Architecture 160

Final Research Paper

Bill Durkin

New Construction “Green” rating systems

A comparison of the National Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED) system and the California Green Point Rated system

Buildings have a profound impact on our environment, economy, health and productivity.

In the United States (US) alone, the resources used to operate commercial buildings

represents about 30% of total US annual energy requirements, including 60% of domestic

electricity.

The building industry began to incorporate more environmentally oriented building

materials, and employ different practices with significantly less negative impact on the

building site, energy systems and indoor air quality. The first nationwide program, called

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was founded in 1993 by the US

Green Building Council group. It targeted the top 25% of the nation’s “green” home

builders. The group designed a rating system that enables builders to receive ‘credits’ in

a number of ways for certification [2].

In California, a number of public agencies, building professionals and non-profit firms

organized a state program to promote state initiatives and encourage ‘best’ sustainable

practices. This effort was developed in Alameda County in 2000 with eight major home

production builders collaborating to provide input and direction in the development of

Green Building Guidelines. In 2005, the Guidelines were updated to expand its

applicability throughout California, address changes in state building ordnances (Title 24

measures) and incorporate measures from other residential green building initiatives.

Both LEED and Green Building Guidelines are similar in that both programs [1]

Require performance across different categories, as verified by a third-party rating

process

Encourage builders to aim for increasingly higher levels of performance as the

gain experience with green building

Serve the full range of residential new construction in California

1

The certification rating verification process is managed by independent, non-

profit third party agencies. Build It Green manages the Green Point Rated

program, and the Davis Energy Group manages the LEED program in California.

The two rating systems do differ in their scope of certification. LEED has been

developed for more comprehensive programs that include existing buildings, commercial,

schools, hotels and neighborhood development. Build It Green was initially formulated

for new residential home construction, and is developing verification protocols for

remodeling projects, and existing homes. Both LEED and Green Building Guidelines

programs cover multi-family unit projects.

The scope of this report will just review and focus on the verification programs for new,

single family homes by the LEED and Green Building Guidelines agencies. I will

compare specific components of each rating system by using design and construction

phases in the renovation of the Moraga Barn in Moraga. This building was built in 1914,

as a hotel, and has been completely renovated to LEED platinum standards. Although

this building is a commercial building, it falls under the LEED new construction

guideline, due to the extensive renovation efforts, and the need to maintain it as an

historical landmark. I believe that the ‘green’ components used in the restoration can

provide valid examples in this paper, to make comparative arguments about the two

rating systems.

Background (LEED)

In the early 1990’s, an initiative began with the challenge to create a certification system

that would identify and define more efficient building measures. The US Green Building

Council was founded in 1993, and began the first pilot project named Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The committee membership included

architects, realtors, building owners, attorneys and environmental and industry

representatives. The group wanted to create a national rating system that would

substantially reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts in building design and

construction, improve existing non-sustainable designs, and improve construction and

operational practices. This initial project scope designated different rating protocols for

2

new construction, existing homes and commercial interiors. The LEED Rating System

has now been expanded to include the following protocols, which have created a greater

demand for green products and materials.

The LEED rating system covers both residential and institutional (commercial,

Government, public) buildings, where credits are earned for satisfying criterion, designed

to address specific environmental impacts in the design, construction and

operation/maintenance of buildings. Environmentally sound buildings should be

healthful, durable and affordable as well. The New Construction rating system is

organized into five environmental categories;

3

Sustainable Sites

Water Efficiency

Energy & Atmosphere

Materials & Resources

Indoor Environmental Quality

An additional category, Innovation in Design Process, addresses additional building

expertise and design measures not covered under the five stated categories, or enhance an

existing point attainment in the other categories [5].

Buildings that qualify for LEED rating certification must meet all prerequisites and

achieve the minimum number of credits (points) required. Applicants submit their credit

requests during the project design phase in order to expedite building certification, while

other prerequisites can only be documented and submitted at the construction phase.

Applicants must also submit specific documentation that provides verification that each

specification has been completed correctly. The LEED for New Home construction

4

protocol has different award levels beyond the required certification credits. Levels are

awarded based on the following scale –

Certify 26 – 32 points

Silver 33 – 38 points

Gold 39 – 51 points

Platinum 52 – 69 points

Background (Green Point Rated)

The Green Building Guidelines are administered by the Build It Green Council

organization., which is a professional, membership organization whose mission is to

promote healthy, durable, energy- and resource efficient buildings in California. The

Guidelines were developed for several reasons

Provide local governments with a educational tool for city staff, builders and

homeowners, for green building construction

To present a range of categories from which builders can choose when

constructing new homes in California

To establish a regionally consistent set of guidelines for green building to help

standardize building practices

To integrate varying residential initiatives in order to achieve greater simplicity

and local applicability

To offer a set of guidelines developed by an independent, third party source, to

maintain impartiality and standardization [3]

Build It Green is the result of the 2005 merger of the Green Resource Center (est. 1999)

and Bay Area Build It Green (est. 2003.) The merger combined resources of these two

successful organizations and furthers the goal of transforming the California building

industry to embrace green building.

Bay Area Build It Green was formed in 2003 by a number of local and regionally

focused public agencies, building industry professionals, manufactures, and suppliers. Its

activities were focused on increasing the supply of green homes, raising consumer

5

awareness about the benefits of building green, and providing Bay Area consumers and

residential building industry professionals a trusted source of information.

The Green Resource Center started in 1999 as a joint project of the City of Berkeley,

the Northern California Chapter of Architects, Designers and Planners for Social

Responsibility (ADPSR), and the Sustainable Business Alliance. Initially fueled by the

passion of volunteer efforts, the Green Resource Center emerged as an influential non-

profit organization, operated by full-time staff and an active board of directors. The

Green Resource Center was known as a trusted green building resource and has entrusted

its reputation for quality, unbiased information to Build It Green. [6]

These various agencies provided technical expertise and input in the creation and the

update of these guidelines, the performance benchmarks in GreenPoint Rated were

specifically developed to address climate and market conditions in California. In

addition, several councils, including the Public Agency Council, Non-Profit Network and

suppliers Network provide input for these guidelines. This holistic approach to

homebuilding emphasizes quality construction, energy efficiency, improved interior air

quality and more livable neighborhoods. The guidelines also stress protecting natural

resources surrounding the building sites, so that the built environment can help people,

communities and ecosystems thrive and prosper. And the process for updating the

program over time is controlled by California decision makers and stakeholders, not by

interests outside of the state. The LEED rating system national program is not tailored to

specific regional conditions [6].

New homes also place greater demands on local water and energy supply and distribution

systems, municipal infrastructures, roadways and transportation systems, and adjacent

communities, both natural and man made. The Green Rated Program strives to reduce

the impacts in these areas. The key to a successfully green built home is the careful

synergy of designing and coordinating of these various measures. This whole house

systems approach requires taking into account the interaction of many factors; heating,

cooling needs, water use, electrical use, renewable energy systems, climate factor as,

topography, and the overall well being of the home occupants. According to the Build

America program, a whole house system approach can reduce the energy consumption of

a new home by as much as 40%, with little or no effect in the cost of construction.

6

Build It Green wanted to create a more ‘accessible’ rating system to Bay Area builders

than the emerging LEED standard, and combine the efforts of the various organizations

that were initiating green building practices, and build an ‘easier’ rating system and

process. LEED accreditation involves more costs, and process to file for credit on their

various components.

Green Building Guidelines Checklist

The Green Point Rated (GPR) Checklist point matrix has 14 sections, and within each

sub component, one can earn credits in one or more environmental ‘categories’. Each

category has a total potential credit total and a required minimum number of points. A

new building is considered ‘Green’ by Built It Green standards if it earns at least 50

points and meets the minimum points per category

Category Total Points Minimum

Community 24 NA

Energy 108 30

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)/Health 45 5

Resources 66 6

Water 47 9

Some initiatives sub-sections have potential points in two of these categories. Installing

an energy efficient clothes washing machine, f or example, can earn credits in both the

Energy and in Water categories (total 3 point). Like the LEED rating system, additional

points are available in Innovative Design (total 20 points)

Certification Examples

The Canyon Construction building, located in Moraga, and referred to my many as the

‘Moraga Barn’, will be used for design & construction examples in this certification

example section. The building was built in 1914, and renovated in 2006, with two design

missions; to retain its historical structure, and to renovate it with a LEED platinum rating,

as a working example of the high quality, working, ‘green’ construction designed and

built by their company. The building is submitting 54 credits for the platinum rating. I

7

will use a few examples of this restoration/greening project to compare how each rating

system assesses the project component.

There are several assumptions to be made in the comparison of the two rating systems.

LEEDS accreditation requires 26 points out of a possible 69 possible points, while the

Green Point Rated system accreditation requires 50 points out a possible 300 points.

While clearly the rating metric points are not immediately comparable, we can make the

assumption that LEED accreditation requires 37% of possible points; the GPR system

requires 16% of possible points. To simplify the comparison process, I assume that each

LEED credit is calculated as roughly twice the value of the GPR credit (37% to 16%)

I will use four examples to illustrate how each rating system evaluates the

design/construction components for the Canyon Construction project

Insulation

The Moraga Barn employed two types of insulation in the remodel. Cellulose

insulation is a fiber material that's sprayed into a wall's cavity during construction.

This material yields higher thermal ratings due to the manner in which it fills

voids and seals out airy drafts. Not only is cellulose healthy for a home, the

natural chemical composition can also hinder insect infestation and is fire and

mold resistant. Spray foam insulation was employed in the roof f the building to

mitigate any condensation issues. The solid foam provides a barrier that

eliminates any dew point issues (with a 5 ‘’ thickness, minimum).

8

3.3 inch blown cellulose with 3 inch spray insulation foam in walls (R value 27)

5.5 inch spray insulation foam in roof (R-value 35)

LEED, section – Energy & Atmosphere, Credit 2.2 – Insulation

Insulation is subject to third party inspection for credit (1 point) and must meet

Hone energy Rating system (HERS) Grade II pre-requisites, and gains credit for

HERS Grade I level insulation (1 point)

The Green Point Rated system, section F – Insulation, items 1, 2 and 3

:Insulate with 75% recycled content (1 point each for floor/walls and ceilings)

:Insulation that is low emitting [low Volatile Organic Compounds] (1 point each

for

floor/walls and ceilings)

: Inspection before drywall installation (1 point)

Analysis

Both rating systems require independent, third party verification, and reference

specific standards for point accreditation. I found it very confusing to try to

compare the two requirements, and obtain information on HERS grades.

HVAC radiant flooring

The Moraga Barn implemented a geothermal system for heating and cooling the

interior of the building. The first floor had recycled granite tiles, and the second

and third floors have a High Fly Ash Concrete (HVAC) slab. HFAC utilizes 50%

9

fly ash, to offset the cement component, thereby reducing the amount of carbon

dioxide emissions by half, in the manufacturing of this material. Pex tubing is

installed in the slab to create a thermal mass within the building to stabilize

heating and cooling loads. Backup systems include a 12 ton chiller and a 92%

efficient gas boiler, both of which exceed LEED efficient rating requirements.

PEX tubing and floor insulation

LEED, section – Indoor Air Quality, Section 6.1 Supply Air distribution

& Section 7 Supply Air Filtering

Ductless air conditioning systems like radiant floor heating (and cooling) are an

alternative to these requirements. Radiant heating and cooling systems (within a

concrete slab) are more efficient, create less dust and create no circulation noise.

The Green Point Rated system, section H – Heating, Ventilation & Air

Conditioning, item 3

This requirement calls for a zoned system, installed with Slab insulation. (One

point is awarded in the Energy category, and one point in the Indoor Air Quality

category

Analysis

10

Again, it was quite difficult to research the requirements for LEED credit. Their

rating system clearly addresses air duct systems, and it addresses ductless system

in several different sections. GRP awarded 2 points for hydronic systems; one

point for indoor air quality improvement and one point for energy savings, for

amore efficient HVAC system.

Renewable Energy systems (Photovoltaic System design and installation)

The Canyon Barn roof is a pyramidal hip roof. The Atlantis Sun Slate integrated

building panels were installed on all triangular faces of the roof, with four

separate inverters for each face. Any excess electrical power generated during the

day by the 4.4 KW system is returned to the PG&E electrical grid for ‘credit’

Sun Slate tiles being installed

LEED, section – Energy & atmosphere, Credit 2 – On Site Renewable energy

The determination for this credit under LEED is quite complex, for the average

builder/homeowner, for it requires several energy cost calculations, based on

different governmental databases. Based on these prior calculations, the points are

then awarded based on the following percentages of the summary of renewable

energy provided

% Renewable Energy Points

2.5% 1

11

7.5% 2

12.5% 3

The Green Point Rated system, section I – Renewable Energy, item 4

Provides successive points (in six point intervals) for the percentage of electrical

needs provided by this renewable energy system

a. 30 % pf electric needs OR 1.2 KW system (total 6 points)

b. 60% pf electric needs OR 2.4 KW system (total 12 points)

c. 90% pf electric needs OR 3.6 KW system (total 18 points)

Analysis

Given the weighing factor (6 vs. 18 points), the GPR point credit clearly awards

more accreditation points for PV systems, in this case. The main reason being for

the scaled weighing in that, electrical power in California, per KW is the forth

highest in the nation, and the cost savings factor per KW is reflected in the higher

California rating system credit. Secondly, California receives more annual

Isolation [4] (the average daily solar amount of radiation received in an area) than

more states, and renewable systems like PV systems can provide more renewable

electrical environmental ‘credits’.

California PV energy cost savings are somewhat difficult to determine, given the

variable costs of PV panels (prices are decling based on current availability) , the

state rebate sliding scale, per watt (decling as more PV systems come online), and

the new federal tax credit (30% of project costs). The LEED system does not

include any of these varying factors in determining the cost/benefit analysis, while

the GPR system ignores these important factors in determining the true life ‘cycle

cost ‘of such a system.

Rainwater Harvesting (Water Catchment systems)

The Canyon building rainwater catchment system collects rainwater from the

2,000 sq. ft. pyramidal hip roof . Rain calculations showed that annual rainfall for

the area is 26” per year, with the roof collecting about 625 gallons in a 1’ rainfall.

The rainwater catchment system was designed to hold 15,000 gallons. The annual

12

rainfall catchment required for LEED credit is 90% or 14,625 gallons of annual

rainfall. Any excess rainwater not stored on site need to be filtered to attain an

80% sediment free discharge.

15,000 gall water catchment storage tanks

LEED, section SS 6.2 – Storm water Design: Quality Control

: Storm water storage has the capacity to capture 90% of the annual rainfall

Amount

: Any excess water runoff must have 80% of suspended solids removed

The Green Point Rated system

No stated criteria

Analysis

Any accreditation system should evaluate catchments systems with respect to

such examples as

Mitigate property soil runoff, eliminating soil erosion

Mitigate excess water runoff on established rainwater runoff systems

Purify rainwater contaminants through soil filtration

Recycle water for landscape requirements

Maintain independent fire protection water reservoirs

13

Build indent communities where resources are provided in part by localize

d resource systems

The LEED system provides clear, but detailed guidelines for stormwater catchment

credit, but the GPR system does not adequately addresses this water conservation

measure. This may be addressed in the next version, since California is taking more

drastic measures to conserve water, in light of climate change factors effecting

rainfall and snow fall in our state. The Green Building Guidelines manual mentions

construction of a rainwater catchment system such as a cistern, in the Landscaping

section overview, but there are no points categories for controlling rainwater runoff,

or rainwater harvesting in the Checklist.

Costs of Accreditation

Costs associated with comparing the cost structure for the two rating systems is out side

the scope of this paper, primarily because of the complexity of the LEED requirements

for determining critical energy savings calculations, and the need for detailed drawings,

documents and other filings that would generate another topic. The LEED certification

can be in excess of $20,000, given the project scope. Build It Green costs can be below

$2,500 for minimal accreditation. This is of course, a very important element in

addressing which rating system to choose (in California) for new construction. The cost

for the platinum rating for the Canyon building was $16,000

Other Rating Systems

Green Point Rated is a comprehensive program specifically addressing the needs of

California's residential building industry, but using it does not preclude participating in

other green home rating systems. In fact, Green Point Rated was designed not to compete

with but rather be compatible with programs such as those listed below. The LEED

rating system includes some reciprocation accreditation in some rating programs,

provided certain point totals are attained.

National Association of Home Builders

NAHB is a national, Washington, D.C.-based trade association whose mission is

to enhance the climate for housing and the building industry. Chief among

14

NAHB’s goals is providing and expanding opportunities for all consumers to have

safe, decent and affordable housing.[7]

California Green Builder

The program encourages voluntary partnerships between builders and local

governments to build cost-effective, green homes that benefit homebuyers and the

community at large. Builders who embrace CGB differentiate themselves in the

marketplace through resource efficiency. Documented savings is a plus for local

officials who must record greenhouse gas emissions and water conservation

efforts. The California Green Builder homebuyers benefit from lower energy

costs while their home makes less impact on the environment. This program was

developed by the building industry for production home builders. This

certification system does not cover the Renewable energy, Community or

Landscaping categories of LEED and Build It Green.[8]

Energy Star

ENERGY STAR is a joint national program of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping all homeowners save money

and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices.

Third party raters verify that homes adhere to their standards for insulation,

efficient windows, building envelop, HVAC and home appliances. To earn the

Energy Star Rating, a home must meet guidelines for energy efficiency set by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These homes are at least 15% more

energy efficient than homes built to the 2004 International Residential Code, and

include additional energy-saving features that typically make them 20–30% more

efficient than standard homes [9]. Both rating systems analyzed promote Energy

Star Lighting and Appliance products in their accreditation protocol [9].

Conclusion

There are many other, possibly more important aspects that will evolve from both green

building initiatives, such as LEED and GPR, which promote sustainable and earth

friendly housing. Hopefully, these measures will help us restructure our ‘world view’

about our buildings, and help us to become better stewards of our environment. They

15

will help view our buildings as part of the world landscape, rather than abstract structures

of our rational mind. They will help us to use fewer resources in building them, and to

design them so their components can be reused, or recycled. I present several concepts

that may help the reader to better understand how green buildings can gain a wider

acceptance, by the nature of their contribution tour long term lifestyle, and build better

evaluation for us all

Life cycle cost models

Traditionally, financial models for new home construction concentrate on the project

budget, assigning separate dollars to various design and construction phases. When

heating systems are evaluated, for example, the initial purchase/installation costs are too

often used as the deciding choice factor. Green Building concepts help to promote a

better financial model, by evaluating a home’s overall life cycle cost. This long term

view allows the costs of home ownership to be understood from a wider picture, which

includes the initial purchase/installation costs, but maintenance, energy costs, and the

escalating utility factors in the future. Many project decisions are determined by payback

models or risk/benefit analysis, but we seldom apply these models to our new home

analysis. For example, solar thermal hot water systems can provide a payback period of

5-7 years for an average home, given the current state rebates tax credit incentives, and

factored gas price escalation, but new home designers/buyers just view the initial

purchase costs, of a traditional gas fired, hot water system as a ‘cost savings’. A long

term life cycle model will reveal the true savings, and cleaner environmental aspect of

such a solar thermal systems

Conserve natural resources/ Reduce GHG emissions

Such programs significantly offset demands for water, energy, land use and related

infrastructure systems, required for home projects that do not look at their impact on

existing systems. But more important are the reused, and recycled materials that do not

end up in city landfills, retain existing resources like wood and water. Green House

Gases can be reduced with less new materials manufactured, when recycling is employed.

Many materials today are formaldehyde free, or contain very low volatile compounds,

make the environment cleaner, and create better indoor air quality.

Higher cost for going green myth

16

A major issue concerning the acceptance of sustainable homes had been the perceived

‘cost’ of going ‘green’. This perception revolves mainly around the costs of sustainable

materials, which includes a variety of factors that confuse the comparison – recycled,

reuse, composite, high efficiency, high tech, etc. This argument may have been more

valid several years ago, but the pricing differential for traditional versus green products

has continued to level out. There several studies that demonstrate that the increased ‘cost’

for new ‘green’ homes lie in the increased design costs. This cost should diminish, as

this is an important tenet of both rating parties’ mission statements – to educate more

manufacturers, architects and builders to green building products and construction

practices. A recent panel discussion of building officials for the cities of Walnut Creek,

Pleasanton, Pleasant Hill and Dublin hosted by the Northern California group for the

USGBC stated that the upfront design costs average about 2-3% for new Homes (March

25, 2009 meeting in the Walnut Creek Lesher Center). This study does not even factor in

the overall savings, when the new home project costs are considered in the total project

life cycle model.

Dual Certification

“The thing I like about standards is that there are so many to choose from….” It’s a

popular lament, especially among architects and builders, and recently with ‘standards’

raters/reviewers of our comparative systems. Given the wide dispersion with the LEED

and GPR accreditation system scales, it is often hard to make comparisons, and to find

common ground so that green components can be compared. The LEED system does

award reciprocal points in the Green Rated program, if applicants achieve certain point

levels in the LEED system

Evolving set of guidelines

These ratings are at best, the best approximation of how builders, architects and vendors

can bring to the marketplace their best evaluations of the most current design, materials

and building practices available. Build It Green has revised, and published their April

2009 guidelines, which were not available for this report, but I am confident will contain

more updated requirements, especially in light of the various new state initiatives. The

LEED program is about to start training on the 3.0 version, as well

Building Industry Changes

17

Builder will continue to incorporate more sustainable materials in their projects, as the

standards become more commonplace. This will help to encourage more manufacturers

to enter this market, and encourage people to create new sustainable products, especially

as the builders find that their costs to traditional building materials are comparable over

time.

Last words

Learning about the Canyon Construction building has been an invaluable opportunity to

really study all about the ways buildings can reduce their environmental impact. I am also

now learning how buildings can not only minimize their site impact, but contribute to it,

and help rebuild it…

Also, LEED is a federal program; Build It Green is a California based initiative. I now

better appreciate how easier it is to work with a state program. LEED is almost beyond

comprehension, at times, with it s calculations, references to other standards requirements

and verification documentation, to name a few……………...

I hope to learn more……………

Thank you for a most rewarding class……

References

1. Davis Energy Group, Green Point Rated and LEED for Homes

2. LEED, New construction Reference Guide, Version 2.2, Third edition, October 2007

3. Build It Green – Green Building Guidelines, 2007 Edition

4. Grid-Tied PV System Seminar Textbook, Solar Living Institute 2007, pg89

5. http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=us+green+building+council&FORM=MSNH11

6. http://www.builditgreen.org/history

7. http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/generic/sectionID=89

8. http://www.cagreenbuilder.org/

9. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=behind_the_walls.btw_landing

ATTACHMENTS

LEED for Homes Pilot Project Checklist

Single Family GreenPoint Checklist

18