Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0600.001 2002-2004L LEED Score Card LEED TM Scorecard of 4/30/2004 MEM • Potential Project Score For West Hawaii Civic Center Possible Points 69 V "'N j =4 Y ? N Y ? N —77, Erosion & Sedimentation Control Y " I Storage & Collection of Recyclables I I ICredit 1 Site Selection 1 wI Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell Urban Redevelopment I Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Shell T. Ced it 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1-redit 1.,, Building Reuse, Maintain 100% Shell & 50% Non -Shell _IJ C, r re di t 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access Credit 2, ! Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% --dit 4,2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 1 Credit 2.1', Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% j'CrQA:- 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations 11 Resource Reuse, Specify 5% j I °Credlt 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity Credit 3.2 Resource Reuse, Specify 10% 1 Ajt 5 1 r e C d'; t 5. 2 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space credit 4.1 Recycled Content, Specify 25% p Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1 t t 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, Specify 50% Cr e dit 6"1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity Credit 5Local/Regional Materials, 20% Manufactured Locally i 1 is redit 6.2 Stormwater Management, Treatment 1 1 Credit s.< Local/Regional Materials, of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non -Roof 11J Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 Cnedlit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof 1 1 Credit 7 Certified Wood Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction rte 15 A ;T�'T rX —A Y ? N 4' "iO TT- ZU5I R* 'W" Y ? N I Y 41Prereq I Minimum IAQ Performance Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 Y Preren, 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 1 Crc-0, 1,2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 1 Credit I Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring ,C -edit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 1 µ"#Credit 2 Increase Ventilation Effectiveness Cre,-4.t 3,1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Credit 3, 1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction l,reoit 3 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 1 Credit 3 - Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Credit 4.1 Low -Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 111511 Tt t 111:11 1 PIN 111I R ''1 111111 1 1 1 W, Credit 4 Low -Emitting Materials, Paints 5 Y ? N 1 Creditz_,, Low -Emitting Materials, Carpet Y Pr req, Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning 1 Credit 4 , Low -Emitting Materials, Composite Wood Minimum Energy Performance credi%%t '05 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Pr,req 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment Credit 6,' Controllability of Systems, Perimeter Y 2 Credit 1"1 Optimize Energy Performance, 20% New 10% Existing 2 1 Credit 6 Controllability of Systems, Non -Perimeter 2 Credit 1.2 Optimize Energy Performance, 30% New / 20% Existing 2 1 Credit 7.: Thermal Comfort, Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 T 2 1 credit 1 3 Optimize Energy Performance, 40% New / 30% Existing 2 1 Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring System 2 trent 1.4 Optimize Energy Performance, 50% New / 40% Existing 2 1 CI ed it 81 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces J__ creaut 1,5 Optimize Energy Performance, 60% New / 50% Existing 2 1 Credit Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces + Credil'21 Renewable Energy, 5% 1 I Credit 2.2 Renewable Energy, 10% 1 &1 �,R I Crev'it 2.3 Renewable Energy, 20% 1 Y ? N Credit.3 Additional Commissioning 1 1v Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: 4 Ozone Depletion Cledit 1 �� Innovation in Design-, come 1. No. 600• none I !Credif. r Measurement & Verification Credit ,.3 Innovation in Design. Ref. To: Presented FPW 1 I C ed'i, r- Green Power Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: L ___ Ref. Date Znn 1 Credit 2 LEED Tm Accredited Professional L U S Green Building Council Scorecard LEED TM Calculator 2.0 t (Sulbi-itte(� rJy liili Crocks at 5/4/64 4 •11 a 7ha J.�. Jr�,�r d t Jilt j G"fja""J l . "Ti r Design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupants in five broad areas, i f �n�r�y ei'i:ici�n�J incl r�n��w�iul� uri�rJy a Jnclo�r lnvir�nrri�ri�_Il c!i�lli�l Environmental Building News n �I The leading Newsletter on Environmentally Responsible Design 8 Constructioii vd.nel C, N,,.,�b.' E .r....enJdriye.>x.r Wn. ?000! LEED: A Look at the Rating System That's In This Issue: , f,,,,,,,,,„K,e... ...... Changing the Way America Builds SIE LEED GPFE�Pl11EDhGftATihG r hm �rdy h .,fer;.,na ^m i Tons 1: IFED 0.dinp SysMn •IEfD Al+ukrb ea•. I � l• the xoeeC hvarnDnlh. Wirtbaiready I CerfiRwfion lsysls 'from A,e fdwrr ? being tired m(ermath +r a fr+mewwE (w IfED:.�awf ]ns] yrm � en drn,gn cr hundmdr of pnyecK. e b � i uffitlaily referenced mtM. buildinN Ruide- KtDc.rd.a S+w•... ..15-]evobr '+I e+b Just rearr • Ms.w.: G.. i4ikYy rs :rdar rya ib4� YVhN�r �'nm 3 lined 'II Pe•.enunenK v,d led- IFtDCNYMd ... �rat +g '. d�nn fri lh urM f'Y iLEDC.nA.ed rlrar.. .... f). rp.a >tim nwie. What to th «mn thu har �rrr+trd wJ, mr�rst xf Ixxe dwe n r »A`()<u ai:muYM IhFC f.ik..+.. �, ercrn pr�innmm� Ftwle and mprvrte has •K.1Sf Caw hkr4 V W �^Od'� •Ilrw!le..aa tb •fVrrw bvr ,fGrd�- ', r Design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupants in five broad areas, i f �n�r�y ei'i:ici�n�J incl r�n��w�iul� uri�rJy a Jnclo�r lnvir�nrri�ri�_Il c!i�lli�l Jrl�fp -;:Ir� I + 65.2% of total U.S. electricity consumption � a > 36% of total U.S. primary energy use 2 • 30% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions s • 136 million tons of construction and demolition waste in the U.S. (approx. 2.8 lbs/person/day) a = 12% of potable water in the U.S. 5 40% (3 billion tons annually) of raw materials use globally s "Commercial and residential Environmental benefits ! i Economic benefits 1 Health and safety benefits Community benefits 1 �J�JJLl JI Improve occupant performance '. Reduce absenteeism and turnover ,i Increase retail sales with daylighting r- �J, C:JJ� IJ rJ iJ� �! National nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC Diverse membership of organizations Consensus -driven Committee -based product development Developer and administrator of the LEEDTM Green Building Rating System Competitive first costs lrtegret d de.ip Allrjvvs high benefit at Jow cost by achieving synergies; f. et v era discipliri..s and between technologies Reduce operating costs . Lovvv +utility rosts Optimize life -cycle economic performance r L E E D r _ �Jl iJJr� A leading-edge guideline for designing, constructing, operating, and certifying the world's greenest buildings. J Facilitate positive results for the environment, occupant health and financial return J�fir! "fir. r," f�Y �roviclin� __! i r,cl ircl for Prevent "greenwashing" (false or exaggerated claims) �i �J�rjr 6 0 0 I rivI I�jj TISir]�-IwfrJ,_J tj C)rj Registered Projects by Building Type* Public Order 8 S afety(police, jail, Industrial Multi -Unit courthouse) / Residential K-12 Education Interpretive Center i (apartments, dormitories) Laboratory Use as a design guideline Recognize leaders Stimulate green competition Assembly (conv. center, place of Establish market value with recognizable national "brand" Raise consumer awareness Health Care Transform the marketplace! I rivI I�jj TISir]�-IwfrJ,_J tj C)rj Registered Projects by Building Type* Public Order 8 S afety(police, jail, Industrial Multi -Unit courthouse) / Residential K-12 Education Interpretive Center i (apartments, dormitories) Laboratory (mu ,visitor — center, zoo) Library +I`'/elm%rrl� ='%lrr � �,r;d ��r1-iirle,�rrJJ�r,r Assembly (conv. center, place of Multi -Use worship, theater) Other Reiereree f r ge Health Care Higher Education Step 3: Building Certification Communications Financlel8 / Special Needs Commercial Office— Housing (assisted living, long-term care) -As of 12.16 2002 •' LEEDTm Market,IJ"r�rIIJ 1t�rrJ ❑ 38 Certified Projects* ® 601 Registered Projects* It f%l i ;9 F rx 77 M gsf* 48 States 7 Countries* As of 12.16.02 �J(Jj cJ �J`/ 1"`JJ J% J1 )'rPll Whole -building approach encourages and guides a collaborative, integrated design and construction process Optimizes environmental and economic factors Four levels of certification LEER Certified 26 - '�2 fpcArit: ' vllv'.''.r Level '), - .JJ points Gold Level ':IJJ - 51 poirlt PI;Dtinurrl Level 52+ points (F;9 possible) a A three step process Step 1: Project Registration +I`'/elm%rrl� ='%lrr � �,r;d ��r1-iirle,�rrJJ�r,r ll=-clr g Step 2: Prepare/Submit Documentation Reiereree f r ge (-_>;redjt Rulings Step 3: Building Certification Qv)rl dcxJ urrlerl?atjJm submittal Irjd U'Z�r�BC revlev Recognition of Quality Buildings and Environmental Stewardship 'Third parly ar;hjepi errs errs F To�J\Jards; Chariging the- POE;itive F,f e "'�'r 0 �j Registered Projects by Owner Type* Federal Other Individual Government 21%1, 0%, 10 17. Profit State Corporation Government 35% 12% Nonprofit Corporation Local 15% Government *As of 12.16 02 !I h LEED Certified projects beginning in 2003 LEED Application Guide for Lodging ]J.S�' Plrm/ 'vf Eligingefs Adoption of LEEDTM (SPiRiT) E) P-PJrlm Eiji t [if E;tala Grant for LEED Existing Buildings Grant for LEED Residential IJ ` —'d �-f IJ.D J: vViElipahu Jrrterrrlerli rte SchDC)l J\/J F J HorjDlulu Laor-,-J-Iory NELH,\ G;-:j-[P-vv-,-iY DEF), (-mer Recognition of Quality Buildings and Environmental Stewardship: -,Third party validation of achievement lify fi�r Df �Ijrld Improved Design Process MgIng me -Reflects Community Goals Recognition of Quality Buildings and Environmental Stewardship 'Third parly ar;hjepi errs errs F To�J\Jards; Chariging the- POE;itive F,f e "'�'r 0 �j Registered Projects by Owner Type* Federal Other Individual Government 21%1, 0%, 10 17. Profit State Corporation Government 35% 12% Nonprofit Corporation Local 15% Government *As of 12.16 02 !I h LEED Certified projects beginning in 2003 LEED Application Guide for Lodging ]J.S�' Plrm/ 'vf Eligingefs Adoption of LEEDTM (SPiRiT) E) P-PJrlm Eiji t [if E;tala Grant for LEED Existing Buildings Grant for LEED Residential IJ ` —'d �-f IJ.D J: vViElipahu Jrrterrrlerli rte SchDC)l J\/J F J HorjDlulu Laor-,-J-Iory NELH,\ G;-:j-[P-vv-,-iY DEF), (-mer Local Government LEED" Users T/ j PAjri�rDfi' Recognition of Quality Buildings and Environmental Stewardship 'Third parly ar;hjepi errs errs F To�J\Jards; Chariging the- POE;itive F,f e "'�'r 0 �j Registered Projects by Owner Type* Federal Other Individual Government 21%1, 0%, 10 17. Profit State Corporation Government 35% 12% Nonprofit Corporation Local 15% Government *As of 12.16 02 !I h LEED Certified projects beginning in 2003 LEED Application Guide for Lodging ]J.S�' Plrm/ 'vf Eligingefs Adoption of LEEDTM (SPiRiT) E) P-PJrlm Eiji t [if E;tala Grant for LEED Existing Buildings Grant for LEED Residential IJ ` —'d �-f IJ.D J: vViElipahu Jrrterrrlerli rte SchDC)l J\/J F J HorjDlulu Laor-,-J-Iory NELH,\ G;-:j-[P-vv-,-iY DEF), (-mer • A� 9 Att *N& 'poor Project Profile: WIS Cafeteria -Client: Department of Education -LPED J rJ f')f' D�!_j� .Funding: State of Hawaii SIF) -LEED Post -AE Award Decision -LEED Process Cost: 1.0% Project Profile: NMFS Honolulu Laboratory -Client: NOAA -Construction Contract: BID w/Q J -LEED Rating Level: Per AE (GOLD) -LEED Process Cost: 0.5% • t 3 J 40% More Energy Efficient than Code Compliant Building of Same Type ;-l� itchy Js1"!�;���rr� �riiirr�nrn.n� �ir��l lncr��i�.cl pr«�l!i�•?:�i�i Lead Other Counties by Example Jrl 'Cf11 J i" iclf.' Is 1I J f i✓ J l Low/No Change to AHJ Procedures Achievable Within Existing Project Budget Compatible With Low Bid Process Modest Increase to AE Fees and Design Timeline i Minor Additions to Construction Docs Minor Additions to General Contractor Work Contact LEED Municipalities for Input Resolution Requiring LEED For WHCC Approach WHCC as a LEED Pilot Project for County of Hawaii Require LEED Registration and Identify Desired Rating Level in the RFP Prioritize Energy & Atmosphere Credits to Reduce Operating Costs Require LEED Credentials in Selecting the AE Team Project Profile: NELHA Gateway DER Center �'..�.�•� -Client: NELHA r� -Construction Contract: BID 3 •LEED Rating Level: Per AE u (Platinum) t 3 J 40% More Energy Efficient than Code Compliant Building of Same Type ;-l� itchy Js1"!�;���rr� �riiirr�nrn.n� �ir��l lncr��i�.cl pr«�l!i�•?:�i�i Lead Other Counties by Example Jrl 'Cf11 J i" iclf.' Is 1I J f i✓ J l Low/No Change to AHJ Procedures Achievable Within Existing Project Budget Compatible With Low Bid Process Modest Increase to AE Fees and Design Timeline i Minor Additions to Construction Docs Minor Additions to General Contractor Work Contact LEED Municipalities for Input Resolution Requiring LEED For WHCC Approach WHCC as a LEED Pilot Project for County of Hawaii Require LEED Registration and Identify Desired Rating Level in the RFP Prioritize Energy & Atmosphere Credits to Reduce Operating Costs Require LEED Credentials in Selecting the AE Team 0 •• 1 fO nvironmental The Leading Newsletter on Environmentally Responsible Design & Construction Volume 9, Number 6 www.BuildingGreen.com June 2000 LEED: A Look at the Rating System That's Changing the Way America Builds HE LEED GREEN BUILDING RATING SystemTm has only been officially "on the street" for a month, but it is already being used informally as a framework for green design of hundreds of projects. It is officially referenced in the building guide- lines of several local governments and fed- eral agencies, and unofficially used by many more. What is this system that has generated such interest, and how does it work? Our account of LEED follows. What LEED Is LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The LEED Rating System is a method for providing stan- dardization and independent oversight to claims of environmental performance for nonresidential buildings. Its checklist of Table 1: LEED Rating System Certification Levels LEED Certified ......................... 26-32 Points LEED Certified Silver ................ 33-38 Points LEED Certified Gold ................. 39-51 Points LEED Certified Platinum ................ 52+ Points green performance goals and measures has 69 possible points—a building that can document compliance with 26 or more points can be LEED-certified (see Table 1). LEED is a project of the U.S. Green Build- ing Council (USGBC), a nonprofit organi- zation of architects, construction compa- nies, product manufacturers, engineers, consultants, and many others. The Council's stated vision is "Green buildings and communi- ties for a healthy and prosperous planet." Of the various initiatives and programs that have emerged from the Coun- cil since it was founded in 1993, LEED is by far the most significant in terms of the interest it has generated. The Aspen Skiing Company's Sundeck Restaurant was among the first LEED-certified buildings (see EBN Vol. 9, No. 4). Deconstruction of the former structure kept 84% of its materials out of the landfill. A Brief History Given the enormous im- pact that LEED now has within the USGBC, it is not surprising that the origins of LEED go back to the beginning of the Council, and even before. (continued Oil pcgc. 8) In This Issue: Feature Article ........... 1 • LEED: A Look at the Rating System That's Changing the Way America Builds From the Editors ......... 2 • Perspective: Green Building Tax Credits? No, Thanks! What's Happening ....3 • New FSC Content Policy for Certified Wood Products • Dioxin: Down and Up • Electrolux Buys "Electrolux" • Recycling Asphalt Roofing Shingles • Dursban to Be Phased Out • DOE Clothes Washer Standards Raised • FTC Revises EnergyGuide Labels for Clothes Washers • Newsbriefs Product News & Reviews ........... 8 • The Hayward Truss From the Library ...... 15 • The Natural House Calendar ................ 16 Quote of the month: "Following rules (from ASHRAEI it's going to be very difficult to achieve savings greater than 30%, even in the most innovative designs." Charles Eley on the LEED energy credits (page 12) would be a good way to influence the industry, Watson chose to devote a substantial amount of time to the project, and progress on the rating system—which got the name "LEED" in April of 1996—accelerated. Other members of that early Committee who are still active with LEED in- clude Italiano, Sandra Mendler, AIA (now with CUH2A, Inc.), and Wil- liam Reed, AIA (now with Natural Logic, Inc.). The Committee generated several drafts for review, though little remains of any of those in the current version. "I can think of very few things that survived from those early drafts," says Watson. Even after Version 1.0 was officially adopted by the Coun- cil, there were some lingering concerns, and the Council lacked the resources to roll out a full program. Instead, pilot projects to test the system were solic- ited at the Council's August 1996 Member Meeting in Big Sky, Montana. Funding from the U.S. Department of Energy financed the administration of those pilot projects and the cre- ation of a LEED a.1.0 Reference Guide. Meanwhile, refinement of the system continued under the direction of Mendler and Reed, co-chairs of the LEED Technical Committee, with subcommittees actively reviewing each topic area. Lynne Barker (formerly Lynne King) and Tom Paladino were also instrumental in this process as co-chairs of the LEED Pilot Commit- tee. In the summer of 1999 a large group of technical experts (including EBN's Alex Wilson) convened for a weekend workshop at the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation's Pocantico Es- tate in Tarrytown, New York and ini- tiated many of the refinements now in LEED 2.0. The summer of 1999 also marked the start of Steve Kepplei s position as the Council's first full- time LEED project manager. The pilot testing resulted in LEED certification of its first twelve build- ings on March 30, 2000 (see I'RN Vol. 9, No. •1). LEED 2.0 was approved by members on May 9, 2000, though Feature Article: LEED Rating System Prescriptive or Performance Approach? There are two distinct approaches to building guidelines (whether they are manda- tory codes or voluntary credits as in LEED: prescriptive and performance-based. Prescriptive credits simply tell the designer what should be done for example, provide R-20 insulation in walls and R-30 in roofs, while performance-based cred- its set a goal for example, total building energy use should be 30% below a given baseline) and leave it up to the designer to determine how that goal is to be achieved. The prescriptive approach is generally easier to use, but it discourages innovation and creativity. With version 2.0, more LEED credits are performance- based than in earlier versions. This shift gives designers more flexibility but also makes it harder to document and verify compliance with the credits. buildings that were working towards certification under LEED 1.0 will still be allowed to apply under that sys- tem. The LEED 2.0 Reference Guide is currentlybeing developed by Palad no Consulting of Seattle and will be published exclusively on the Internet. How LEED Certification Works The first step in certifying a building under LEED is to register the project with the USGBC. The registration fee ($350 for Council members, $500 for non-members) gets you access to the online reference materials and up to two free "credit interpretations." All credit interpretations will be posted with the LEED 2.0 Reference Guide on the Web, so that subsequent projects have the benefit of all prior interpre- tations. Interpretation requests are submitted online, and a two-week turnaround is promised. Should more than two interpretations be needed, additional requests are handled for $220 each. Once the building is complete, the owner or designer must submit a checklist showing which credits are being claimed, along with the docu- mentation needed for those credits and a fee of $1,200 ($1,500 for non- members). The certification commit- tee then reviews the project and, if documentation is in order, awards the appropriate rating. Certified projects receive a certificate and brass plaque, along with a media kit and the promise of exposure on the Coun- cil Web site and in the trade press. In addition to these direct costs, projects that intend to be LEED-cer- Volume 9, Number 6 Environmental Buddi!iq News tified will have to budget some ad- ditional time for the design and con- struction team to monitor and docu- ment compliance with the credits. Ac- tual documentation requirements are still being worked out, so it is too early to estimate what these costs will be, but they will not be insignificant. Recognizing that the LEED ratings are based on a building's design rather than its actual operation, the Council has determined that a LEED rating will be considered valid for five years. At that time, the building will have to undergo recertification under a yet - to -be -developed LEED Operations and Maintenance Rating System to retain its rating. There will likely also be the possibility that the building's rating might be adjusted up or down at that time, according to Watson. The Credits At LEED's core is the checklist of cred- its that determine available points for various green measures. The entire detailed checklist is available free as the LEED Green Building Rating Sys- temr�', an Adobe Acrobat'"^ file that can be downloaded from the USGBC's Web site (registration is required to download the file). This 25 -page document lists every available credit, describing the intent, the require- ments, and some sample technolo- gies or strategies for meeting the re- quirement EBN readers with interest in LEED are strongly encouraged to get this document, as it is the only official guide to the LEED system. The overview below summarizes the credits and adds some commentary Feature Article: LEER Rating S,vstem on pertinent issues or concerns. In general, the LEED document has some inconsistencies, possibly be- cause in some areas the concepts and intent of the credits have been dis- tilled and refined over several years, while in others new credits were added late in the process and their imple- mentation is less than crystal clear. Many loose ends remain to be clari- fied in the LEED Reference Guide and worked out as the first projects work their way through this new system. Sustainable Sites 1 Prerequisite 8 Credits 14 Points Experts at the Pocantico charrette made significant changes to this sec- tion to avoid situations in which it would be easier to get points with greenfield redevelopment than with redevelopment of disturbed sites. The only Prerequisite requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be followed that conforms to EPA's best management practices for storm - water control or local standards (whichever is more stringent). Credit 1 - Site Selection provides one point for avoiding development of an inappropriate site—for example, agricultural land, flood zones, or land with wetlands or critical habitat. Credit 2 - Urban Redevelopment pro- vides one point for carrying out the development in a high-density or ur- ban area rather than developing a greenfield site. Credit 3 - Brownfield Redevelopment provides one point for carrying out the development on a browntield, which is a Table 2: site adversely affected by real or perceived environmental contami- nation. As with Credit 2, this reduces develop- ment pressure on green- field sites and can help to protect open space. Credit 4 - Alternative Transportation provides up to four points for measures that reduce dependence on private automo- biles—a notable commitment for a rat- ing system on buildings. One credit is provided for each of the following: a) building near a light-rail station or bus lines; b) providing bicycle stor- age and shower facilities to encour- age bicycle commuting; c) installing alternative refueling stations; and d) providing preferred parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles, while also minimizing overall parking. Credit 5 - Reduced Site Disturbance provides one or two credits for mea- sures that conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas. One credit is provided a) with green- field sites if development is done so as to severely restrict impacts be- yond the immediate building(s) and roadways, or b) with previously de- veloped sites if a minimum of 50%a of the remaining open area is re- stored with native plantings. A sec- ond credit is provided if the open space left after development ex- ceeds the local zoning's open space requirements by at least 25%, (the de- velopment footprint includes build- ings and roadways/ parking). Credit 6 - Stormwater Management provides one or two credits for implementing a responsible storm - water management plan. One credit is provided when there is no net in- crease in stormwater runoff after de- velopment or—for sites in which at least half of the land area is already covered with impervious surfaces— where a 257,, reduction in storm - water runoff can be achieved. A sec- LEED Credits and Points by Section and credit is awarded for storm - water treatment that removes 807,, of the post -development total suspended solids (TSS) and 40% of the post - development total phosphorous, as outlined in EPA standards. Credit 7 - Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands awards one or two points for measures reduc- ing the localized warming referred to as the "urban heat island" effect. One credit is provided for use of prescribed shading strategies and reflective materials for non -roof impervious sur- faces (e.g., parking lots). A second credit is provided if a green roof (veg- etated) is used for at least 50% of the roof area, or if roofing on at least 75% of roof surfaces is reflective to ENERGY STnR standards and has high-emissiv- fly. (The LEED document incorrectly states "low -emissivity" and doesn't specify a threshold.) Even though it is not addressed in the ENERGY STAR pro- gram, high -emissivity of the roof sur- face is important because, to stay cool, a roof must not only reflect most of the radiation that it receives, but it must also be able to emit radiation to release the heat it absorbs. Galvanized steel is the material most affected by this distinction: it is reflective bu t still heats up due to its low -emissivity. Credit 8 - Light Pollution Reduction provides one credit for keeping out- door lighting levels low (as defined by recently established lighting industry recommendations for exterior light- ing) and avoiding all light trespass from the site. This credit was added during the 1999 experts charrette. Section Prorequi- sites Credits Possible Points % of Total Points 20 Sustainable Sites 1 7 14 Water Efficiency 0 3 5 7 Energy and Atmosphere 3 6 17 25 Materials and Resources 1 7 13 19 Indoor Environmental Quality 2 8 15 22 Innovation and Design Process 0 2 5 7 Total 7 33 69 100 Water Efficiency 0 Prerequisites 3 Credits 5 Points Relative to its global significance as a re- source, water has sur- prisingly little influence in the LEED system. Unlike some other rat- ing systems, LEED does not require that a mini- mum number of points come from each section. 10 Environmental Building News June 2000 As a result, with only five points to- tal and no prerequisites in the water section, it is entirely possible that a building could be LEED-certified— even at the Platinum level—yet have no water -conservation features be- yond what is required by law. The three water credits apply to landscaping, wastewater, and indoor water use, respectively. All three water credits are based on use reduc- tions from a certain baseline level. For indoor water use, the baseline is determined by calculating estimated usage assuming Energy Policy Act - compliant fixtures. For the other two credits the calculation method is not specified, and users are referred to the Reference Guide. Credit 1 - Water -Efficient Landscaping provides one point for a 50y, reduc- tion from the baseline in potable water use and a second point for an addi- tional 50'% reduction, meaning no potable water use. The reduction can be achieved with efficient irrigation technology or by irrigating with cap- tured rainwater or recycled graywater. Credit 2 - Innovative Wastewater Technologies offers one point for either reducing sewage Flow by 50°0 from the baseline or treating all wastewa- ter on site to tertiary standards. Credit 3 -Water Use Reduction applies to all non -landscaping uses, includ- ing both sanitary fixtures and HVAC equipment such as cooling towers. One point is achieved with a 20'70 reduc- tion from the baseline, and a second point for an additional 10% reduction. Energy and Atmosphere 3 Prerequisites - b Credits 17 Points Appropriately, LEED places a large emphasis on energy. Of the 17 points in this section, 15 relate to energy ef- ficiency or renewable energy (see Table 3). In addition, the four points in Site Credit 4 on alternative trans- portation also promote energy con- servation. Just how feasible it will be to earn such a large number of en- ergy credits, however, depends on the details of energy performance cal- culations, which are yet to be worked out (see sidebar, page 12). A significant shift from LEED 1.0 is that sev- eral credits outlining pre- scriptive measures to re- duce energy use have been omitted, since they provide benefits that should be cap- tured by this performance credit. Prerequisite I - Fundamen- tal Building Systems Com- missioning requires that a commissioning authority be identified and contracted to perform certain tasks. Making this role a prereq- uisite is a strong endorse- ment by LEED of the emerging prac- tice of commissioning. Feature Article. LEED Rating System Table 3: Energy and Atmosphere Section Factors Organized by Topic Prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Per- formance requires a level of energy efficiency as described in Standard 90.1-1999 from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (See sidebar on page 12 for details on this requirement.) Prerequisite 3 - CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment bans the use of CPC -based systems in new buildings and requires a phaseout plan in ex- isting buildings. The former is al- ready law in most developed coun- tries but was retained here because LEED may also be applied in coun- tries without such laws. Credit 1 - Optimize Energy Perfor- mance offers from two to ten points, depending on the level of energy sav- ings from the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline. The range of energy savings to get these points is 20'% to 60% for new buildings and 10% to 50% for reno- vations (see sidebar, page 12). Credit 2 - Renewable Energy offers one to three points for the use of re- newable energy generated on-site to meet 5% to 20y, of the building's en- ergy needs. Energy from these sources cannot be used to reduce the building's energy use as calculated for Credit 1, and strategies that are used to reduce Volume 9. Number 6 Environmental Building News a building's energy load, such as pas- sive solar and daylighting, cannot be included under Credit 2. Credit 3 - Additional Commissioning offers a point for an expanded com- missioning role beyond that of Pre- requisite 1. Credit 4 - Elimination of HCFCs and Halons provides one point if HVAC and fire -suppression equipment do not use HCFCs or Halons. The inclu- sion of HCFCs in this credit, even though their ozone -depletion poten- tial is tiny compared with Halons, has been the subject of some public controversy. This is a loaded issue in part because it creates a distinct pref- erence for chillers from Carrier, which has moved away from HCFCs, over those from competitors, in spite of reasonable arguments that more efficient HCFC -based chillers maybe a better overall environmental choice. The LEED Committee has stuck with this requirement, arguing that en- ergy efficiency benefits are accounted for in Credit 1, and it is important to take a strong stand against ozone depletion. Credit 5 - Measurement and Verifica- tion provides a point for the installa- tion of equipment for continuous metering of energy and water use, as described in the U.S. DOE's Interna- tional Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. Feature Article LEER Rating System LEED Energy Credits and ASHRAE 90.1 Credit 6 -Green Power offers a point if the facility enters into a two-year Both Prerequisite 2 and the two to ten points available in Credit I are defined In relation contract to purchase power from an to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999. While there are distinct advantages to referencing such a widely recognized concensus-based standard, doing so also introduces some independently certified green elec- tricky issues, which the Committee has yet to resolve. Some of these issues stem from the fact tricity provider. that, unlike LEED 1 .0, LEED 2.0 references the 1999 version of 90. 1, which was adopted Materials Resources just weeks before LEED was approved. The 1999 version is widely regarded as a better and standard, but it includes some changes that make its use in LEER more difficult. 1 Prerequisite 7 Credits 13 Points Standard 90.1 includes two compliance paths: a user can meet the requirements on a component-by-component basis -meeting the requirement for thermal performance of The Materials and Resources Prereq- the building envelope, HVAC systems, lighting, and other components individually—er uisite requires that the building ac - by modeling the energy use of the entire building using the "Energy Cost Budget" commodate recycling of solid waste method. The latter method basically defines a basecase building that matches the by occupants. orientation and shape of the actual design, but just meets the requirements for each component. The actual design is then considered compliant if it matches this base case Credit 1 - Building Reuse offers u to 9 P in annual energy use, regardless of how each component performs on its own. three points for reuse of an existing LEED Prerequisite 2, as written, requires the building to comply with 90.1 on o compo- nent-by-component basis (or meet the local energy code if that Is more stringent). If facility—one point for reusing at least 75% of the structure and shell, interpreted literally, this means that designers will not be allowed to trade-off perfor- two points for reusing 100'%,,, and a mance of one component against others to meet the prerequisite. LEED 1.0 referenced third point for also reusing 50%, of the 1989 version of the Standard for this requirement, and many jurisdictions base their interior finishes. Credits are not energy code on that Standard, so acceptance by local officials was taken as sufficient awarded for reuse of glazings or for meeting the prerequisite, according to Paladino. With LEED 2.0 it may take o while for local energy codes to catch up, and designers may be required to document compli- window assemblies on the exterior ance with 90.1 for each component. shell because, in many cases, reus- Credit 1, on the other hand, requires the use of the Energy Cost Budget method. "You're ing old glazing is not good for en - going to have to do o simulation to get a credit beyond the prerequisite," says Palladino, ergy performance or comfort. adding: "There is really no way around it, particularly in a complex building, with Credit 2 - Construction and Waste energy moving from zone to zone." This requirement has serious cost implications for buildings in which energy modeling was not already budgeted, as energy modeling of Management offers one point for re - a large building typically costs on the order of $15,000. Poladino notes that it should cycling at least50`�, (b wei ht)ofcon- cy g y g be a goal of the program to encourage design teams to begin this sort of modeling struction, demolition, and land -clear - early, when there is still time to use it to inform the design, rather than running the ing waste, and a second point for simulation after -the -fact as a measurement tool. recycling another 25%. Source reduc- Standard 90.1 is very specific about how the base -case building is to be set up in on tion on the job site is identified as an energy model, and even more details are yet to be published in o forthcoming ASHRAE appropriate strategy, but details on Supplement. For a number of reasons, it may not work for LEED to follow ASHRAE's how such reductions would be deter - rules in this matter, however, which leaves a lot of unknowns for the LEED 2.0 Reference mined are left for the Reference Guide. Guide to determine. One problem with following ASHRAE's rules is simply that they make it almost impos- The remaining credits, 93 through sible to achieve more than 4 of the 10 possible points in the LEED system. "Following rules k7, all address the use of environmen- of the Energy Cost Budget method it's going to be very difficult to achieve savings greater tally preferable materials. During the than 30%, even in the most innovative designs," says Charles Eley, FAIA PE, of Eley Associ. development of this section it was ates, a leading expert on energy-efficient commercial buildings and author of the ASHRAE generally acknowledged that, ideally, 90.1 Users Manual. LEED requires 40% savings to get six points, and 60% savings to all materials would be chosen based get the full ten points in a new building. Eley notes that the 1999 component guidelines amount to a base case that is 15% to 20% more efficient than the 1989 base case. on reliable and comprehensive life - There are also stipulations about how the base case is determined that reduce available cycle assessments. Since neither the assessments nor a tool for their use is savings. For example, in the 1999 version, the Standard 90.1 base case must match the design building in massing and orientation, which means that designers don't get any available, several indicators of envi- credit for shaping or orienting a building to save energy. Finally, Standard 90.1 does ronmental preferability were identi- not recognize natural ventilation as a design strategy that might expand the comfort fied instead. These are spelled out in zone of occupants, so it requires that every building be modeled for energy use as each of the credits. though it were mechanically air conditioned. Credit -Resource Reuse provides In addition to all these issues, there is a lot of energy used in buildings for applications one point for using salvaged re - that Standard 90.1 doesn't address, such as plug loads for office equipment and appli- ances, elevators, and outdoor lighting. These can amount to as much as half the energy 5 furbished materials for at least 5`% of ' use in a commercial office building, according to Eley. The outdoor lighting useIs the materials on the project, and two addressed to some extent by LEED in the Light Pollution credit, and the plug loads are o points for 10%,,. After much debate, more fitting topic for the LEED Operations and Maintenance Rating System. Elevator the Committee chose to base these energy use appears to have fallen through the cracks, however. percentages on the cost of the mate - 12 Environmental Building News June 2000 rials (as opposed to their volume or weight). However, since some sal- vaged materials may have little or no cost, yet require a lot of labor to use, there is the provision that the value of the materials they replace can be used to calculate their "cost." The method for calculating the per- centages for this and the following three credits was subject to revisions even after the ballot version of LEED 2.0. The final version stipulates that the cost of the salvaged materials be divided by the cost of all building materials in the project, excluding mechanical and electrical systems. Also excluded are all labor costs and project overhead and fees. While this method represents a reasonable resolution to a complex problem, it as- sumes that no components of the mechanical or elec- trical systems will be sal- vaged (or qualify under the other credits that use this method). Whether and how such products might be included in the calcula- tion is another sticky issue for the Reference Guide to resolve. Credit 4 - Recycled Content provides one point for the use of atleast 25% ofbuild- ing materials with recycled content, and a second point for using at least 50°,,. The materials used to qualify for this credit must have a weighted average (average that factors in the quantity of each material) of at least 20% postcon- sumer recycled content or 4M, post- industrial. within this radius. This credit has the potential to drive whole new Libeling systems within the building materials industry because many manufacturers have multiple facto- ries and it is not often possible for a contractor or tradesperson to know which plant is the source of any par- ticular shipment. Credit 6 - Rapidly Renewable Mate- rials offers a point for the use of at least 5"l0 of materials that are made from resources such as agricultural products or bamboo. Clarification added between the ballot and final Feature Article- LEED Rating System point easier to achieve than the Com- mittee may have originally intended— an issue that will no doubt be re- viewed when LEED is updated in 2003. In any case, the reference of FSC guidelines is an important en- dorsement of that system. Indoor Environmental Quality 2 Prerequisites 8 Credits 15 Points Prerequisite 1 - Minimum IAQ Perfor- mance requires compliance with ASHRAE's Standard 62-1999 on ven- tilation for tAQ. Credit 5 - Local/Regional Materials provides points for the use of mate- rials sourced and manufactured within a 500 -mile (800 km) radius of the building site. The first point is based on using 20% of materials that are manufactured within this radius, and the second point is achieved if at least half of this 20°,, is made with raw materials that are also from versions of LEED 2.0 stipulates that the materials in question must not contribute to biodiversity loss, ero- sion, or air pollution; credit interpre- tations will likely be needed to rule on the acceptability of various spe- cific materials. Credit 7 - Certified Wood provides a point when at least 50y, of all wood - based materials in a project are certi- fied to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines. Unlike the four previous credits, this one is not based on any calculation of all materials in the building, but just those made of wood. Changes to the FSC labeling policy (see page 3) will make this Prerequisite 2 - Environ- mental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control bans exposure of occupants to ETS, either with a general smoking ban, or with restricted smoking rooms to effec- tively remove ETS from the building. Credit 1 - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring offers a point for installation of a permanent CO2 monitor- ing system and setting it to control CO2 levels so that indoor levels do not exceed outdoor levels by more than 530 parts per million. Credit 2 - Increase Ventila- tion Effectiveness provides a point for air distribution systems that promote ef- fective air exchange. Dis- placement ventilation systems (using underfloor distribution and over- head exhaust), low-velocity laminar - flow ventilation, and natural ventila- tion (with documentation of effective inlet and outlet design) are suggested approaches. Credit 3 - Construction IAQ Manage- ment Plan provides one point for con- formance to a range of measures de- signed to prevent indoor contamina- tion that results from construction processes. A second point is avail- able for either a two-week flush -out period after construction and prior to occupancy, or performing a base- line IAQ test using procedures devel- Volume 9, Number 6 Fnvlronmental Building News 13 Feature Article: LEED Poring Systern oped for the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency's Research Triangle Park Campus. Credit 4 - Low -Emitting Materials pro- vides one point for meeting volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limits in each of four product areas: adhesives and sealants—referencing limits set by two air quality agencies in California; paints and coatings— referencing a Standard from the non- profit organization Green Seal; car- pet systems—referencing a testing protocol from the Carpet and Rug In- stitute (CRI); and wood or agrifiber products—for avoiding products made with urea formaldehyde bind- ers. Of these, the carpet category should be an especially easy point as nearly all carpets and carpet ad- hesives comply with the CRI label- ing program. Credit S - Indoor Chemical and Pol- lutant Source Control offers one point for a) providing effective grills and walk -off mats at entries to prevent soiling of floor surfaces, and b) isolat- ing areas in the building where haz- ardous chemicals are handled. Credit 6 - Controllability of Systems provides one point where occupants located near the perimeter have ac- cess to operable windows and local- ized lighting controls, and a second point if half the occupants who are not near the perimeter have indi- vidual comfort controls. By separating the requirements according to perim- eter and non -perimeter spaces, this credit strongly encourages operable windows and individualized controls without going as far as promoting European -style finger -plan designs that put all occupants near windows. Credit 7 -Thermal Comfort offers two points, one for complying with ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 on ther- mal comfort, and a second for install- ing a permanent automated control system for temperature and humid- ity. ASHRAE Standard 55 defines comfort conditions based on air tem- perature, mean radiant temperature, humidity, and air movement. While it includes all these parameters, the comfort zone it defines is narrow enough that no building in the U.S. that relies purely on natural ventila- tion for cooling can be expected to comply. The humidity control require- ments of the second point also ex- clude naturally ventilated buildings. Credit 8 - Daylight and Views offers a point for daylighting and another for access to views (or at least to vision glass, regardless of what is seen out- side). The daylight point requires the provision of a significant amount of daylight in at least 75% of the regu- larly occupied space. The view point demands a direct line of sight to vi- sion glass from 90% of such spaces. Unlike Credit 6, these points do en- courage narrow plan buildings. Innovation and Design Process 0 Prerequisites 2 Credits 5 Points The Innovation and Design Process section offers four possible points for green measures not found in the check- list. These open points help counteract the drawbacks of relying on a check- list for rating a building because they allow designers to claim points for green strategies that are not included in the LEED checklist. Each such point will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis by the LEED Committee. This section also offers one point for use of a "LEED-Accredited Profes- sional" as a principal participant on the project team. Building profes- sionals will be accredited, beginning in the fall of 2000, based on a proc- tored exam that will test knowledge of green building in general and the LEED system in particular. One -day LEED training workshops that are being held in various cities should be adequate preparation for most prac- titioners to pass the test, according to Paladino, one of the instructors. "One of our primary goals with the accreditation process is to sharpen up the folks who will be handing in the certification applications," notes Paladino, adding: "The Council's administration costs for reviewing a poorly put together application are extremely high." Looking Ahead and Looking Back The Council has committed to a three- year cycle for revisions to the LEED Rating System, so the review process will begin again soon. Meanwhile, the success of I-EED has spurred members to create complementary programs for projects not covered by LEED. LEED Interiors, now in its second draft, is being developed by a Committee chaired by interior designer Penny Bonda of Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann's Washington, D.C. office. Formula- tion of LEED Residential is just be- ginning with a large committee under the leadership of Marc Richmond - Powers of the Austin, Texas Green Building Program. And LEED for Operations and Management has not yet been initiated in any official way, but the Council is aware that it will be needed by 2005 to provide ongo- ing certification of existing buildings. Meanwhile, other organizations are building on the LEED system as they reference it for their own purposes. For example, the City of Seattle has established a policy that all munici- pal buildings must meet the LEED Silver rating. In addition, the City has its own guidelines about how some of the credits are to be calcu- lated and is requiring that certain credits be achieved (in effect, adding more prerequisites). So how good is LEED? The market has spoken, and the enormous inter- est expressed suggests that LEED is good enough for many people ex- cited about the potential of an inde- pendent rating for their buildings. While the system has weaknesses, they are inevitable in a new venture of this sort; by getting the system into circulation, these weaknesses can be resolved and LEED can be made more robust. LEED 2.0 as currently published is really just the frame- work for a Rating System—it will 14 Enviionmental Building News June 2000 become a full system once the Com- mittee, through the Reference Guide and early users, has fleshed out the details of how a project is measured and documented for each credit. The relatively short, three-year revision cycle will encourage quick evolution. While LEED has great potential to move the building industry toward greener practice, a rating system can- not do everything. There are some inherent problems with any system that encourages a design -by -check- list approach. For example, once a designer or team has determined that they will not be able to achieve a certain credit, the system provides no incentive to at least do what they can in that direction. Similarly, once the threshold for a credit is met, there is no incentive to try to do even better. As checklists go, however, LEED is remarkably sophisticated, having benefited from countless hours of work (mostly volunteer) from lead- ing green architects, engineers, con- tractors, and other professionals. In- clusion of the innovation credits op- tion, while adding more work for application reviewers, greatly en- hances the flexibility of the system. The cost of certification and the time required to prepare an application will be a barrier for some—as a re- sult, for every project that gets certi- fied, there will likely be many others just using the system internally. Ei- ther way, the Council's mission of promoting green buildings will have been advanced, and meaningful cri- teria for energy- and resource -effi- ciency fully detailed. If the Commit- tee continues to work out the imple- mentation details with the same level of energy and attention that went into LEED 2.0, we will see many more green buildings. - Nadav Malin For more information: Download the official LEED 2.0 document from the US Green Building Council: www.leedbuilding.org. Registration is required. Council members can also download additional documents about the LEED development process. Feature Article: LEED Rating System — From the Library Steve Keppler, Program Manager LEED Rating System 25 Eton Overlook Rockville, MD 20850 301/315-6656, 425/977-8115 (fax) skep@usgbc.org www.leedbuilding.org The Natural House: A Complete Guide to Healthy, Energy -Efficient, Environmental Homes by Daniel D. Chiras, 2000. Chelsea Green Publishing Co., White River Jct., Vt. Paperback, 470 pages, $35. Simply put, this is the most compre- hensive and most useful introduc- tion to natural building systems and practices available. Author Daniel Chiras is an educator and writer (his high school textbook, Environmental Science, has sold 150,000 copies) who has studied sustainable building practices and renewable energy since the early 1970s. More recently, he began looking specifically into natu- ral building options in planning his own new home—completed In 1996— and he treats us to his findings in The Natural House. Most of the first half of this highly readable book is a detailed review of eight natural building techniques: rammed -earth, straw -bale, Earth - ships, adobe, cob, cordwood, log, and stone. With each of these, Chiras provides some fascinating history, reviews the building system, covers general requirements, addresses cost, summarizes the advantages and disadvantages, and interviews one of the leading proponents of that building system (David Easton with rammed -earth, Michael Reynolds with Earthships, and Rob Roy with cordwood, for example). A chapter also addresses several emerging natural -building systems, including earthbags, papercrete, and bamboo. Chiras provides remarkably even- handed coverage of these natural - building systems, yet he doesn't pull any punches. He notes, for example, that "the only environmentally sound log home is one built from local wood lots and forests, and then, only if tree stands are being sustainably managed and harvested." In Part3 of The Natural House, Chiras goes into more detail on some over- arching principles relating to sus- tainable house design. There are chapters on passive solar heating and cooling, renewable electricity generation (photovoltaics, wind, and hydro), water systems (from rain- water harvesting to wastewater treatment), green building materials, and site considerations. The book is not without some errors and misin- formation (confusing CFCs with HCFCs in rigid foam insulation, for example, and some questionable in- formation on embodied energy), but in general it is very well researched and highly useful. The Natural House is a book that any- one setting out to build a home of natural materials should read from cover to cover. The emphasis is for the owner -builder, but there is much here that professional designers and builders will also find useful—espe- cially in addressing questions from potential clients on alternative build- ing systems. - AW Volume 9, Number 6 Environmental Building News 15