Showing posts with label fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fees. Show all posts

A LEED for Neighborhood Development Project Planning Guide

Today I was tasked with determining the implications that pursuing LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) certification would have on current, preliminary plans for a roughly 100 acre mixed use development including a retail center, offices, and a mix of single- and multi-family residential. Though generally aware of LEED-ND this is the first time I've tried to apply the rating system to a specific project, and I figured many of you will be in the same boat sooner or later. With that in mind, here's what has jumped out at me as the major issues we'll need to discuss with the client. If you have absolutely no idea what LEED-ND is or what it attempts to do, I strongly recommend checking out this short video before continuing.

The Bluth's were never known for their commitment to sustainability

The Bluth's Development would probably not qualify for LEED-ND

To create this analysis and resulting post I've been relying on the rating system document, the LEED-ND Reference Guide, and the nine page LEED-ND Certification FAQ. I would strongly suggest reading the "Introduction" and "Getting Started" sections in the reference guide and the FAQ as they contain a gold mine of administrative issues that you'll want to know about at some point. I'm hitting the high points in this post, but there's a great deal more info that you'll want to at least skim so you don't run into any nasty surprises. If you're not aware already, it's nearly impossible to pursue LEED certification without purchasing the appropriate reference guide for it.

Understanding the Process

Unlike most LEED rating systems, LEED-ND uses a three phase review system, though depending on where you are in the planning stage you may not need all three. Each review follows the same format as the commercial LEED rating systems (i.e. submit review, receive preliminary comments from GBCI, amend as necessary and resubmit, receive final comments from GBCI, and appeal or accept the rating as granted).

Stage 1 - Conditional Approval of a LEED-ND Plan (Optional)

This review is designed to "help the developer build a case for entitlement among land-use planning authorities, as well as attract financing and occupant communities", and can only be pursued if "no more than 50% of the project's total new and/or renovated building square footage has land-use entitlements... for the specific types and quantities of... land uses proposed." According to the rating system language, entitlements are defined as "the existing or granted right to use property for specific types and quantities of residential and nonresidential land uses." I read this a "zoning is in place".

Confused? So was I at first, but basically all this is saying is that if zoning is already in place for more than 50% of your total project as it will ultimately be built, you skip Stage 1 and move to Stage 2. Their definition of entitlements is based on planned building area, not land area. So even though I may have 75 acres out of 100 zoned how I want, if over 50% of my building square footage is in those last 25 acres (perhaps the neighborhood core?) then I'm still eligible for Stage 1. If zoning is not in place for 50% of the total square footage of the project, you may pursue this certification, but you're not required to. The impression I get reading through the guide is that the only people who should pursue a Stage 1 review are those developers who need help convincing local boards or zoning administrators that their plans are indeed sustainable and could benefit from a USGBC seal of approval of said plans.

Stage 2 - Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan (Optional)

You can't proceed with Stage 2 until 100% of the entitlements are in place (i.e. finish up your zoning then move on). So now you have that in place and all of your design work is completed, but it's going to be quite some time before this place is completely built out... This is the time to submit for Stage 2 Pre-certification!

Similar to the goal of Stage 1, the intent of pre-certification is to aid the developer in marketing, except this time to potential tenants and not zoning boards. Since many projects have long timelines for development, it's likely that more than a few will pursue Stage 2 pre-certification and stop there. One developer who participated in the pilot project system with a 25 year development timeline indicated that this is a likely outcome for them.

Stage 3 - LEED-ND Certified Project

This stage is the real deal, and once you reach it you finally have a certified project and a plaque to put somewhere. One question I have is that based on the information provided in the reference guide and other supporting documents, it's not clear whether a well prepared Stage 1 or Stage 2 documentation set would look much different than what's provided for Stage 3. Multiple sections of these documents suggest that more information and guidance on the matter is provided on LEED-Online, but at the moment I don't have access to that info. I've sent inquiries to the USGBC on this matter and will update this post when I hear back.

Now that I've likely thoroughly confused you about the different stages, here's a graphic from the reference guide that should make it much clearer. The introductory sections provide much more guidance and helpful charts regarding site drawings and documentation that is not found in the free rating system document:

LEED Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) Stages Explained

Click to view full size

Fees

As mentioned in an earlier post, LEED-ND fees aren't exactly cheap, but when you start to divide the cost over every building it starts to look much more favorable compared to certifying each building independently.

For the 100 acre project I'm examining the total direct certification fees paid to GBCI (i.e. not including consultant costs) for one stage would be $1,500 registration + $18,000 for the first 20 acres + $350 * 80 additional acres = $47,500. That sounds steep, but when you consider that the cachet of LEED will fall upon the 334 buildings (34 commercial + 300 residential) within this area, likely a significant marketing bonus for all properties, that breaks down to only $142/building. If two stages are pursued (in this instance Stage 2 and Stage 3 are most likely), the total fees rise to $85,500 for both, or $255/building.

When I wrote the previous post I was under the impression that a project was forced to seek all three stages of certification at considerable cost, but looking into the matter further it appears that a project may only need to complete one or two stages and can save significantly. I'm not 100% clear on this and have sent a request to the USGBC for clarification and will update this post when I have confirmation. It's important to note though that at least one building must achieve LEED certification of some form in order to satisfy a prerequisite, and additional points may be earned for additional certifications under the Green Infrastructure and Buildings category.

Who's on the Team?

Far more than any other LEED rating system, a good civil engineer or formal planner, ideally with a fair amount of GIS mapping experience, is critical to making the LEED-ND certification efforts proceed smoothly. You will be creating a LOT of site and vicinity maps to comply with Smart Location and Linkage and Neighborhood Pattern and Design prerequisites and credits. I admit that a layperson could likely handle most of this, but it will be very time consuming without a working knowledge of GIS software.

One of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings prerequisites requires that all commercial buildings be designed to exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2007 (by 10% for new buildings or 5% for renovations) or smaller structures can meet detailed prescriptive requirements. Residential buildings must comply with Energy Star ratings. All projects must certain plumbing efficiency requirements. For this reason, it's likely that an MEP engineer will need to be involved in the documentation process as well, but not to the same extent as the single building LEED systems.

A developer who handles most of the design in-house can probably survive certification without needing an additional consultant, but if they don't have some of the skills mentioned above it will be a very frustrating process. Alternatively, an architecture or planning firm could also provide a great deal of the documentation for a developer. At the end of the day it will come down to who can do the paperwork most efficiently, and in my opinion that is almost always the person handling the design the first place.

What to Look for First

Unlike other LEED systems where the prerequisites can generally be achieved on any site, it's very likely that it will be impossible to certify greenfield, surburban sites if there's very little or poorly connected infrastructure. The project I was tasked with examining will very likely not qualify for certification due to the fact that the neighboring sites are not very dense and it's bordering undeveloped parcels for much of the site boundary. Internally, the developer must be willing to commit to certain density requirements and also pursue a very urban style infrastructure with building frontages bordering streets instead of vast arrays of parking. For your convenience, I've briefly summarized the most critical prerequisites below so you can check to see if your plan will qualify. There are other prerequisites to consider, but these are the ones you need to know about before you pay a registration fee... For more detailed descriptions of the credits, download a pdf copy of the rating system itself.

Site Location and Linkages

SLLp1: Smart Location - This is the one that will prohibit greenfield, urban fringe projects from qualifying. The site must be currently served by water and wastewater service or "within a legally publicly planned water and wastewater service". In addition to that requirement the project must be an infill site (see credit for details, but it's pretty much what you'd expect), OR at least 25% of the project boundary must be immediately adjacent previously developed property while land within a 1/2 mile radius contain an average of 90 intersections/square mile. Confused? Even the free rating system pdf has good maps clarifying the credit.

SLLp3: Wetland and Water Body Conservation - Want to fill in some wetlands on the site? Not going to happen... It's going to be very difficult even building within 50 feet of wetlands or 100 feet of water bodies (beyond minor improvements like paths), which is prohibited unless you meet stringent stormwater management and density requirements.

SLLp4: Agricultural Land Conservation - There are significant restrictions to building on land "within a state or locally designated agricultural preservation district".

SLLp5: Floodplain Avoidance - If your site is within a 100-year floodplain, it better be an infill project or previously developed, otherwise you're not going to be able to build there at all.

Neighborhood Pattern and Design

NPDp1: Walkable Streets - Technically you don't need to know this prior to design starting, but the developer should probably be warned as these will significantly shape their project. 90% of all new building facades must directly border "public space, such as a street, park, paseo, or plaza, but not a parking lot, and is connected to sidewalks..." Additionally, sidewalks must be provided on both sides of 90% of internal streets or frontage, and no more than 20% of street frontages can be faced by a garage door. There are also street width to building height ratios that must be followed for at least 15% of the development.

NPDp2: Compact Development - For projects located within walking distance of a transit corridor, you must build to a minimum density of 12 units/acre residential and .80 FAR for commercial spaces. Projects not within walking distance of a transit stop must build to a minimum 7 units/acre residential and .5 FAR for commercial.

NPDp3: Connected and Open Community - Internal streets within a project must average at least 140 intersections/square mile and there must be "at least one through-street and/or nonmotorized right-of-way intersecting or terminating at the project boundary at least 800 feet." No one way in, one way out developments here!

Green Infrastructure and Buildings

This category has three prerequisites, but they are all to be tackled much later into the design process. Basically you have to have at least one LEED certified building within the LEED-ND project, and all buildings in the development must meet minimum energy and water efficiency requirements.

Use at your own risk!

It's important to note that this is my first review of these credit requirements, and though I work to ensure this blog is as accurate as possible, I shortened many complex credit requirements down to only hit the big spots. I may have also overlooked small details that would provide exceptions to the statements below. This post is intended to get someone who hasn't cracked the book up to speed about LEED-ND as quickly as possible, but it's ultimately up to you to read the reference guide and meet all of the requirements. Please call out any mistakes or differing opinions in the comments and I'll update the post ASAP.

Every LEED Certification/Accreditation Fee In One Place

I had a few requests today at work for clarifications on LEED fees, presumably because they're a little hard to find or that they require 3-4 clicks to get to from the main website and my coworkers are lazy (just kidding... please don't fire me!)

expensive hamster

Perhaps an unfair picture for this post, but then again...

As a result, I thought all you LEED power users might appreciate a post that will link directly to fees for every rating system. In each case, fees all versions of the rating system are indicated:

So that's that, and I hope it makes you're life slightly easier... If any of these links break please let me know by leaving a comment!

Learning from the LEED-Homes Platinum 100K House

A few years ago, Chad Ludeman and Nic Darling of Postgreen embarked on a journey "to build a LEED Platinum home for $100,000 in hard construction costs." Lucky for you, they not only succeeded but documented the entire process on their popular 100K House blog!

100K House

Image credit: Postgreen

While their blog covers topics beyond the original project and is definitely a recommended read as a whole, I wanted to highlight some of the posts I found most helpful for LEED APs embarking on a LEED-Homes project... or you could just go directly to the 20 posts under the LEED category:

New readers may not be aware of a similar that that I profiled a over a year and a half ago (has it been that long???), The Lambert LEED Home. Know of other great LEED Homes resources that deserve attention? Let us know by leaving a comment.

The Cost of LEED Review: Relatively Great, Specifically Problematic

A few weeks ago I was provided with a copy of The Cost of LEED whitepaper ($49 + shipping) from BuildingGreen*, and I must say I'm impressed. The report is by no means flawless, but it's the first one I've seen that provides designers with a credit-by-credit 'back of napkin' figures to use to calculate cost premiums for various design strategies.

To my knowledge the only thing that even comes close is a useful but (in some ways) less detailed study from the GSA in 2004. It's worth noting that the GSA study is free, but is limited to GSA office and courthouses for its scope and does not list specific construction cost premiums for each credit. Let's take a look at a sample page from the BuildingGreen report to get a feel for the document and then I'll offer up some pros and cons: Example Credit Report - WEc3

Sample Credit Report for WEc3 - Click to view Full Size - Reprinted With Permission

This profile of credit WEc3, Water Use Reduction is fairly typical... setting 'conventional' systems as the cost baseline and indicating specific premiums for various upgrades that may be used when pursuing the LEED points. It's important to point out that this is probably one of the longest credit reports in the whitepaper, as more than a few strategies (e.g. SSc1, Site Selection or SSc4.1) are so dependent on local site factors as to be unquantifiable in any realistic sense. Assumptions are pointed out when appropriate and in general I feel like you're provided with enough information to make adjustments on the fly if you have strange circumstances. The report only covers the LEED-NC v3 rating system, so if you're pursuing anything other than LEED-NC or LEED-CS this report will be of limited value.

Cons

I see two major problems with this whitepaper. The first and most significant is that soft costs of LEED (energy modeling, documentation fees and the like) are not provided. I think the soft costs component of LEED premiums have not been discussed sufficiently as an industry, and from my limited experience I've found fees still vary significantly from consultant to consultant. I would have greatly appreciated a section that attempted to provide some ground rules for costs from civil engineers, MEP engineers, architects, contractors, specialty LEED consultants, etc. It's worth noting that commissioning costs are the exception to this rule and are included in the report. It's also worth noting that the GSA study takes a stab at soft costs (see page 6), though it lumps all parties into a single figure that isn't terribly useful.

The second lies in the accuracy of the specific costs listed for each specific measure, and I could be off base about this. Not being a cost estimator myself, I've taken informal polls from a few people in design and engineering fields locally, and the consistent response is that the costs 'seem high'. I think this is likely due to the fact that "cost data is based on northeastern US construction costs from 2008." I'm in South Carolina, and it only stands to reason that everything would be cheaper here, but that doesn't change the fact that those costs would likely need to be adjusted across regions and time. In their defense, these issues are presented right up-front in the Assumptions and Qualifications section.

Pros

Ultimately the strength of this report lies in the "Construction Cost - Relative Percentage" tabs for every credit. The simple multipliers allow you to consider the impact of adding credits early in the design phase, and the Cost Synergies section helps ensure you're not making those decisions in such isolation as to not understand the impact on other points you may be considering. It allows you to have an answer, however rough, when a client asks you a question like, "How much would it cost if we decided to switch from our dark roof to a light TPO membrane?" The use of concise charts allow you to do this in a report that is only 47 pages, yet at the same time it includes at least one strategy I haven't even heard of (e.g. aircuity systems).

*FULL DISCLOSURE: BuildingGreen operates LEEDuser.com, a sponsor of this site. The copy of the Cost of LEED report was provided free of charge for review purposes. That said, I stand by the review I've posted as an accurate and un-biased portrayal of the report's value, and I would make the same report even if LEEDuser were not a sponsor of this site. If you feel I've overlooked or omitted anything important please speak up by leaving a comment!

LEED ND Fees Cost HOW Much?!?!?

Christ!

LEED ND Project Certification Rates Effective April 28, 2010

LEED ND Project Application Review Fees
SLL Prerequisite Review $2,250 (flat fee)
Expedited SLL Prerequisite Review $5,000
Initial Stage Review Fees
For Projects under 320 Acres $18,000for the first 20 acres $350 for each additional acre
For Projects 320 Acres or More $123,000 (flat fee)
Expedited Review $25,000
Subsequent Stage Review Fees
For Projects under 320 acres $10,000 for the first 20 acres $350 for each additional acre
For Projects 320 acres or More $115,000 (flat fee)
Expedited Subsequent Stage Review $15,000
Additional Fees
CIRs $220 each
Appeal Review $500 per credit
Expedited Appeal Review $1,000 per credit

I found this out from Jeff Baxter of the Noisette Company. He gave an excellent presentation at SustainSC 2010 (which I'm currently pressuring them to post online) profiling the company's experience with getting the Navy Yard, a 340 acre mixed use redevelopment of a former Navy base, through the LEED ND Pilot system.

As a pilot project, they paid substantially less than they would have needed to under the current system. It would have cost $241,750 to reach the level of certification they have achieved so far (Stage 2 certification... more on that in a later post), and if they were to pursue Stage 3 certification that cost would climb to $356,750! Even the smallest development faces a minimum of $39,500 in fees to complete Stage 3 certification. It's no surprise the USGBC included a free 'introductory call' service as part of their registration process and a $2,250 prerequisite review option that allows developers to check to ensure their site meets the base requirements before having to pony up for the more extensive Stage 1 review.

People familiar with LEED certification fees at the presentation were surprised at the cost, especially when you consider the fact that the documentation required for submission is not that much different in volume or complexity from a typical LEED NC or CS project.

On the other hand, one attendee suggested that if you broke this down to cost per building or cost per square foot the results are likely to show a lower overall cost than if a developer certified each building independently. I would suspect that everything within the development would earn the same marketing cachet as an individually certified facility by virtue of its association with the larger development, so this could possibly end up as a better value than previous options.

As you might suspect, I'm very interested to hear reader reactions to these fees and your thoughts on potential implications... Is this cost justified? Are the costs too high to allow for significant market-share, or will developers see the benefits to be large enough to warrant the investment? Truthfully... I don't really know!

New LEED Fees Discount Combined Design And Construction Review

or [pessimistically]

New LEED Fees Penalize Separate Design and Construction Reviews

I'm two weeks into a four week LEED Green Associate training course* that I'm giving at my firm, and yesterday we went over the LEED rating systems and the steps you have to go through to earn certification. As much of the process is the same as it was in the v2 system, I simply copied many of the slides from earlier classes, one of which was about when to pay registration and certification fees.

I was alert enough to recognize that the fees have been updated on January 11th, but I had assumed that there was still no difference in costs between doing a combined design and construction review or splitting it into two distinct design and construction review phases. Luckily, I'm not the only one on our staff keeping up with v3 changes, and one of our project architects corrected me this morning:

GBCI LEED Review Fee Chart

Orange = Mo' Money!

As you can see, there is a discount of 8.33% for non-members and 10% for members for using a combined review over splitting the review into separate phases. This makes sense considering it presumably takes more overhead to run two review processes instead of one, though I personally liked the option of separate reviews because you had a better understanding of where you stood points-wise before going into the final review.

It's important to note that these fees are not based on registration date but rather the date of the review submittal, so all those v2 projects will be affected as well.

*I've been using a variety of study guides (both from the USGBC and third parties) to develop this class, and will provide a detailed report of recommendations on what to study, what to pay for, what not to pay for, etc. once it's all complete. If you sell LEED study guides, practice tests, or related materials and would like to be included in this review, please contact me via email to discuss.

Cost-Estimating for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)

The second you explain how the EAc6, Green Power credit works is the second your client starts to think how much it costs. The cost of renewable energy credits (RECs) varies tremendously, so be sure to shop around. Thankfully the US Department of Energy has put together a handy list of REC products for you to choose from, though the list is a bit old (October 2007). Looking at the prices we're paying for a few current projects indicates the general price ranges listed are still more or less accurate.

As you can see from the chart (click on the image for a clearer view), the price can range anywhere from $.005/kWh to $.056/kWh - a huge difference! After talking to Jason Wykoff from RenewableChoice, RealLifeLEED has learned that the difference can be attributed to a variety of factors including whether the company is generating power voluntarily or due to state renewable energy portfolio standards. If you want to get locally generated REC's you can expect to pay more than if you can choose a national vendor. For instance, South Carolina has less than optimal conditions for generating solar and wind, and our local utility's new program costs $.040/kWh, which is much more than the rate our company paid 3Phases for our office's 100% offset last year.

From Cost/kWh to Cost/sf

RealLifeLEED is here to provide you with a handy guide for quoting average costs per square foot of RECs based on the DOE rates indicated and the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey average electrical intensity for various building types that can be found online or in your reference guide. I recommend the online guide because there's more detailed information that is helpful in other ways.

Remember, your actual costs are likely to be lower than indicated here as a LEED building should be using less energy than the "average" buildings. By using the costs for an average building, you're prepping the client for a higher cost than he/she will likely need to pay for your energy efficient building. Benchmark costs for 35% (1 point), 70% (1 point + 1 ID Exemplary Performance point), and 100% (1 point + 1 ID point + good karma and marketing) are provided for each. The costs assume the per square foot costs for two years of credits, so all you have to do is multiply the price listed by the total square footage of the building to determine the cost to comply with the credit - there is no need to multiply by two to show the two years worth of credits. I'm assuming an REC rate of $.010/kWh which should be possible to find, though a source on Wikipedia indicates the median cost is $.020/kWh and can go as high as $.090/kWh:

  • Education (8.9 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.06/sf
    • 70% - $.13/sf
    • 100% - $.18/sf
  • Food Sales (46.0 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.32/sf
    • 70% - $.64/sf
    • 100% - $.92/sf
  • Food Service (37.4 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.26/sf
    • 70% - $.52/sf
    • 100% - $.75/sf
  • Inpatient Health Care (24.0 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.17/sf
    • 70% - $.34/sf
    • 100% - $.48/sf
  • Outpatient Health Care (11.3 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.08/sf
    • 70% - $.16/sf
    • 100% - $.23/sf
  • Lodging (11.9 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.08/sf
    • 70% - $.17/sf
    • 100% - $.24/sf
  • Retail Other Than Mall (9.4 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.07/sf
    • 70% - $.13/sf
    • 100% - $.19/sf
  • Office (11.5 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.08/sf
    • 70% - $.16/sf
    • 100% - $.23/sf
  • Public Assembly (5.1 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.04/sf
    • 70% - $.07/sf
    • 100% - $.10/sf
  • Public Order and Safety (7.9 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.06/sf
    • 70% - $.11/sf
    • 100% - $.16/sf
  • Religious Worship (3.5 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.03/sf
    • 70% - $.05/sf
    • 100% - $.07/sf
  • Service (6.3 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.04/sf
    • 70% - $.09/sf
    • 100% - $.13/sf
  • Warehouse and Storage (3.1 kWh/sf/year)
    • 35% - $.02/sf
    • 70% - $.04/sf
    • 100% - $.06/sf

Use these figures at your own risk! Prices fluctuate, and actual energy use for your project may be substantially different than industry averages. Did I miss something? Let me know via comments!

LEED-EB Fees Explained

I've wanted to post about LEED fees for awhile, but my desire to keep my REAL job has kept me from doing so. Nobody likes a colluder anyway (that is a word). Luckily I'm able to live vicariously through the meticulous studies of others... Thanks Leonardo Academy!!!

People Who Know More Than Me

Apparently the Leonardo Academy is a non-profit group that calls themselves a "Think and Do Tank" that I'd previously never heard of. I'm going to chalk this up to poor PR consultants who may or may not have drafted the "Think and Do Tank" tagline. Last week I began to look at costs and fees associated with LEED-EB certification, and it just so happens this same group dropped a killer report on the subject less than a month earlier!

First Thoughts

The study is well put together, and breaks down costs into owner staff costs, consulting costs, USGBC fees, and hard costs. I was struck by how in almost every situation, the owner staff costs were roughly double that of all other soft costs (which include consulting and USGBC fees). Based on fourteen buildings, the median prices per square foot break down as follows:

  • Staff Costs: $0.46/sf
  • Consulting Costs: $0.23/sf
  • Registration and Application Fees: $0.03/sf
  • Hard Costs: $0.44/sf
  • Total Costs: $2.48/sf

Yes, I know those fees don't add up to equal the total costs, and if you need to know why you should learn about the definition of "median". The study goes on to provide mean, minimum, and maximum costs, and further breaks down the numbers based on certification level. It's very important to note that these figures are not for the latest LEED-EB O&M rating system. They are all based on "LEED for Existing Buildings for Individual Buildings" as described by the report. Real Life LEED has been told but can't confirm that the new system was designed to be more user friendly and should reasonably see lower costs for completion. Only time will tell if that holds true.

The report goes on to highlight inexpensive or easy to achieve credits as indicated by owner surveys. Also useful to a consultant will be the comparisons of actual operating costs of LEED-EB buildings to BOMA averages. Slightly more LEED-EB buildings had lower operating costs when compared to industry averages.

Owner Intensive

As one might expect, LEED-EB requires a great degree of owner involvement, especially when compared to the other LEED systems, which could more or less be completed while the owner is on extended vacation in the Bahamas... Obviously it would be preferred to have the owner involved in all LEED systems, but I don't see how you could get by without 'em in LEED-EB.

What's Missing

The most critical information I'd like to see is at least SOME description of the square footages involved. Previous experience in LEED-NC and LEED-CS has me believing that costs for documentation and management are not scalable with building size. Given that LEED-EB is so focused on drafting policies and tracking performance, I have a hard time believing it takes 100 times more effort to draft a integrated pest management policy in a 5,000 sf building than for a 500,000 sf building.

What are you're experiences with the LEED-EB system, new or otherwise??? Please share with everyone in the comments section below!

The Economics of LEED for Existing Buildings For Individual Buildings: 2008 Edition

LEED for Projects Under Construction

At some point in your illustrious career as a LEED AP a client is going to come to you asking what it will take to get his non-LEED-and-already-under-construction-project certified. You likely brought it up 6 months ago when this sort of thing would have been easy, but he just read an article in Fortune or BusinessWeek about how LEED certified projects have higher lease rates and any office building without a LEED stamp won't be considered "Class A" space in three or four years or something... In any case, it's your job to see if it's possible.

The Real Life LEED Guide to Determining Certification Feasibility for Projects Under Construction

If anyone wants to join RealLifeLEED as a title and header editor please let me know. I'm obviously not very good.

First things first... Check the Prereqs!

I suggest going in order of easiest to hardest things to do to get this done. Check with the contractor to make sure they're complying with the requirements of SSp1. Then start talking to your mechanical engineer. You'll need them to look at the refrigerants, IAQ, and energy performance of the building. Hopefully they'll be able to tell if you've exceeded ASHRAE 90.1 by 14% to meet the new prerequisite requiring at least two EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance credit without having to run through a costly ASHRAE 90.1 calculation. If you can't meet the prereqs you can go ahead an give up now.

Second round: The Money

If it's looking like we'll meet the other prereq's I go ahead and get a rough estimate on the fees for a commissioning services if one isn't already on the project. Add that to the registration and certification fees, and any fees you (or other consultants) would charge for the additional service. It's typically a significant enough amount to get the owner to think about how much they want to do this.

Also make the client aware that this is likely to increase the amount of change orders from the contractor. He may need to now purchase things like bike racks, metal grates for the entrances, etc.

Third round: Checklist Time

If you passed the first few tests it's time to pull out your trusty credit checklist and take a look at where you stand. A lot of easy points when designed from the beginning may have to be thrown out. If the contractor hasn't been worried about VOC levels, sourcing regionally, or diverting waste there are a lot of MR and EQ points that are a lost cause. If you're early in the construction schedule there may be opportunities to salvage some of these, but generally it's too late.

If you think you have enough to make at least a certified level start running through the paperwork and get on the contractor about collecting receipts, managing his waste stream, etc. Hopefully when everything's finished you end up with a plaque, but I'd be very clear to the client about how you can't guarantee anything rating wise.

Been through this before? Please share your experiences in the comments section.

Certifying Multiple Buildings Together? Part 2

While Part 1 of this soon to be made-for-tv mini-series (I've got even money on actor Martin Donovan playing USGBC founding chairman Rick Fedrizzi) focused on money, today we're going to look at how your decision to certify buildings together or separately may affect your the time it takes you to complete the documentation. Unfortunately, that is going to require a little more learning about the three systems the AGMBC uses to organize multiple buildings projects.

Multiple Buildings Application Guide 101

I've been working on two large LEED projects that each contain multiple buildings. On one we decided to certify each building independently, on the other we're working on certifying a group of buildings under a single certification. In theory, the guide should be able to save us money (on certifications) and time (which is money). In practice I haven't noticed too many benefits to the recommendations in the guide. I'm going to point out where I've seen it help and parts I throw out the door.

View the "LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects(AGMBC)".

When discussing paperwork it's important to remember that the application guide is only a guide, and you can at your discretion flip between the requirements of the guide and those of a regular LEED-NC project. Page 6 of the AGMBC clearly states that "Credit requirement alternatives in this Application Guide may be used instead of the regular LEED-NC requirements, but are not mandatory as they may not apply in all situations."

The Systems

Certifying a Single Building in a Campus or Master Planned Development

This essentially allows you to include master plan elements that may be off-site in your documentation. On one of our projects, our stormwater is handled in a retention pond within the development, even though it's not technically on our "site". We've also accounted for shared parking garages and light trespass issues by including the larger site. The guidance here is almost universally helpful, as you can pretty much throw out any problems you previously had regarding shared amenities.

Certifying Multiple Buildings in One Phase of a Project

This path causes some problems. The goal here is to allow for shared site amenities as above, but there's also guidance about where you can average savings across buildings. The main problem here is that for many points each building must meet the requirements individually or ALL do not earn the point. I've tried this once and haven't been impressed with the results. Remember, you can always gain the bonuses of the first system for shared amenities and certify each building individually.

One development that we tried this on we lost the (EQc8.1) daylight credit due to one building while the rest had ample lighting. Another place you can have problems is (EQc4) Low-Emitting Materials credits. Here's a list of credits where one building missing the credit will void the entire project. Given the long list, I'm sure at least one will trip you up:

  • SSc1, Site Selection
  • SSc2, Development Density & Community Connectivity
  • SSc5.1, Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat (Greenfield sites only)
  • EAp1, Fundamental Commissioning
  • EAp2, Minimum Energy Performance
  • EAp3, Fundamental Refrigerant Management
  • EAc3, Enhanced Commissioning
  • EAc4, Enhanced Refrigerant Management
  • EAc5, Measurement and Verification
  • EQp1, Minimum IAQ Performance
  • EQp2, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
  • EQc1, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring
  • EQc2, Increased Ventilation
  • EQc3, Construction IAQ Management Plan
  • EQc4, Low-Emitting Materials
  • EQc5, Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
  • EQc6: Controllability of Systems
  • EQc7, Thermal Comfort
  • EQc8, Daylight and Views

Conversely, the averaging of some credits can allow single buildings that may not achieve a credit to comply within the group. This is mostly where you would expect (energy and water use, shared site amenities like bike racks and showers, parking requirements, MR3-7 credits, etc.) so I won't waste your time with a full list. There is guidance on how to weight each calculation across buildings as well. The biggest savings will likely come from not needing showers (for bikers) in all buildings.

Certifying Similar Buildings to a Set of Sustainable Standards

Think design "prototypes"... architect kryptonite! This makes a lot of sense if you're a Wachovia or Starbucks and want to build a bunch of cookie-cutter buildings. You're allowed to designate a set of "prototype" credits that will be applied equally to all buildings. The first building's credits will be carefully scrutinized, but then you don't have fill out all the paperwork for subsequent buildings on the prototype credits. Sounds great, but then you find out they will audit a few of these credits each time, so you still need to collect all those materials invoices!

I haven't worked on a project like this yet, but if the buildings are really similar, you can likely save a good deal of time. If the floor plan is the same you can avoid daylight and views calcs, which are some of the most time-consuming. The more design freedom you have the less sense this makes.

What to do?

Ultimately, any time you're working in one of the three systems you're going to need the application guide. My limited experience with certifying multiple buildings together has left me recommending certifying them independently, but sometimes the certification cost savings can't be ignored. Either way, you need be clear about how the "reasonable project boundary" is going to be setup with civil engineers, landscapers, the architect, and whoever's designing the site lighting.

It seems silly, but be aware 1 certification = 1 plaque, regardless of how many buildings are involved. USGBC won't fork up another one, even if you try to buy them off. If the client is interested in marketing a LEED facility, this might be an issue!

As always, please leave your experiences with certifying multiple buildings in the comments section. I'm sure someone will point out a few mistakes by the end of the week, so check back later for corrections!

Timekillers - LEED-CS EQc8.2 - Daylight and Views

Are you working on a spec office building and committed to providing LEED documentation? You may not realize you've essentially committed to designing a tenant upfit for free! LEED-CS credit EQ 8.2, Daylight and Views, Views for 90% of Spaces requires the development of "a feasible tenant layout(s) per the default occupancy counts (or some other justifiable occupancy count) that can be used in the analysis of the credit." Being familiar with the LEED-NC version of this credit, I overlooked this when quickly browsing the CS reference guide and putting together the documentation for a recent project. As you can imagine, putting this together in both plan and section can add significantly to the hours required to complete the work, so consider that when calculating fees and schedules. On the bright side, if you get the job for the upfit design you're in pretty good shape...

Certifying Multiple LEED Buildings Together? Part 1

I've been working on two large LEED projects that each contain multiple buildings. On one we decided to certify each building independently, on the other we're working on certifying a group of buildings under a single certification. In theory, the MPAG should be able to save us money (on certifications) and time (which is money), but in practice all it's done for us is help us to lose points.

Part 2 Now Avalable!

View the "LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC)".

The Money

The best argument for certifying buildings as a group is for saving on certifacation fees, but this doesn't work in every scenario. While there is the potential for reducing certification fees, it will only happen if you (A) have multiple buildings under 50,000 sf or (B) multiple buildings over 50,000 sf that total more than 500,000 sf.

The reason for this is the way certification fees are charged, which is a flat rate/sf. There are minimum charges for buildings 25,000 sf or less (hence situation A) and a maximum charge for buildings 500,000 sf or over (hence situation B). Take a look at the rate sheet and we'll run through some examples...

Many Small Buildings Example

Let's say I have five 15,000 sf buildings. If I'm certifying them independently, I'll be paying 5 registration fees ($450 each) and five fees for buildings less than 50,000 sf ($1,750 each) for a total of $11,000. If I combine the certifications, I effectively have a single building of 75,000 sf, yielding a total registration and certification charge of $3,075, or a savings of about $8,000. Not bad, especially on a smaller scale project.

Many Mid-Size Buildings Example

What if we had 5 buildings of 75,000 sf each? Registering separately at $3,075 a piece, we have a total charge of $15,375. Registering the projects together we effectively have a single building of 375,000 sf. Since this is within the 50,000 - 500,000 sf range, we're really only saving the flat registration fee, and our total cost of certification becomes $13,575, or a savings of $1,800. Doesn't hurt, but in the context of a 375,000 sf of floor space this really isn't much.

Many Really Big Buildings

This is where you really can make some savings. Now lets say we have five 375,000 sf buildings. Registering separately at $13,575 each, we have a total cost of $67,875. Since there is a maximum charge of $22,500 for buildings over 500,000sf, we're effectively saving certification fees on 1.375 million sf of space, or $44,925!

Now that you took the time to read through all of that, take a look at the much easier to read chart!

LEED Multiple Buildings Registration Fees