Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 20
2 The DOD Operating Environment, Building Standards, and Green Building Certification Systems This chapter provides background information about the Department of Defense (DOD) operating environment, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards 90.1-2010 and 189.1-2011, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Green Globes green building certification systems, and similarities and differences between the LEED and Green Globes systems. THE DOD OPERATING ENVIRONMENT DOD and the military services own and operate almost 500,000 buildings and other structures in support of their various defense-related missions. Typically, hundreds of individual structures are co- located on increasingly large and complex military installations. Those installations are located throughout the United States and the world and are subject to a wide range of geographic and climatic conditions. The majority of DOD facilities are more than 40 years old. Current budget issues are expected to curtail the construction of new buildings in the foreseeable future. The majority of buildings that will be used by DOD in 2030 and beyond likely already exist. Thus, the majority of future DOD investments in military construction will likely be spent on upgrades to or renovations of existing buildings. As noted in Chapter 1, facilities managers at permanent military installations are required to meet an array of legislative and policy mandates related to high-performance buildings, including specific targets to reduce the use of energy, water, and fossil fuels. Facilities managers must also ensure that facilities meet standards for security and for continuity of operations during emergency situations. In addition to new technologies related to high-performance buildings, DOD facilities may incorporate additional security-related technologies, which require well-trained staff if such technologies are to perform optimally. DOD and other federal agencies are required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) to reduce their total energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015 relative to 2005 levels. To determine how well it is progressing toward this goal, DOD measures its energy use in term of energy intensity (Btus per gross square foot of conditioned space) (DOD, 2012). Executive Order 13423 also required agencies to reduce their water intensity (gallons per square foot) by 2 percent each year through fiscal year (FY) 2015, for a total of 16 percent reduction below water consumption in 2007. Federal agencies must also ensure that 15 percent of the existing federal capital asset building inventory of each agency incorporates the sustainable practices outlined in “Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings” (hereinafter called the Guiding Principles; reprinted in Appendix E) by the end of FY 2015. The Guiding Principles are the following: 1. Employ Integrated Design Principles; 2. Optimize Energy Performance; 3. Protect and Conserve Water; 4. Enhance Indoor Environmental Quality; and 5. Reduce Environmental Impact of Materials. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-1
OCR for page 21
To meet the various mandates, DOD has undertaken a wide-ranging set of activities to make their facilities more sustainable, as outlined in the Department of Defense Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan for FY 2011 (DOD, 2010). These activities address issues such as renewable energy, the vulnerability of the electrical grid, chemicals of environmental concern, water resources management, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the research and development of new technologies. Some initiatives relate to individual buildings, such as those aimed at developing net-zero-energy buildings by 2030. Others take advantage of the size and single ownership of DOD installations, which allows for large-scale, systems-based approaches involving both infrastructure systems and clusters of buildings and the use of technologies such as district energy systems, combined heat and power (co-generation) plants, geothermal conditioning systems, water capture and reuse, and others. Larger-scale planning for energy systems and for the use of renewable sources of energy also have implications for resiliency during disasters, which is a primary consideration for the 24/7 operations of DOD. Mandates related to federal high-performance buildings call for the use of a life-cycle perspective or life-cycle costing. A life-cycle perspective involves consideration of all phases of a building’s life cycle: programming/planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance and repair, retrofit, and demolition or deconstruction (Figure 2.1). Life-cycle costing for buildings focuses on the integrated costs and performance of all building components, from planning through construction, through operations, repairs, replacements, and renovations, through disposal. Federal agencies began using green building certification systems when those systems were being developed and tested in the late 1990s (Wang et al., 2012). The 2003 report The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations (OFEE, 2003), noted that the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Circular A-11 encouraged agencies to incorporate ENERGY STAR®1 or LEED into designs for new buildings and major renovations. In 2003, nine federal agencies, including the General Services Administration (GSA), the Navy, and the Air Force were using LEED or a similar system for new projects; eight federal buildings were LEED certified and 60 additional federal buildings were undergoing LEED certification (OFEE, 2003). The Army took a different approach, developing a self-assessment tool called the Sustainable Project Rating Tool (SPiRiT) to help installations and designers quantify and measure the sustainability of infrastructure projects and military construction and repair projects. SPiRiT was first published in 2001, and the Army used it for more than 5 years. A 2006 report, Implementation of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED as the Army’s Green Building Rating System, compared and evaluated SPiRiT to LEED New Construction (LEED-NC). The report recommended the adoption of LEED-NC without modification or supplement, with an initial target rating of LEED-Silver for a 1-year probationary period (Schneider and Stumpf, 2006). The Army subsequently adopted LEED-NC as its green building certification standard. As of August, 2011, 40 federal buildings were Green Globes-certified (most by the Department of Veterans Affairs), and 519 federal buildings were LEED-certified (Wang et al., 2012). ASHRAE STANDARDS Building standards, in general, serve as technical references and guidelines for architects, engineers, and others for designing and constructing buildings and building systems to achieve certain objectives. ASHRAE is an international technical society for individuals and organizations interested in heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigerating systems for buildings. Founded in 1894, ASHRAE develops standards for building systems through a consensus-driven process involving building code 1 ENERGY STAR® is a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy efficient products to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More information is available at http://www.energystar.gov. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-2
OCR for page 22
FIGURE 2.1 Facilities asset management life-cycle model. SOURCE: NRC (2008). officials, design professionals, building users, academics, manufacturers, building owners, consumers, contractors, and others. ASHRAE standards are not legally enforceable, stand-alone documents. They are designed to be integrated into building codes.2 ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.1-2010 for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings Standard 90.1-2010 establishes minimum energy efficiency requirements for buildings (other than low-rise residential buildings) for design, construction and a plan for operation and maintenance; and for utilization of onsite, renewable energy sources (ASHRAE, 2010). Standard 90.1 was first issued in 1975, and revised editions were published in 1980, 1989, and 1999 using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and ASHRAE periodic maintenance procedures (ASHRAE, 2010). As technology advances accelerated and energy prices increased, the ASHRAE board of directors voted to place the standard on continuous maintenance so that the standard could be updated several times each year through the publication of approved addenda to the standard. The standard is published in its entirety every 3 years (as in 2004, 2007, and 2010); a new version is planned for 2013 (Thornton, et al., 2011). In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its Advanced Codes Initiative, signed a memorandum of understanding with ASHRAE to develop advanced commercial building standards and codes. The first step was a commitment that Standard 90.1-2010 would lead to a 30 percent energy savings compared to Standard 90.1-2004; this was the first time that an energy goal was set for 2 The International Code Council standards, in contrast, are written to be legally enforceable and include code enforcement language. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-3
OCR for page 23
developing the new edition of the standard (Thornton et al., 2011). Other significant changes in the 2010 version were the following: • The scope was expanded so that 90.1-2010 covers receptacles and process loads (for example, data centers). • Building envelope requirements became more stringent. • Most interior lighting power densities were lowered, additional occupancy sensing controls and mandatory daylighting requirements were added for specific types of space. • Most energy efficiency requirements were made more stringent. • Modeling requirements (for example, for LEED certification) were clarified and expanded. At the time of the printing of the standard, energy cost savings were estimated at 23.4 percent, and energy use savings (quantities) were estimated at 24.8 percent when compared to Standard 90.1-2007 (ASHRAE, 2010). ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings ASHRAE Standard 189.1 was created through a collaborative effort involving ASHRAE, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and the Illuminating Society of North America. It was written in code-intended (mandatory and enforceable) language to allow for ready adoption by code officials. The standard was first published in 2009 and was updated in 20113 (ASHRAE, 2011). Standard 189.1 addresses site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy use efficiency, indoor environmental quality and the building’s impact on the atmosphere, materials, and resources. All mandatory requirements must be met along with those of either the prescriptive or performance path; there is some flexibility in the form of alternative paths and exceptions (VanGeem and Lorenz, 2011). Provisions in the 2011 version that differed from the 2009 version included, but were not limited to, the following: • Reference to ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.1-2010 rather than Standard 90.1-2007. • Prescribed onsite renewable energy must be based on roof area rather than conditioned space area, and the renewable energy requirement for multiple-story buildings exceeds the requirement for single-story buildings. The foreword to ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 for high-performance green buildings states the following: New provisions within the standard were not uniformly subjected to economic assessment. Cost- benefit assessment, while an important consideration in general, was not a necessary criterion for acceptance of any given proposed change to the standard. The development of an economic threshold value associated with the environmental benefit of each provision falls outside the scope of this standard (ASHRAE, 2011, p. 2). A 2011 study by the Logistics Management Institute (LMI, 2011) sought to determine the incremental upfront construction cost to the Air Force (AF) of adhering to ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2009 3 Even though it was originally developed independently, ASHRAE 189.1 has been accepted as an alternate compliance path to the International Green Construction Code (IgCC). Any entity (municipality, government agency, private developer, and so forth) may decide to adopt the standard whether or not their local code has integrated the IgCC. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-4
OCR for page 24
(not version 2011). Their purpose was to identify aspects of 189.1-2009 that could be included in Air Force Construction Criteria. Case studies for four different types of facilities in four different climate zones were conducted. Among LMI’s findings were the following: • Because AF buildings already are constructed to meet the Guiding Principles for High- Performance and Sustainable Buildings, meet at least LEED-Silver requirements and other federal sustainable building requirements, the added initial cost of meeting ASHRAE 189.1-2009 as a percentage of total building construction costs was 1 to 2.8 percent for three of the building types (fitness center, hanger, dormitory) and 7.1 percent for the fourth type (weather agency headquarters). The higher costs associated with the weather agency headquarters were attributed to the requirement for onsite renewable energy (LMI, 2011). • Some of the requirements listed in ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2009 would require fundamental changes to the implementation of the AF energy and metering programs. • One part of the standard requires being able to reduce a building’s energy demand by 10 percent at peak load times. However, if an AF building provides mission-critical functions, the building would be excepted from base-wide load-shedding management. • The standard required that electricity, gas, and water meters have remote reading capability. The AF required advanced meters for new construction, but it had ordered a strategic pause in connecting new meters to existing remote meter reading systems due to security concerns and the pursuit of a standardized platform. • The AF at that time did not have the ability to manage the data collected by the meters (or sub-meters on some systems). • Some of the requirements overlap with what the AF is already doing; others, like renewable energy, drive a very large capital investment that may not align with the AF corporate renewable energy strategy, and still others may be in conflict with how individual programs are implemented in the AF. • The Army took exception to the renewable energy requirement because it makes more sense for military bases to use their size and footprint to tackle that problem rather than looking at individual building applications where the numbers simply are not life-cycle cost effective. Members of the Committee on Energy-Efficiency and Sustainable Standards Used by the DOD for Military Construction and Repair reviewed Standard 189.1-2011 in detail. Some provisions were identified that could potentially prove problematic in the DOD operating environment as follows: • Heat island effect reduction. The standard LEED criteria are maintained, but walls are added into the calculation, which could restrict aesthetic design choices for opaque wall surfaces. • Renewable power space allocation. As a mandatory requirement, space and pathways need to be allocated, based on roof area, for renewable power generation (Single story: 20 kWh/m2, Multi-story: 32 kWh/m2), which will present difficulties in rooftop space allocation where mechanical space allocation is at a premium. • Minimum side lighting. All classrooms and office spaces must have a required level of daylighting. The calculation is similar to the LEED EQc8.1 credit and may be difficult to satisfy, especially for larger floor plate buildings. This is both a prescriptive and performance requirement under 189.1-2011 and may not be feasible for some types of buildings. It is not labeled as mandatory, but in effect it is mandatory, since the 100 percent threshold must be met with either prescriptive or performance methodology. • Maximum waste generation. It is a mandatory requirement that a project may generate a maximum of 42 yd3 or 12,000 lbs of waste (recycled and landfilled/incinerated) per 10,000 ft2 building area. Based on information from completed commercial projects gathered by one committee member, the combination of landfill and recycled waste surpasses this requirement by a factor of 10 to 40. This threshold may be difficult to achieve for many projects. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-5
OCR for page 25
• Indoor air quality management before occupancy. A building flush-out or air quality testing is similar to LEED EQc3.2, but in Standard 189.1-2011 it is a mandatory requirement. Either option could prove to be impractical to implement, given logistical and scheduling concerns for a project. • Plans for operation. The development of at least five separate plans for operation of a building is a mandatory requirement: high-performance building operation plan, maintenance plan, service life plan, green cleaning plan, and transportation management plan. Developing these plans will require additional staff time. To be beneficial, the plans will need to be consistently implemented and monitored throughout a building’s life cycle. GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS Green building certification systems are a relatively new concept when compared to building standards. Worldwide, at least 12 different certification or assessment systems have been developed around the environmental and energy impacts of buildings. The first green building certification system was created in the United Kingdom in 1990 and named the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). In the United States, the USGBC’s LEED certification system was released in 1998. The Green Building Initiative (GBI) launched Green Globes in the U.S. market in 2005 by adapting the Canadian version of BREEAM (Smith et al., 2006). Green building certification systems are intended to provide a framework through which building professionals and owners can design and construct buildings that meet performance objectives for land use, transportation, energy and water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and other factors. They are different from most building standards in that they: • Provide a verifiable method and framework to help professionals design, construct and renovate buildings and manage property in a more sustainable way. • Document progress toward a design or operational performance target. • Document the design and operations outcomes and/or strategies that are being used in a building. Currently 1.6 million square feet of building space are being certified worldwide under LEED each day. Nearly 50,000 projects are currently participating in LEED, comprising more than 8.9 billion square feet of construction space in more than 130 countries (USGBC, 2012). In the United States and Canada, 3,700 buildings have been certified by Green Globes (Stover, 2012). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design The USGBC was co-founded by David Gottfried and Michael Italiano in 1993. They invited members of environmental design, real estate, academic, governmental, and business communities to shape the development of standards to guide construction projects, to improve performance, and help design and build structures that are more environmentally sensitive and sustainable. An initial certification program, LEED 1.0, was launched in 1998 (Smith et al., 2006). It was followed by versions 2.0 in 2000, 2.1 in 2002, and 2.2 in 2005. A system of 69 credits was incorporated in the LEED framework, and the credit structure was updated with each version. LEED 3.0, published in 2009, redistributed the points to better reflect consensus priorities about the relative importance of environmental issues. The scoring regime was modified to create a new 100-point rating system that included 4 bonus credits for sensitivity for locally or regionally important features and 6 credits for innovation in design. A new version of LEED was developed during 2012, but the USGBC has delayed its consensus ballot on LEED 2012 until June 1, 2013. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-6
OCR for page 26
Several steps are required to earn LEED certification for new construction, major renovations, and existing buildings. The basic framework involves registration, application, submission, review, and certification. Owners or developers who seek to achieve LEED certification of a project must develop building strategies early in the process in order to satisfy a set of established prerequisites. Each of the four levels of certification (Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum) requires satisfying a different number of earned points which are awarded as a cumulative total for each performance category in the rating. For the base level of “Certified” a project must earn 40-49 points out of 100 points; Silver 50-59 points, Gold 60-79 points; and Platinum 80+. Currently, there is a cost of $900 to $1,200 to register projects; the cost of certification varies by project size (USGBC, 2012). The possible points for each of the categories for LEED-NC under version 3.0 provide a sense of how efforts for the priorities are rewarded: sustainable sites (26 points); water efficiency (10 points); energy and atmosphere (35 points); materials and resources (14 points); and indoor environmental quality (15 points). There is the potential to achieve 10 bonus points through innovative design (6 points) and regional priority (4 points) (Smith et al., 2006; USGBC, 2012). The USGBC has also developed a set of programs tailored to different building types and different numbers of buildings. They include LEED-NC, LEED-EB (existing buildings operations and maintenance), Core and Shell Development, Commercial Interiors, Retail, Homes, Schools, Healthcare, LEED for Neighborhood Development (which may include entire neighborhoods or portions of neighborhoods), and LEED Volume certification (for organizations planning to certify at least 25 new buildings or existing buildings seeking certification of their operations and maintenance). The LEED Volume certification program is intended to streamline the certification process for organizations that plan to certify at least 25 projects. The three-step process requires (1) registering a building prototype; (2) precertification of the prototype; and (3) ongoing certification of individual buildings as they are constructed. The program is intended to reduce costs to participants by taking advantage of uniformity in building design, construction, and operational practices and managerial uniformity within an organization in order to forgo the need for a full review of every project seeking LEED certification (USGBC, 2012). The intent is to allow owners or developers of 25 or more projects to achieve LEED certification for their projects faster and at a lower cost than through individual in-depth reviews. The Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), established in January 2008, administers project certification for commercial and institutional buildings and tenant spaces for the LEED green building certification system and manages the USGBC’s professional credentialing program (Air Quality Sciences, 2009; GBCI, 2012). GBCI is an ANSI-accredited standards development organization. Green Globes Green Globes is a building environmental certification program that is based on the U.K. BREEAM and the related Canadian BREEAM system. The U.K. BREEAM was introduced in 1990 and claims to be: The world's foremost environmental assessment method and rating system for buildings, with 200,000 buildings with certified BREEAM assessment ratings and over a million registered for assessment since it was first launched in 1990 (BREEAM, 2012, p. 1). BREEAM continues to be developed, with the most recent version released in 2008. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) continues to work to export the standard to different countries and to harmonize the certification requirements with those in other countries. For example, BRE signed a memorandum of understanding to work with the French CSTB (Centre scientifique et technique du batiment) to develop a pan-European building environmental assessment method. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-7
OCR for page 27
The Canadian BREEAM was introduced in 1996 by the Canadian Standards Association (Green Globes, 2012). It was renamed Green Globes in 2000 and moved to an online assessment and rating process. For existing buildings, it is now overseen in Canada by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), while new construction standards are overseen by ECD Energy and Environment Canada Ltd. (a private, for profit company). In the United States, the GBI, a nonprofit organization, has owned the license for use of the Green Globes certification system since 2004. The GBI originally worked with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on certifications but has expanded to include commercial and governmental buildings included in the Green Globes system. Initially, the conversion of the Canadian certification system to application in the United States involved changes to measurement units, regulatory references, and the number of certification categories. GBI became an ANSI-accredited standards development organization and developed ANSI/GBI 01-2010, Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings, which is derived from, but is not the same as, the Green Globes green building certification system. The ANSI standards development process was led by a technical committee comprised of expert individuals and organizations and involved extensive consultation and consensus building. The Green Globes certification system is similar to LEED in that the assessment is based on award of points for different building characteristics. Different point scales exist for different types of buildings. Programs have been developed for existing buildings (Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings [CIEB]) and for new construction (Green Globes for New Construction) (Air Quality Sciences, 2009). Table 2.1 illustrates the division of points for new construction along with the points received for an example building (the Wisconsin Electrical Employees Benefit Fund Office). The Green Globes certification has four different levels (represented by one to four green globes) with 35-54 percent for one globe, 55-69 percent two globes, 70-84 percent three globes, and 85-100 percent four globes. Thus, the example building in Table 2.1 achieved more than 55 percent of the points possible and certification at the level of two green globes. The Green Globes certification is based upon a Web-based, interactive questionnaire and a third- party onsite assessment. The third-party assessment can also include review of compliance with Executive Order 13423, Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. In addition, Green Globes LCA credit calculator is offered to help architects and engineers understand various life-cycle environmental impacts of building assemblies (Air Quality Sciences, 2009). TABLE 2.1 Possible Green Globe Points for New Construction and Points Received for an Example Building Assessment Area Points Possible Example Building Energy 380 228 Water 85 28 Resources 100 34 Emissions 70 36 Indoor environment 200 124 Project management 50 45 Site 115 45 Total 1,000 550 SOURCE: Green Globes (2012). PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-8
OCR for page 28
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEED AND GREEN GLOBES GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS A 2006 report published by the University of Minnesota found that “given their common roots and similar goals . . . more similarities than differences exist” between the two systems (Smith et al., 2006, p. 2). Nonetheless, the authors concluded that noteworthy differences in process and content remain. The two systems attach differing values to certain aspects of green building, expressed by moderately dissimilar point allocations, especially at the lower levels of assessment. For example, LEED requires a minimum performance level in categories such as energy use, erosion control, and indoor air quality, among others, while similar action in Green Globes earns points toward certification. Different strategies of point allocations translate into tradeoffs between flexibility and prescription between the two systems (Smith et al., 2006). Bryan and Skopek (2008) attempted to compare the environmental attributes of the LEED-NC and the Green Globes-New Construction systems by looking at seven dual-certified buildings and their official submission summaries. They noted that the two systems addressed slightly different levels of detail but had a similar rating nomenclature, as shown in Table 2.2. (It is important to note that Bryan and Skopek reviewed LEED when it was still a 69-point system, not the current 100-point system.) TABLE 2.2 A Comparison of the Four Levels of Certification that Are Used by Green Globes and LEED LEED Green Globes Certified—26 to 32 points (>37%) One Globe (>35%) Silver—33 to 38 points (>47%) Two Globes (>55%) Gold—39 to 51 points (>56%) Three Globes (>70%) Platinum—52 to 69 points (>75%) Four Globes (>85%) SOURCE: Bryan and Skopek (2008). The authors found that although both systems were similar in regards to the number of credits and point assignments to each category, LEED had six categories while Green Globes had seven. In addition, LEED had an innovative and design process category, while Green Globes had a category for project management (Bryan and Skopek, 2008). Other differences included incorporation of life-cycle emissions data (including the supply chain for production of resource inputs) by Green Globes. Green Globes also accepted four different forest certification systems, while LEED accepted only one forest certification system.4 Wang et al. (2012) prepared a review of three green building certification systems (LEED, Green Globes, and the Living Building Challenge) for the GSA in accord with EISA 2007. EISA required a review of the systems every 5 years to identify and reassess improved or higher ratings. EISA identified criteria to be used in reviewing the certification systems; however, the cost-effectiveness of the rating systems was not a criterion. Wang et al. reviewed the systems as they aligned with 27 federal requirements related to new high-performance green buildings and 28 requirements related to existing buildings. The authors found that for new buildings, the Green Globes-NC system aligned with 25 of the 27 federal requirements, while LEED-NC aligned with 20 of the 27 requirements. For existing buildings, Green Globes CIEB aligned with 22 of 28 federal requirements, while LEED-EB aligned with 27 of the 28 requirements (Wang et al., 2012). The authors also stated that 4 At both meetings of the NRC Committee on Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the DOD for Military Construction and Repair, representatives of several different organizations submitted comments on this issue and others related to the credit systems used in LEED and Green Globes as they relate to forest certification (See Appendix B). The committee considered this issue to be outside the scope of the statement of task. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-9
OCR for page 29
None of the systems discussed in this report ensures that a building will meet Federal sustainable design requirements (once certified), or that the building will perform optimally. Federal sector high-performance sustainable design and operations requirements can be met without the use of a green building certification system. At the same time, certification systems have been identified as useful tools by users when they are documenting, tracking, and reporting a building’s progress toward the Federal requirements. The determination of which, if any, certification system to use depends on the user’s goals (p. ii). PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-10