What Lies Beyond In The Green Building Movement
By Scott Kriner, Green Metal Consulting
The USGBC’s LEED green building rating program has gone from the margins to mainstream. But with each evolution and new version, whispers are heard about whether this is the end of LEED as we know it. What was once a market with only LEED and Green Globes blazing the trails for green building technology has now turned into a crowded field of voluntary and regulatory initiatives that stress sustainable building design.
On the energy front, ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings has become much more aggressive in the recent versions. The DOE mandated that energy stringency in the standard be 30% higher than the 2004 version. Along with that standard, ASHRAE introduced standard 189.1 Standards for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings, which some say took the voluntary LEED program and codified it. Similarly, ICC and the National Association of Home Builders jumped into the fray with the ICC-700 National Green Building Standard for residential construction. The International Energy Conservation Code has also become more stringent.
At the state and local levels, California has put into effect CalGREEN, the first state green building code. Other jurisdictions and states have either adopted some version of 90.1, 189.1 or IgCC as their green or energy codes.
But let’s not forget that the LEED program involves more than energy efficiency of buildings. Indoor environment improvements are covered with thermal comfort, acoustics, daylighting, and air quality. The environmental impact of buildings is also addressed with provisions for use of building materials with high recycled content, low VOCs, recyclability, durability, reuse and water efficiency. Even innovative design or operational programs are awarded in the LEED program.
But in the end, LEED is still a voluntary program. USGGC recently announced the 10,000th LEED building certification award. Studies have shown that LEED certified green buildings save significant energy, electricity, water, GHG emissions, and raw materials. LEED buildings also help to lower maintenance, lower operating costs and increase higher resale values. Many government agencies have mandated different levels of LEED certification for a variety of government buildings and retrofits.
LEED has always been one step beyond code compliance. It is reported that a building must be 16% higher than code, in energy savings, just to meet the lowest level of LEED certification. As codes changed and regulated many aspects of LEED, the green building rating program responded by stretching further and making the point-based program more stringent and difficult to achieve certification. LEED has also evolved from simply Building and New Construction to a whole family of expanding LEED programs including Existing Buildings, Schools, Homes, Healthcare, Core and Shell, Commercial Interiors and even into Neighborhoods and communities.
While this evolution of LEED has been taking place, the landscape has changed with even more stretch goals from the government and other building programs. These new programs are striving to make homes and buildings net-zero energy while remaining affordable, by eliminating certain chemicals in the construction materials that may be dangerous to occupants’ health, reducing or eliminating waste and any environmental impact, and going deep into energy conservation with extreme levels of insulation and thermal efficiencies. Some examples of these initiatives are the Net Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative, Net Environmental Waste buildings, Passive Haus standards, Cradle to Cradle certification, and Living Building Challenge.
At the recent GREENBUILD 2011 show in Toronto, a seminar was offered titled “Beyond LEED”. The crux of the presentation was an exposè on the Living Building Challenge, and their plans to apply the program to urban communities as well as buildings. During the conversation between the founder of Living Building Challenge and the USGBC’s Vice President of LEED Technical Development, there were hints that both programs may be able to find some common ground and adopt parts of each other’s programs in the future. There are pros and cons of both programs, and LBC is clearly more difficult to achieve being more stringent, but it is based on real performance after one year of occupancy even before awarding certification.
The Living Building Challenge is one of the core programs of the International Living Future Institute, a NGO working to promote significantly higher levels of sustainable building design and construction. It was originally formed by the Cascadia Green Building Council, and has been endorsed by the USGBC. The program is comprised of seven performance areas: site, water, energy, health, materials, equity and beauty. Those areas are sub-divided into twenty imperatives. Although it sounds similar to LEED or Green Globes, the Living Building Challenge is much more than just another green building rating program. The International Living Future Institute describes it as “a Philosophy, Advocacy Platform and Certification Program”. Because it defines priorities on both a technical level and as a set of core values, it is attracting the broader building industry with a challenge to solve problems rather than shift or minimize them. In other words, it strives to eliminate bad building practice completely rather than rewarding projects for being less bad than a conventional building.
It is also described as “an Evocative Guide” by inspiring project teams to reach decisions based on restorative principles. Other descriptive terms used by the Institute include “a Beacon” (to increase awareness),“a Unified Tool” (applicable to new construction, building renewals, landscape, infrastructure and communities), “a Performance Based Standard” (not based on modeled performance or a checklist, including regional solutions, climate factors and cultural characteristics), and “a Visionary Path to a Restorative Future”.
There are currently about 80 projects working toward Living Building Challenge certification. To-date, three projects have received “Living” status, being recognized as meeting all of the imperatives in the program. One building in San Francisco will achieve full certification status (being in operation for 12 consecutive months) in 2011.
Is this where LEED is headed? Will the codes ever catch up and/or replace the voluntary green building programs? Can a code ever really cover all aspects of sustainable building design, construction and operation? No one is sure, but it is clear that even the USGBC believes that some day in the future, there will no longer be a need for USGBC or LEED. How will they know the goals have been met? By the fact that “green buildings” will no longer be a term used in our lexicon. All buildings will be built as what we today call green buildings and the promotional effort will no longer be needed.
In the meantime, designers, builders, architects, code officials and LEED professionals will continue to pick and choose which of the green programs should be used in their project work. New technology will emerge making today’s stretch goals easy to achieve. Innovation in building construction will also be encouraged by this race to making “green buildings” commonplace. Until that happens, let’s enjoy the ride.
Scott Kriner is the president and founder of Green Metal Consulting Inc. He is a LEED Accredited Professional who began his career in the metal construction industry in 1981. His company is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council, the California Association of Building Energy Consultants and the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Scott can be reached by email at skriner1@verizon.net or by phone at (610) 966-2430. You can also visit him on the web at www.greenmetalconsulting.com.
For more columns by Scott and a host of other contributors, click here.