s.~~i~ c~.1 ~~w~~u~a2~
~ ~
3~ ~~
~~~
~ ~.~
~ ~N
~~~~~~
~.~,~- -~
S~ Cow ~ ~~~Z~-- G~s~ - ~o ~~ ~._ -
1 '~z _ Zlo
EAGLE COUNTY OFFERS SOLAR POWER, EFFICIENCY REBATES TO
HOMEOWNERS
Apri122, 2008
Eagle County is now offering rebates for solar energy systems and insulation upgrades to
all homes located within its boundaries. The incentives will help reduce energy costs to
homeowners, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, generate local clean
renewable energy, and retain capital in Eagle County that would otherwise be going
elsewhere. The program is eligible to all homeowners in Eagle County, including those
within town boundaries.
The Eagle County incentive for solar photovoltaic systems is $2 per watt capacity of the
system. Solar thermal systems, which generate hot water, will be reimbursed at 50%
level. The maximum reimbursement amount per residence is $4000. However,
residences which meet the Affordable Housing definition in the land use regulations
(deed-restricted capped appreciation) are eligible for $3 per watt and total cap of $6000
per residence. These incentives, when combined with Holy Cross Energy and federal tax
incentives, make such systems more affordable. The system must have full solar access,
angled to within 20 degrees of due south, and installed and operational prior to receiving
the rebates.
Here is an example of a 2-kilowatt solar system that meets around half of the electrical
needs of an average home:
Cost for installed system: $16,000
Holy Cross rebate: -$4,000
Eagle County rebate: -$4,000
Federal tax credit: -$2,000
Cost after incentives: $6,000
For an Affordable Housing residence, the Eagle County rebate would be increased to
$6,000, resulting in the cost after incentives lowered further to $4,000.
Also, for those living in Xcel service territory such as Minturn and Red Cliff, the
numbers get even better since Xcel offers a rebate of $4.50 per watt, or in the above 2-
kilowatt example, $9000 instead of the $4000 from Holy Cross. This would bring the
final cost down to $1000 after incentives.
In addition, Eagle County has partnered with the Governer's Energy Office to offer
insulation upgrade rebates at 50% of the cost, not to exceed $500 per home. The program
is for existing residences, and the homeowner must submit the estimated annual energy
cost savings of the upgrade to receive the rebate.
"All the local insulation contractors are registered partners of this program, and can assist
homeowners to make their homes more efficient, comfortable, and submit the necessary
paperwork to take advantage of this program," states Adam Palmer, Eco-Build Specialist
for Eagle County.
Eagle County is utilizing its Eco-Build fund to pay for the incentives. The fund was
created as a part of the Eco-Build Efficient Building code which assesses fines for
projects not meeting the code requirements. A majority of the fees paid into the program
came from installation of driveway snowmelt systems on luxury residences, which pay a
fee unless an onsite renewable energy system is installed to help offset its energy use.
The Eco-Build fund was created for these fees as off-site mitigation, and can only be used
for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, with special consideration for
affordable housing and educational/demonstration projects.
Eagle County is interested in learning any information from local lenders offering loan
incentives for renewable energy systems or energy efficiency upgrades. For questions or
additional information, contact Adam Palmer at 970-328-8734 or
adam. ap lmer(a,eaglecount~us.