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