Green Building & Environmental Trends : Green Building & Construction LEED AP Consulting : Rich Cartlidge : Environmental Trends, Urban Development

Today as I drove around Maryland with my mom running day after Christmas errands we passed a development called Spencer's Crossing and my mom asked if I would like to take a look. At first I was slightly perplexed as to why I would want to look at Maryland real estate, but my mom quickly changed my mind by telling me the development was Maryland's first LEED for Homes community! The community is the first in the nation to receive LEED Gold status and Certified Green status by the GE Ecoimagination program.

While the developers make some lofty promises such as 53% reduced heating and cooling costs they back these claims up with two guarantees, which for the lawyers among us translates to an enforceable promise. The two guarantees are unique and perhaps just what the green building movement needs to catch on in the mid-atlantic. The first guarantee is a heating and cooling guarantee which calculates the amount of energy needed to heat and cool the home and then guarantees that your costs will not exceed that amount. The second guarantee a comfort guarantee which assures that the homes temperature will not vary by more than 3 degrees from the center of any conditioned room. I can tell you based on my experience that the home was very well constructed and that I was unable to feel any noticeable drafts.

However, the most impressive feature of these homes was not their excellent construction or luxury features but rather their 60% reduction in property taxes offered as a result of the Baltimore County tax credit which is guaranteed for a period of 3 years and perhaps longer if it continues to be funded. The tax credit is Codified in the Baltimore County Code 11-2-203.2.

Do you think tax credits are the way to promote green building or are performance guarantees such as those provided by the builder of this community the better way to go?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today Rob Watson, the father of LEED, replied to my post When LEED Falls Short regarding Dartmouth College's poorly performing LEED certified buildings on his site. Rob had some interesting comments regarding my post such as:

What is striking about this comment and about the (albeit pained) tenor of the blog piece is that LEED is to blame! Forget the architect, forget the engineers, forget the contractors . . . LEED is to blame. I guess it's sort of like, "My bank account can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left!"

The other area where LEED and ASHRAE didn't do very well in the early years was in plug loads, which were essentially excluded from the standards. We are now dealing with a modern campus that is totally wired with 17-inch plasma screens and energy-chewing high-def video games on top of the requisite ear-splitting stereo systems, etc. In all likelihood, none of this was taken into account in Dartmouth's energy modeling.

And let's be frank: Most (not all) energy modeling in the U.S. still sucks. The models themselves are not very good. No one has put much money into developing them or recalibrating the algorithms based on actual detailed building performance measurement.

As its founder I fully understand Mr. Watson's need to defend LEED and to shift the blame for poorly performing buildings to other causes such as poor energy modeling. However, I stand firm in my conviction that LEED is in some ways still to blame. Lets not forget that LEED has requirements for energy modeling! If these energy models are so failed as Mr. Watson claims they are then why isn't LEED and the USGBC doing something to develop a better modeling system? LEED is supposed to serve as a leader in making the buildings of tomorrow more sustainable (a goal which I fully support and the reason I became a LEED AP). I suggest LEED and the USGBC start investing in developing a energy model that accounts for the loads placed on buildings in today's high tech world.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a LEED AP it always pains me to see individuals or organizations who become disenfranchised with LEED certification because of building performance issues. What is even worse is when one of these organizations is a well respected college. I firmly believe that for sustainability and green building to evolve and adapt to the needs of the future it must be embraced by today's students. Tragically LEED is falling short of the expectations of Dartmouth College as reported by TheDartmouth. Dartmouth College has constructed five buildings to LEED standards, the McLaughlin Cluster and the McLane and Fahey residence halls have received gold LEED certifications, while Kemeny Hall, the Haldeman Center and the Floren Varsity House have silver certifications. Mr. Shadford, a Dartmouth energy engineer has the following to say about Dartmouth's LEED certified buildings:

I would say that, in general, the buildings are performing better than the older buildings that we have on campus,” “But I would also say that in some cases they are not performing as well as we would have hoped or expected based on energy modeling or design performance parameters that the design teams would have created during the design process.

While Dartmouth has not given up on LEED it appears that at the current time they will not be focusing on certification but rather energy efficiency:

We try to build high-performance buildings, We don’t let LEED drive the decision process.”

“What LEED does give us is an opportunity to think about what we’re doing and find ideas for new things to incorporate into this project,” “We’re trying to figure out how to let people know all the good invisible things that Dartmouth is doing, and LEED certification is just one way of doing it,

Is LEED evolving fast enough to address the concerns of organizations such as Dartmouth or will poorly performing certified buildings signal the demise of LEED? I would love to hear your thoughts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Poorly performing buildings are perhaps the greatest threat to green building certification systems such as LEED. In an effort to combat these poorly performing buildings a new danger is being created.The USGBC wants to tackle poorly performing buildings by increasing the amount of data available and as part of that goal has laid out their  plan for doing so here.(PDF) LEED is certainly moving in the right direction by seeking to make more data available in regards to building's performance. However,  a building labeling system such as that being floated by both the USGBC and as part of the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill could derail the momentum of the green building movement and spur litigation.

To be effective a green building labeling system must cover ALL buildings and not just the newer, LEED certified buildings. Whether this label is an actual physical label attached to the building or a "virtual" label where information is stored online and made accessible over the web remains to be seen. A physical label would be less susceptible to fraud but also raise the potential for discrimination.

Preston over at Jetson Green summarized the framework for a labeling system under the the Waxman-Markey Bill as follow:

• The Administrator of the EPA shall create the labeling program to apply to both the residential and commercial markets. 
• The purpose of the labeling program is two-fold: (1) to enable and encourage knowledge about building energy performance of both owners and occupants, and (2) to inform efforts to reduce energy consumption nationwide. 
• The Administrator is to consider already existing programs, such as Energy Star and the HERS index, while developing a model label. 
• The Administrator will create a report telling Congress which building types have measurement protocols and labeling requirements with energy performance data (and which don't). 
• The Administrator is to propose measurement protocols and detail how to complete performance labels.
• The Administrator will provide a final rule detailing measurement protocols and requirements for applying the protocols. 
• The Administrator shall propose a model building energy label within one year after the date of enactment, and the label will show achieved performance (and, interestingly, will not preclude designed performance data).  
• The Administrator will then publish a final rule containing the label applicable to covered projects. 
• The Administrator will coordinate with Zero Net Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative to provide labeling demonstration projects for all sorts of different building types. 
• The Administrator will work with state energy offices or other state authorities to implement the program, and will also work with these officials to encourage use of the labeling program at the local and county level. 
• States are to implement the label in such a way that the information is available to owners, lenders, tenants, occupants, or other relevant parties that can utilize the information.
• Three years after the date of enactment, the Administrator will report to Congress on the effectiveness of the program and the need for any legislative changes. 
• The Secretary of Energy and the Administrator will use the program in their agencies and try to get other agencies to implement the label. 

 A building labeling system will surely create litigation. Whether the litigation will involve the actual labels themselves or the methodology and regulations established by the government in the label's implementation remains to be seen. What are your thoughts?

A big thanks to Preston and Jetson Green for their excellent coverage of this topic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, one of the speakers for West Coast Green, wrote an interesting article explaining how LEED, a program of the USGBC, is paving the way to green jobs and green buildings in San Francisco. While the West Coast has always been a hotbed of green building the impact that LEED has had on the economy and environment there is truly astounding. According to Newsom San Francisco currently has 40 municipal projects seeking LEED certification  in the pipeline with more to come. Among these projects are:

• San Francisco’s Department of Public Works leads the way with 59 design professionals now LEED accredited. DPW projects include 10 libraries, two hospitals, several office buildings and two museums including the LEED Platinum California Academy of Sciences -- the largest and most-visited LEED Platinum building in the world.
• San Francisco’s Planning Department has 21 LEED Accredited Professionals managing entitlements for both residential and commercial green buildings, now required by our building code.
• San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission, with 15 LEED APs is creating a new headquarters building slated for LEED Platinum, and the new Tesla Water Treatment Plant is under construction targeting LEED Silver. SFPUC also manages energy retrofits in public buildings.
• San Francisco Recreation and Parks is renovating multiple recreation centers to be LEED Silver, and the arboretum nursery in Golden Gate Park is slated for a LEED Platinum upgrade.
• San Francisco’s Redevelopment Agency completed the first LEED Silver certified municipal project, the Plaza Apartments, for the formerly homeless with on-site supportive services.
• San Francisco International Airport is renovating Terminal 2 to achieve a LEED Silver certification.
• The Port of San Francisco has two LEED Gold targeted projects underway including the EcoCenter at Heron’s Head Park and the new Exploratorium Museum, plus a new cruise ship terminal is on the drawing boards.

Clearly green building is here to stay! The potential economic gains for those professionals who chose to pursue LEED certification and become the next generation of leaders in the sustainability movement are great. What are you, your firm, or your company doing to position yourself for the increase in green building to come in the years ahead?

Image: www.bilumni.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today I was pleasantly surprised to hear that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the building we all refer to as The White House is moving one step closer to becoming The Green House. The White House making efforts to become LEED certified redefines LEEDing from the top! No matter what your political affiliation I feel it is important for our nation's most symbolic piece of real estate to set the example for our country to shift towards more sustainable practices. The White House has progressively moved towards greater energy efficiency by installing a solar water heater under President Carter, embracing CFL lights under President Bush, and planting an organic vegetable garden under President Obama but is still a very long way from being a model for America. So what will the White House do to further its efforts to obtain LEED certification? According to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) spokesperson, Christine Glunz the White House will do the following:

• Implementing computerized energy management systems
• Automatic light sensors that turn off in unoccupied rooms
• Low-flow water valves
• Paints and sealers with low or no volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
• Biodegradable cleaners and recycled equipment will all be used by White House groundskeepers and engineers
• Window films that will lower UV rays and save energy will also be added.
• Leftover materials from the renovation and demolition will be donated to local reuse organizations

Hopefully the government will soon add two more acronyms to its repertoire, LEED, and EBOM.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past week Beacon Capital Partners property at 550 West Washington in downtown Chicago became the nation's first multi-tenant building to earn LEED Platinum Certification under the LEED: Existing Buildings Operation and Maintenance Category. While I certainly am pleased to see the advancement of green building and the achievement of such a high certification level I am equally pleased by a quote in the original article . In the article Fred Seigel, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Beacon was quoted as saying:

"Platinum LEED certification is the ultimate proof that a building meets the most rigorous standards for energy and sustainability, and demonstrates Beacon's commitment to sustainability throughout our portfolio."

 In recent weeks LEED certification has been criticized by the New York Times and covered by both myself and my colleague Chris Cheatham of GBLU. As Chris has previously suggested a marriage between LEED for new construction with LEED for existing buildings would help to silence many of the critics as buildings would then be initially certified based on their design and construction and re-certified on an ongoing basis provided they continue to be operated and maintained at a high level of performance.

A marriage between these two certification systems could be the solution required to silence green construction naysayers. Under a merged system buildings owners would be provided an incentive to properly contract with the building's tenants to ensure that their green building is operated in a sustainable manner.

 Is it time for a wedding? Will you be in attendance by advocating for a certification system which promotes sustainable construction and ongoing operation.

Links:

GBET article on LEED building performance

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past week I sat for the Florida Bar Exam and during the last several days of decompressing I came to realize that the bar exam and green building have something in common! For the last month I have done thousands of practice questions, read numerous essay questions and attempted to learn how to spot the issues and identify the nuances between answer choices. I have also gone back and remembered funny moments and valuable lessons from the last three years and will now share with you why I believe the bar exam and green building have something in common.

1. Being a green building attorney is like studying for the bar exam because right now all that can be done is practicing analyzing problems and evaluating the potential issues. Like an anxious student waiting for his bar exam results everyone has their eyes open for reported cases of green litigation.
2. Perhaps there is no litigation because the attorneys representing those involved in the green building trade had a professor similar to my favorite Professor J.J. Brown who once said "If your client ends up in court you have already failed them" As has been discussed in great detail much of the green building litigation can be avoided through proper contracting.
3. Like a group of students studying for the bar exam the green building community is extraordinarily close. None of us know everything but we all hope that through practice we know enough to spot the issues and do well when the test/litigation first arrive.

Now that the bar exam is behind me I will be back to writing and job  searching and look forward to the engaging and educational conversations I have come to enjoy with my readers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past weekend I had the opportunity to have an excellent conversation with Chris Cheatham of GBLU and Shari Shapiro of GBLB regarding green roofs. The conversation was started by Shari when she posted an article addressing green roofs and their risk for fire potential. Brian Phelps provided an excellent paper addressing green roofs in general and highlighted a section of the paper addressing the fire potential of green roofs which rebuts the article posted by Shari.

While I had previously considered the potential problems with green roofs such as leaks, collapse, and corrosion I had never contemplated a green roof as a potential fire hazard. I suppose part of my failure to consider the risk of a fire potential with a green roof is the key phrase "green" as in properly irrigated and not likely to ignite. However, imagine a green roof gone dry, particularly a green roof which is accessible by building occupants. A dry "green" roof, a stray cigarette, and a urban brush fire! Possible, but highly unlikely. In fact the evidence presented in Christine Robertson's paper suggests that in Germany where green roofs are extensively used there has never been a green roof fire and that as a result green roofs are associated with a 10-20% discounted rate on fire insurance. Likewise, Ms. Robertson's paper suggests  that the threat of fire
is 15-20 times higher on bare roofs with fully adhered bituminous waterproofing membranes
than on extensive green roofs with grasses, perennials and sedums.

Keep tuned to Konstructr for the input of Mark Rabkin a knowledgeable insurance guru and risk management profession who will be chiming in with green roofs from an insurance perspective in the near future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past week Chris Cheatham of GBLU wrote an excellent blog post discussing LEED v.3.0 and the potential for a LEED certified building to be decertified. After reading the post and pondering the implicatitons for landlords and building owners one thing is abundantly clear to me, attorneys must advise owners of LEED certified buildings to begin using green leases. An article from 2006 by EDC Magazine states that the following ten requirements must be included in any green lease.

 1. Gross lease format with appropriate escalation clause and expense stop clause to reward landlord for operating a high-performance building.

2. Appropriate operational procedures and building control/management systems for charging tenants for after hours/excess energy usage, supported by appropriate lease language.

3. A comprehensive and equitable definition of building operating costs in the lease to protect the interest of both the landlord and tenant.

4. As part of the definition of building operating costs, the lease should contain language that allows the landlord to amortize the cost of projects that will reduce operating costs and treat those amortization costs as operating costs, as long as they do not exceed savings.

5. Right to Audit – This lease clause protects the tenant from overcharges and defines the audit process to protect the landlord from frivolous audits.

6. Hazardous Materials – A clause that defines what it is and that neither the landlord or any tenant violates laws or regulations regarding the hazardous materials.

7. Green Cleaning Specifications – This lease exhibit should define the materials, procedures and protocols for cleaning the building in a sustainable manner.

8. Building Rules and Regulations – This lease exhibit stipulates a building-wide recycling program.

9. Tenant Construction Agreement – This lease exhibit defines sustainable product requirements and construction practices.

10. Tenant Manual & Development Guidelines – A guide to explain the building’s sustainable features and benefits, procedures and operating parameters, that should provide insights into how to maximize the building’s features to create a sustainable workplace.

With the new potential for a building to lose its status as LEED certified if it fails to properly perform a green lease is more important than ever. There are reports in existence which state that LEED buildings actually use more energy than their non-certified counterparts, this increased energy use is more likely than not due to improper use of the building by the occupants rather than faulty design. Real estate attorneys, construction attorneys, real estate brokers, and landlords need to take measures on the front end to ensure that tenants placed in LEED certified buildings understand the energy saving measures that are put in place, what requirements must be adhered to for the building to remain LEED certified, and the consequences for failing to adhere to these standards. Tradititonal commercial leases are simply put not properly drafted to deal with the unique challenges that green buildings can present and as such we must all learn how to properly address the potential liability by learning to draft effective green leases.

Image:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the biggest criticisms of the LEED certification system is that LEED certified buildings do not live up to their performance expectations. While there has yet to be widespread litigation arising from the gap between expected performance and actual performance a recent change to LEED may soon give rise to both increased litigation as well as better performing buildings. Under LEED versions 1.0 and 2.0 buildings were not required to report energy and water usage. The lack of a reporting requirement was a fact that many building owners who had made promises or implied promises of decreased energy usage to lure tenants and allow them to charge higher rents were likely grateful for considering that many LEED certified buildings were not performing up to their promised levels. Even the best designed building is capable of performing poorly if the owner and management do not properly educate the occupants about the energy saving devices used in its construction. A common example is occupant sensing lighting controls turning off lights when occupants sat still for a prolonged period of time, leading individuals to override the sensors and cause lights to remain on long after occupants had left the room and in numerous cases 24 hours per day. LEED version 3.0 seeks to address this gap between expectations and performance by requiring annual energy and water usage reporting or re-certification every two years. Stephen Del Percio at Green Real Estate Law did a good job of explaining the new system and its potential implications.

The energy reporting obligations imposed under the new system will very beneficial to companies which manufacture systems to facilitate energy usage monitoring. However, the biggest benefit will be to the future owners, operators, and users of such buildings who will now know if their building is performing to its promised standards. Whether this new requirement leads to an increase in litigation or not remains to be seen but it surely is a step in the right direction to establishing the credibility of the LEED system and will help to close the gap between building design and building operation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sustainable projects present a plethora of unique issues which must be addressed by an attorney prior to and during construction of the building in order to minimize the potential for future litigation.While design professionals carry insurance it is paramount to consider whether the insurance carried by the design professional is adequate in light of the sustainable nature of this project. Sustainable design is different from the traditional design that many professionals such as engineers and architects engage in and is also in its infancy therefore, giving rise to a greater probability that there could be problems inherent in the design for which the owner may wish to sue the design professional. Likewise, it is important to evaluate the warranty and guarantee language of the products and materials being utilized in the construction to ensure that green construction procedures and installation techniques do not void the warranty for a product.

Closely related to the warranty and guarantee issue is the potential for intellectual property infringement or the need to protect intellectual property. Sustainable building is still in its infancy and new techniques and methods to achieve LEED credits are being still being developed. The owner, general contractor, and architect must be aware of the potential for intellectual property infringement by utilizing techniques pioneered by others as well as aware of the need to protect innovative strategies or methods that might be developed during the construction of their building. Clients need to be advised of the importance of contractually defining who is responsible for infringements of other’s rights as well as who will own the intellectual property rights to any techniques developed during this project.

Sustainable buildings have both short term performance goals, such as obtaining certification as well as longer term performance goals such as reduced energy use or the use of energy from renewable resources. The performance goals of a sustainable building must be discussed with the client and if necessary contracts must be drafted to ensure these long term performance goals are met by tenants and other parties. It is important that the client realizes that in constructing a green building, obtaining LEED certification is just one small step and that without the proper education and operation guidelines and contracts in place the true energy savings will not be achieved.

The owner must also consider whether traditional insurance will be adequate to compensate them and permit them to rebuild to LEED standards in the case of a loss, or whether they should obtain an insurance policy which specifically addresses the sustainable nature of the building and provides adequate funds to rebuild a LEED building in the event of a loss.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is my honor this week to have Mark Rabkin of Althans Insurance Agency present a guest post dealing with green building and the surety. The issues surrounding green building and the various bonding and insurance issues remain an enigma to many of us but Mark definitely has his finger on the pulse of the issue and is an invaluable resource for anyone involved in the construction industry. Mark is very active on Twitter where he can be contacted @MeRabkin.

When a large, publicly funded construction project is sent out to bid, each contractor that is vying for a piece of the pie must submit a bid and performance bond in conjunction with their application. The bid and performance bond is underwritten by a surety company and provides a financial guarantee to the owner of the project that the contractor will comply with the terms of the construction contract. Should a contractor fail to perform, the surety company will either pay the current contractor to complete the project or hire another contractor to either fix the errors caused by the first or complete the job if the original contractor becomes insolvent. The surety company will then pursue the original contractor to collect on the defaulted amount. 

As indicated above, a surety bond is meant to guarantee the performance of a contractor as per the construction contract. The surety underwriters evaluate a “risk” based on their financial position, overall industry expertise including managerial experience and familiarity with the construction methods upon which they are bidding. It is important to note that the most critical component of a final bond is the actual contract that is entered into between the various parties involved. Should the contract contain language that is onerous to either party, a surety will either refuse to bond the contract or seek to have that specific language excluded or stricken from the contract. For example, extended warranty periods or usurious liquidated damages clauses are significant red flags to surety underwriters and legal departments.

Building projects that are registered for certification by an independent third party such as the US Green Building Council are rapidly growing in number. Many federal, state and municipal entities now either require or encourage new construction, major renovation or leased space to demonstrate some level of environmental stewardship throughout the construction process or energy efficiency within the subsequent operation of the facility. There has been much debate within risk management circles regarding the possibility that a project could fail to either achieve certification or attain a specified level of achievement. These situations could result in lost revenue opportunities for the loss of tenants, lost tax incentives, utility expenses higher than promised or any other failure to achieve an expected benefit of the proposed project. To protect themselves, project owners will look to transfer the risk to the design team or construction contractors and subcontractors. It should be noted that most if not all sureties will refuse to bond a contract that contains language that guarantees certification by a third party entity such as the US GBC or seeks to guarantee a specific level of energy efficiency.

Traditional general liability insurance defends and protects contractors for bodily injuries or property damage caused by the insured party’s negligence. It does not provide for defense or indemnification for claims due to breach of contract. Should a third party claim financial injury due to the negligence of a contractor, professional liability coverage (also called errors and omissions) could respond. This coverage is available in the market for construction companies and is increasingly necessary as more contractors are obtaining accreditation as “specialists” upon successfully earning their LEED-AP designations. 

Mark E. Rabkin is a triple bottom line risk manager for Althans Insurance Agency in Cleveland, Ohio. He counsels clients on the risks faced everyday that impact his client’s financial, social and environmental exposures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How do we avoid using the words green and sustainable when talking about construction and buildings? A green or sustainable building broken down to its simplest principles is one built upon best construction practices. The best practices yield the best results, buildings that have a low impact on the natural environment, improve occupant comfort and health, and conserve resources such as water, electricity, and construction materials. An article published today on treehugger stated that 98% of products labeled as green are actually greenwashed! Think about it, do we really want to use a word such as green which is rapidly losing its meaning and becoming associated with fraud? I firmly believe at the end of the day anybody building a "green" building is building it to those standards because they want the best, therefore I propose we use the term best practices, which has been widely used in the past to refer to green/sustainable building practices. What do you think? Should we build the best building or continue to use a word which is becoming associated with fraud?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You might not expect this from someone who has a blog with the word green in its title but the word green needs to vanish from our building vernacular! Why? When we call a building green we are using green as an adjective to set the building on a pedestal and show that it is unique. One of my primary goals with this blog is to educate individuals about sustainable building. A building requires a large output of capital, and should be built to last. Sustainable design and building practices represent the future of the construction industry, a concept which is widely discussed at Konstructr.This week Vik Duggal (@vikdug on twitter) discussed the concept behind Konstructr. If we take a minute to stop and think about his message it should become obvious that green is a word which needs to vanish from our vocabulary. Personally I cannot wait until green is no longer used in reference to buildings and returns to its roots as a word used to describe an object's color. Did the Romans intend to build a green building when they built the temples or the Egyptians when they built the pyramids? No! They built buildings which were made to last, beautiful, sustainable buildings that are still here centuries later. Next time someone asks you about green building tell them its not about "green" its about sustainability. Let us all strive to build the temples and pyramids of our generation.

Photo Credit: Jetsongreen.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today it is my honor to have Vik Duggal of Konstructr present a guest post explaining the Konstructr community and how you can become involved. If you would like to know more I encourage you to visit the Konstructr website or contact Vik on Twitter @vikdug or via e-mail.

Vik Duggal guest post on GBET from Vik Duggal on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Great River Enegy recently released a white paper detailing the construction of their Maple Grove, Minn. headquarters, the first building to achieve LEED Platinum in the state. The text of the white paper can be found here.Great River Energy not only built a sophisticated building which scored 56 points but also built a structure which can be used to educate others.

The key features of the Great River headquarters are:

1. Uses 50% less energy and 90% less water than a structure built to just state codes
2. Utilizes an in lake geothermal HVAC system
3. In floor displacement ventilation system
4. Daylight harvesting
5. 72 kilowatts of on site solar power and a 200 kilowatt wind turbine
6. Only cost 10% more than a traditionally built structure

The Great River Energy headquarters is an excellent example of how proper research, communication between all team members, and follow up evaluation and corrective action can create a building that is not only sustainable and efficient but also an excellent educational tool to spread the message that green building does not need to break the bank.

We need to rethink the way we evaluate buildings and energy usage for as the CEO of Green River Energy said: "At Great River Energy, we know the cheapest—and cleanest—kilowatt-hour is the one we don’t have to produce. So conservation and energy efficiency have become our first
fuel.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link