Two pieces of food for thought:

1)  There are 451 members on the VGBNNEWS listserve, and only 113 
members on the VGBNTALK listserve.  I would love to see more people sign 
up for the VGBNTALK listserve to contribute to discussions such as the 
below and how, in particular, Vermont is affected.

2)  If anyone WOULD like to respond to this topic of discussion, please 
respond to VGBNTALK or even "[log in to unmask]", the Society for Building 
Science Educators listserve directly.

Apologies for the duplicate emails some of you will receive.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michelle
VGBN Listserve Moderator



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Sbse] LEED for Existing Buildings
Date: 	Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:24:39 -0700
From: 	Nicholas Rajkovich <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	[log in to unmask]



All:
 

I recently reviewed the proposed changed to the USGBC LEED for Existing 
Buildings Rating System.  The revised version has a public comment 
period that ends August 30, 2007.

 

I'm VERY concerned about two of the Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites:  

   1.
      The first Energy and Atmosphere prerequisite requires design teams
      to develop a basic building operating plan.  No fundamental
      commissioning of systems is required to achieve certification.  In
      fact, teams are only required to analyze their energy bills and a
      complete a brief survey of the building to identify no or low-cost
      opportunities to save energy.   No action on the assessment is
      required to attain a LEED-EB certification.
   2.
      The second Energy and Atmosphere prerequisite does not reflect
      current practice, and in fact under the proposed rating system, we
      may reward existing buildings in California that barely meet the
      requirements of Title-24 with a LEED-EB certification.  Under the
      proposal, the minimum EPA Energy Star rating will be shifted
      slightly, from 60 to 65.   Why doesn't the proposed change to
      LEED-EB make an Energy Star level of 75 the minimum energy
      requirement?  A 75 target rating would indicate that the energy
      design intent for the project is in the top 25%, in line with the
      USGBC's statement about green buildings being the top 25% of
      building practice:
      http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=3159

The proposed changes to LEED-EB bother me for four reasons: 

   1.
      Buildings may skip doing a LEED for New Construction certification
      to avoid the commissioning prerequisite in that rating system, and
      wait until their building is eligible for LEED-EB certification.  
      They then can call their building a "green" building without ever
      having commissioned their building, or understanding how it operates.
   2.
      The goals for energy efficiency are essentially lower than the
      current code in California requires.  (Possibly other states as
      well.)  How is this transforming the market?  (It puts the entire
      LEED system at risk of being obsolete.)
   3.
      It will hamstring the growth of the commissioning community, which
      essentially saw meteoric growth after the release of the LEED
      rating system several years ago.
   4.
      It will slow our efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the
      United States, and keep one of the "untapped" markets (existing
      buildings) from having to make any real changes in terms of energy
      savings.  

Please take the time to submit a comment to the USGBC by August 30 at: 
http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEEDDrafts/RatingSystemVersions.aspx?CMSPageID=1458
 

Thanks,

Nick Rajkovich

 

 


-- 

Michelle Smith Mullarkey
Green Building Coordinator
Capital Planning and Management
The University of Vermont
109 South Prospect Street
Burlington, VT  05405

Ph (802) 656-2219
Fx (802)656-8237

www.vgbn.org