Assessment of Tools for Rating the Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

8/14/2019 Assessment of Tools for Rating the Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assessment-of-tools-for-rating-the-perfomrance-of-existing-buildings 1/45

Assessment of Tools for Rating thePerformance of Existing Buildings:

A Report on the Options

Prepared for the GVRDby

Elisa Campbell Consultingin conjunction with

Innes Hood Consulting

April 2006



CONTENTS1.0 INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 Document Structure1.2 Background1.3 Project Objectives1.4 Project Process

1.5 Project Methodology

2.0 TOOLS FOR RATING THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 72.1 What are Rating Systems?2.2 Why use Rating Systems?2.3 The Development of Rating Systems2.4 How Rating Systems Support Market Transformation2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial Building Industry2.6 Benets of Supporting Multiple Tools

3.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS: EXISTING BUILDING STOCK 9

3.1 Sector Prole3.2 Commercial Building Retrot Activity

4.0 SELECTING A RATING TOOL 104.1 Scoping the Options4.2 Dening the Criteria4.3 Evaluating the Options4.4 Assessing the Tools

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF RATING TOOLS 17

Audubon Green Leaf 20BOMA Go Green 22BOMA Go Green Plus 24CASBEE 26CHPS 28GBTOOL 30Green Guide for Health Care 32Green Star 34LABS 21 36LEED-CI 38LEED-EB 40

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 42

APPENDICES 44Criteria for Determining Shortlist of Rating ToolsEvaluation of Comprehensive List of Rating Tools



B A

C K

G

R

O

U

N

D



1.0 Introduction

1.1 Document Structure

This Document is structured into two sections. The rstprovides some general background information to theproject and its objectives, as well as to the concept ofbuilding rating systems more broadly. The second sectionprovides a detailed assessment of each of the short-listed

rating tools, according to the evaluation criteria listed.

1.2 Background Experience since 1993 has shown that building assessmentmethods offer an important tool for both promoting highperformance buildings, and for increasing market demandfor sustainable construction.

At the 2005 World Green Building Council Congress, themayors of fty of the world’s largest cities signed anagreement that all new municipal buildings will be subjectto green building rating systems by 2012. This event is onlythe latest in an exponential stream of activities that haveserved to transform the building delivery process over thepast ten years to one that facilitates sustainable design,construction and operation.

British Columbia has been at the forefront of this activity.Since 1993, when Canada’s BEPAC (Building EnvironmentalPerformance Assessment Criteria) program was developedas a way to measure the environmental performance ofexisting and new commercial buildings, Canadians haveplayed a signicant role in the greening of buildings. Theselection of the Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) protocol as the appropriate building

environmental assessment method for British Columbia in2001, and the subsequent adaptation of LEED to suit rstB.C., and then Canadian circumstances in 2004, playeda signicant role in redirecting the local and nationalbuilding and development industries. The evolution ofthe BOMA suite of rating tools, endorsed in 2005 by PublicWorks and Government Services Canada, has assisted ineffecting market transformation.

While the focus to date has been predominantly onmoderating the impact of new buildings in the commercialand institutional sectors, sufcient headway has beenmade to now shift the focus to transforming the stock of

existing commercial buildings.

Consistent with this shift, building assessment methodsgeared towards existing buildings have been developed.There currently exists a range of tools that permit theevaluation of the environmental performance of existingbuildings. Each of these methods has similarities anddifferences that reect the experience of differentcountries and organizations with the developmentand application of suitable and contextual assessmentmethods.

1.3 Project ObjectivesThis project is intended to support the ongoing markettransformation towards high performance buildings. Inthis context, its focus is on existing buildings in thecommercial sector, and on tools that permit the rating ofthese buildings. The key objective of this project is notrecommendation of one assessment method to use to theexclusion of the others, but rather the communication ofwhat each rating tool can contribute individually to the

collective effort to support the ongoing transformation ofthe building industry in Canada. For this reason, this reportexamines and communicates the characteristics and capa-bilities of a range of rating systems in order to permitdifferent target audiences to assess their respectivesuitability to any given application.

The scope of this document is therefore to:- review the attributes of a range of rating systems

geared toward existing buildings;- understand the capabilities of each system in terms

of greening the existing building stock;- provide information that allows actors in the

industry to select the most appropriate system totheir project needs.

1.4 Project ProcessA steering committee was assembled to assist in theevaluation of rating tools for existing buildings. Thesteering committee was initially composed of the clientgroup (Canada Green Building Council, Greater VancouverRegional District, Natural Resources Canada, GreenBuildings BC). Additional members were identied by theclient group and by the consultants.

Table 1: Steering Committee Members

Name Organization

Thomas Mueller Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC)

Orest MaslanyBrian Miltimore Green Buildings BC

Craig Shishido Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)

Ian Meredith Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

Bob HunterInternational Facility Management Association(IFMA)

Viera VeidnerCraig Boyle Public Works and Government Services Canada

Rod Yeoh APEG-BC / ASHRAE

Karen HearnTom Knox

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada(AUCC)

Graeme SilveraNational Association of Institutional and OfceProperties (NAIOP)



1.5 Project Methodology

The following methodology was followed to select andscreen rating tools:

1. Identify potential rating systems2. Develop screening criteria for creating shortlist3. Create shortlist of tools to assess4. Conduct assessment of specied tools5. Ensure a comprehensive assessment

Each of these steps is described below.

Identify potential Rating ToolsA long list of rating tools was identied though the processof consultant experience, literature review, and SteeringCommittee / stakeholder input. Potential tools that werecomprehensive, focused on the commercial sector, andexisting buildings were highlighted. Rating tools identiedfor consideration included:

• LEED-EB •LEED-CI• CASBEE •Green Star• NABERS •GBTool• BOMA Go Green •Boma Go Green Plus• ECO QUANTUM •ECO-PRO• HK-BREAM •BREEAM Greenleaf• TGBRS •GGHC• ECOmmodation •ISO 14000

Develop screening criteriaAn initial screening of these potential tools was completed.The objective of the screening was to identify those tools ofmost relevance. While emphasis was in large part placed onrating systems of most relevance to the Canadian context,there was also consideration allocated for international

tools that have characteristics that might be of educationalvalue. Screening criteria were reviewed and augmented bythe Steerning Committee. A brief description of each ofthese criteria is presented in Appendix A. Screening criteriaincluded:

• Existing• Industry Supported• Commercial /Research• Used in North America• Range of Building Types• Value Added• Ability to harmonize with other systems

Create shortlist of tools to evaluateA summary of the high level screening of the rating tools ispresented in Appendix B. The consulting team completedan initial assessment, and the steering committee reviewedand nalized the selection of rating tools to be evaluated.On the basis of this screening, the following rating toolswere chosen for detailed assessment:

• BOMA Go Green •Boma Go Green Plus• CASBEE •CHPS• GBTool •GGHC• Green hotels •Green Star• LABS 21 •LEED-CI• LEED-EB

Conduct assessment of specied tools

A comprehensive set of attributes was developed to use asa method for analysing and communicating the respectivecapabilities of each individual rating tool. The attributeswere dened and prioritized with input from steeringcommittee members. A listing of the attributes followswhile a detailed description of each attribute is presentedon Page 14/15.

Table 2: Attributes for Assessment

Attribute Title

a1 Target Audience / Building Type

a2 Development and Delivery

a3 Rating Approach

a4 Outputs

a5 Costs

a6 Time on market

b1 Verication

b2 Mandatory Requirements

b3 Score

b4 External Benchmarks

b5 Baseline Model

b6 Customization

b7 Building portfolios

b8 Recertication

b9 Energy Model

c1 Comprehensiveness

c2 User-friendliness

c3 Support

c4 Value

c5 Education

c6 Versatility

c7 Challenge

c8 Management Tool



Ensure a Comprehensive AssessmentTo ensure that the evaluation of the rating tools wascomprehensive, the attributes were benchmarked relativeto the quality management standards dened by ISO 9000.These principles provide a systematic and comprehensiveframework to guide consistent evaluation and improvedperformance. The principles are derived from the collectiveexperience and knowledge of the international experts whoparticipate in ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 176, Quality

management and quality assurance, which is responsiblefor developing and maintaining the ISO 9000 standards.As can be seen based in Table 3, the attributes provide acomprehensive basis for assessing the rating tools.

Table 3: Rating Tool Evaluation Criteria

Goal Rationale for Goal Attribute

Customer focus Organizations depend on theircustomers and therefore shouldunderstand current and futurecustomer needs, should meet customerrequirements and strive to exceed

customer expectations.

• Target Audience / Building Type• Outputs• Costs

Leadership Leaders establish unity of purpose anddirection of the organization. Theyshould create and maintain the internalenvironment in which people canbecome fully involved in achieving theorganization’s objectives.

• Basis of Comparison• Utility as Design Tool• Comprehensiveness

Involvement of people People at all levels are the essenceof an organization and their fullinvolvement enables their abilities tobe used for the organization’s benet.

• User-friendliness• Versatility / Flexibility• Practicality

Process approach A desired result is achieved moreefciently when activities and relatedresources are managed as a process.

• Ability to educate• Level of Challenge /

Encouragement of Innovation

System approach tomanagement

Identifying, understanding andmanaging interrelated processesas a system contributes to theorganization’s effectiveness andefciency in achieving its objectives.

• Value of Certication• Flexibility to choose levels of

performance• Feedback Provided

Continual improvement Continual improvement of theorganization’s overall performance

should be a permanent objective of theorganization.

• Time on Market• Ability to Evolve

Factual approach todecision making

Effective decisions are based on theanalysis of data and information

• Tool Developer / Delivery Agent / Partners

• Rating Approach• Verication of Results

Mutually benecialsupplier relationships

An organization and its suppliersare interdependent and a mutuallybenecial relationship enhances theability of both to create value

• Balance between performanceand prescription

• Level of Support



2.0 Tools for Rating the Performance

of Buildings

2.1 What are Rating Systems? Building rating systems represent key tools to evaluateand compare green buildings. They provide systematicframeworks for specifying performance criteria, therebyenabling actors in the building industry to be more

measured and accurate about the movement towards moresustainable forms of designing, constructing and operatingbuildings.

The key advantage of rating systems is that they are atool that provides credible frameworks for specifying andachieving high performance buildings.

2.2 Why use Rating Systems? Building rating systems fulll a number of important roles.While they essentially provide a standard for what systems,materials and strategies can help make a building green,

they are also key tools for using the market to increasedemand for high performance buildings. They provide ameans for a building owner or tenant to ask for a greenbuilding, and to compare the green-ness of their buildingchoices.

At another level, organizations working to effect markettransformation can use building rating systems as a tool forspecifying minimum performance levels, and to create anindustry standard that is above and beyond what is requiredby code. They help to increase a broader understanding ofthe impact buildings have on our society, and they providea means for dissseminating information on how to reduce

these impacts.

For those who are charged with operationalizing themovement towards high performance buildings, buildingrating systems help to structure the thought process,and help to keep issues at the top of the priority list thatmight not have been given serious consideration otherwise.They can serve to offer structured advice, including goals,strategies, and actions that are suitable for improvingperformance.

Finally, building rating systems have created a market inpart by virtue of the standardized recognition they permit,thereby enabling owners, developers and professionals togain credit, awards, and other marketing outputs.

2.3 The Development of Rating SystemsBuilding rating systems have existed as a tool to effectchange for the past fteen years. Initially they werefocused on new buildings, and were represented byvarious protocols around the world. While rating systemshave been popular in Europe since the early 90’s, itwas in the later 1990’s in Canada that the exponentialtransformation of the building industry commenced. It wasthe widespread acceptance of LEED, BREEAM Canada /

BREEAM Green Leaf that characterized this change. Akey focus has now become that of existing buildings,as represented by the popularity of the BOMA Go Greentools. As will be dicussed further on, it is the existingbuilding segment that stands to have a signicant roleto play in reducing the overall impact of buildings on theenvironment.

Table 4: Development of Building Rating Tools

• 1990 – BREEAM UK released• 1993 – BEPAC developed• 1996 – BREEAM Canada introduced• 1993 – BEPAC developed• 1998 – BREEAM/Green Leaf developed• 1998 – GBTool-1 applied• 1998 – LEED-NC launched• 2001 – LEED-BC recommendation• 2002 – CHPS operational• 2002 – LABS 21 available

• 1993 – BEPAC developed• 2003 – Green Star introduced• 2004 – BOMA Go Green launched• 2004 – LEED Canada operational• 2004 – BOMA Go Green Plus released• 2004 - CASBEE disseminated• 2004 – GreenGuide for Health Care piloted• 2004 - LEED-CI , LEED-EB launched

2.4 How Rating Systems Support

Market TransformationOne denition of market transformation is “the reduction

of barriers to cause lasting changes in the structure of amarket, or the behaviour of market participants, resultingin accelerated market adoption”1 of the desired productIn other words, market transformation is the process ofintervening to change customer behaviour. In the case ofthe building industry, the desired end state is to ensure thatthe market demands buildings that are high performance,or green.

The intent of a market transformation initiative is toaccelerate the natural growth of the technology orapproach, and to increase the overall market demand forit. Over time, the typical market transformation objectives

and intervention tools evolve. Markets can be consideredas moving towards technologies that provide a net increasein social welfare. But occasionally market dynamics are notsufcient to reach a desired objective that is considered tobe in the greater social interest. In these cases, barriersand/or failures prevent the markets from achieving thatsocietal objective.

1 Market Transformation: Accelerating market adoption of energy efcien

products in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Navigant Consulting Inc.



Rating tools for assessing the performance of buildingscan therefore be considered as a “technology” thatcanhelp transform the building industry towards higherperformance buildings that minimize impacts on theenvironment, optimize economic, and ensure achievementof social goals and quality of life. They are an importantmarket-based tool for transforming the building industry,raising consumer awareness and stimulating competitionand dialogue.

2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial

Building Industry

Understanding the potential role of rating tools withinthis sector is closely linked to understanding the nature ofthe people who would be using the tools, and what theirneeds are. The following table outlines the range of targetaudiences for rating tools, and emphasizes what needs areassociated with each of these actors.

Actor Design

resource

Best

practice

guide

Audit

tool

Monitor Market

Transfor

mation

Property manager

Property owner

Design professional

Operations staff

Supplier

ProgamAdministrator

Tenant

Table 5: Needs of End Users of Rating Tools

As is evident, the use of rating systems as a mechanism forproviding best practices is a need shared by many of theactors in the existing building industry. Design professionalsand tenants require tools to use as a design resource, andoften as a mechanism for monitoring performance. It isthe owners and property managers that rely on buildingrating tools to facilitate auditing and monitoring, as thesefunctions feed into roles related to ongoing operations. At

the level of consciously effecting market transformation, itis the program administrators who rely on the rating toolsto play a direct role in changing behaviour.

What becomes clear is that within the existing buildingindustry there are a range of phases of building /operations, and there are a range of actors. Because ofthis diversity, it is inappropriate to consider that one toolalone would satisfy the needs sufciently. For this reason,multiple tools are necessary.

• Building certication is only one of the potentiavalues and benets of rating tools.

• No one tool or system should be expected to meetthe full range of needs of the building community.

• The range of groups, budget, knowledge andinterest is addressed by the presence of multipletools.

The ultimate system is likely to be a harmonized set otools with horizontal integration to meet the requirementsof a range of different building types, as well as verticaintegration to meet the requirements of different clientgroups, budgets, knowledge and interest levels.

3 ECD Energy and Environment Canada LEED Canada Adaptation andBREEAM/Green Leaf Harmonization Studies, Part III, BREEAM Green Leaf

Harmonization Study, Feb 2002

2.6 Benets of Supporting Multiple Tools

While LEED has in many ways become an industry standardin the United States, other countries, including Canada,have acknowledged the value of having more than onerating system available as a tool to be used. This reportsupports this perspective, and is focused on an assessmentof a wide range of rating systems in order to facilitate theapplication of a number of tools in the marketplace.

A range of benets have been identied that support theendorsement of multiple rating tools3. In particular:

• A range of tools are already in use in the marketplace. These tools are complementary, andsuitably positioned, may transform the marketmore successfully than reliance on a single tool.

• The market is not likely to be confused by thepresence of multiple tools.



3.0 Situation Analysis: Existing

Building Stock

3.1 Sector Prole

It is estimated that at least 65% of the building stock in 2030will be comprised of buildings built before 2005. Therefore,market transformation of the existing commercial sectorrepresents a signicant opportunity .

Ultimately, one of the primary goals of building ratingsystems is to reduce resource consumption and operatingexpenditures from buildings. Through an improvedunderstanding of the building stock and associated resourceconsumption, it is possible to focus program activity on themost signicant drivers.

Figure 1 proles the commercial building stock overthe period 1990-2030. In 2003, it is estimated therewas a total of 550 million square meters of commercialand institutional oor area in Canada. As can be seen,educational services, ofces and retail trade make up

almost 70% of commercial oor area. Therefore, in termsof achieving signicant environmental impacts, a focus onthose commercial segments is key.

Figure 1: Commercial Floor-space in Canada, by

Segment1

1 1990-2003: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). June 2005. Energy

Use Data Handbook: 1990 and 1997 to 2003. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/

corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/handbook05/index.cfm?attr=0

2005-2030: Forecast assuming same proportion of building types in

2030 as in 2003 and using sector growth rate past 2003 from: Marbek

Resource Consultants study for the Canadian Gas Association. 2005.

Energy Demand-side Management Potential in Canada.

• Older buildings (pre-1994) are more likely to beretrotted, while those with electricity as themain heating source (25% of the sample) are theleast likely to undergo this process.

• Of the buildings that undertook any type of retrotin 2000, over 60% reported that their retrotinvolved only one component.

3.2 Commercial Building Retrot

Activity

An extensive retrot industry already exists for commerciaand institutional buildings. While information on types ofretrot activity is limited, a recent survey was completedand identied the following trends:

• Overall, 11% of a random sample of 3,151 buildingsunderwent retrots in 2000, and 22.4% underwent

retrots in the preceding ve years. Within thissample, just over 50% of the buildings are between1,000 and 10,000 square feet (100-1,000 squaremetres), while a further 35% range in size between10,000 and 50,000 square feet (1,000 -5,000 sqauremetres).

• In general, the proportion of buildings undertakingretrots, both in 2000 and in earlier years,increases as the size of the building increases, withalmost 50% of buildings exceeding 500,000 squarefeet (50,000 square metres) being retrotted in2000 and over 75% being retrotted in 1995-1999.

• Over 75% of the buildings are privately owned, butnonprot and government buildings are the mostlikely to undergo energy-related renovations.



4.0 Selecting a Rating Tool

4.1 Scoping the OptionsAs described previously, there are a range of tools pertinentto the existing commercial building stock. The intent ofthis document is to facilitate the decision-making processrelated to which specic rating tool to use in any givencircumstance. All of these tools are pertinent to a range o

actors within the industry, and all of the tools have a roleto play in terms of supporting market transformation. Thatbeing said, one or another of the tools will most likely bemore appropriate to a specic actor for a specic projectKey to selecting the best tool for a specic building and /orproject is to start by clearly dening what you are tryingto achieve, what your needs are, and what is important toyou.

As FIgure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools demonstratesreviewing the detailed assessment of each rating toowill ultimately not be useful until this initial step isconducted.

Figure 2: Building Operating Costs

• The four main retrot packages each involvedonly one component – heating equipment, other,lighting systems, and ventilation or air conditioningequipment – although the fth main retrotpackage (accounting for almost 7% of buildingsretrotted in 2000) involved both heating andventilation systems. 1

1www.ualberta.ca/~cbeedac/newsletter/documents/spring-04b1.pdf

3.3 Building Operating CostsA breakdown of building operation costs is summarisedin Figure 21 for private sector ofce buildings in Canada.On average, building operation costs are approximately$79.19/sq m. Of this, the largest portion representing 28%is attributable to energy costs. Ongoing repair costs andadministration costs are also signicant. From a programperspective, understanding how rating tools can contributeto a reduction of these operating costs is critical andrequires further analysis.1 Ref BOMA 2004 Experience Exchange Report, Pg 484.



Figure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools



4.2 Dening the CriteriaOnce a high-level review of the options has been conduct-ed, it is possible to examine the alternative rating systemswhich are appropriate to the needs. In this context, thereare a range of key questions which can be asked when con-sidering a rating tool and its pertinence.

Table 6: Key Questions (Criteria) to Consider

1 □□□

What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool?What specic types of buildings does the tool focus on?

What part of the retrot / renovation process does the tool target?

2 □□

What organizations developed and administer the program, or have been involved in its creation / delivery?

What organizations support and or endorse the tool?

3 □□

What is the main type of scoring system used by tool (aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)?

Who is charged with conducting the scoring?

4 □□

What materials are created in the process of rating performance?

How is performance communicated and marketed?

5 □□□

What are the costs of preparing an assessment?What are the costs of having an assessment reviewed?

What are the cost implications of an assessment on building design?

6 □□□

When was the tool was created?How long was the pilot phase?

How long has the tool been used in the industry?

7 □□□

What is range of building performance aspects that are covered?What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover?

How extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired performance levels?

8 □□□□□

How easy is the tool to adopt and implement?How easy is it (real and perceived) to conduct an assessment?How easy is it to access and understand the results?How quickly does the learning curve taper off?

What is the time required to gather data and conduct an assessment?

9 □□□□□

What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the tool’s administrators?How much supporting information is provided?Does support result in additional costs?How much feedback is provided during the analysis and submission phases?

How is feedback provided?

10 □□□□

What is the perceived value to different actors?What kind of market recognition is offered for certication?Does the tool result in awards?

How does use of the tool impact on the triple bottom line?

11 □□□□

Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational tool about environmental issues?Does the tool communicate emerging concerns and issues?How transparent is the process and the results?

Can outputs represent stand-along materials for education of a broader audience?

4.3 Evaluating the AlternativesThe nal step is to review the range of appropriate tools,and keeping these key questions (criteria) in mind, toevaluate the possible alternatives. Indeed, because theseare the key questions, they have been transformed in thisreport into the attributes through which each of the ratingtools are assessed and described in the next section.



4.4 Assessing the Rating Tools

Table 7 lays out the attributes that are assessed foreach of the tools. Consistent with the different kinds ofinformation, the layout is intended to clearly articulate thecharacteristics of each respective tool, and to provide alevel of specicity of information that permits a decision tobe made about which tool best suits the given situation.

The attributes through which the rating systems areassessed have been classied into three arenas: the rst(A) are those which are factual, and can be considered ina descriptive way; the second (B) are those which can beanswered fairly easily in a “yes / no” manner; and the third(C) are those which can be described in terms of magnitudeof achievement along with a description of the graphicrating. These ratings are broad-brushed, and are simplyintended to give a quick sense of whether achievement islow, medium or high in the given attribute areas. Table 8demonstrates the methodology used to determine the “C”attribute ratings.

A= Title Key Question Sub-Questions

a1 Target Audience / Building

Type

What building type(s) and audience does the

tool target?

What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool?

What specic types of buildings does the tool focus on? What

part of the retrot / renovation process does the tool target?

a2 Development and Delivery Who directed the develoment and

administers the delivery of the tool?

What organizations developed and administer the program, or

have been involved in its creation / delivery? What organizations

support and or endorse the tool?

a3 Rating Approach What system does the tool use to rate

performance?

What is the main type of scoring system used by tool

(aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)?

Who is charged with conducting the scoring?

a4 Outputs What are the outputs produced by the tool? What materials are created in the process of rating

performance? How is performance communicated andmarketed?

a5 Costs What are the direct costs of the tool? What are the costs of preparing an assessment? What are the

costs of having an assessment reviewed? What are the cost

implications of an assessment on building design?

a6 Time on market How long has the tool been operational? When was the tool was created? How long was the pilot phase?

How long has the tool been used in the industry?

B= Title Key Question Response

b1 Verication Are the results of an assessment veried by

an objective, certied third party?

Y/N

b2 Mandatory Requirements Does the tool include mandatory

requirements?

Y/N

b3 Score Does the tool result a single overall score

or label?

Y/N

b4 External Benchmarks Does the tool reference external

benchmarks?

Y/N

b5 Baseline Model Does the tool require a baseline model? Y/N

b6 Customization Does the tool permit customization to

different situations and circumstances?

Y/N

b7 Building portfolios Can the tool be applied to portfolios of

buildings?

Y/N

b8 Recertication Does the tool require regular recertication? Y/N

b9 Energy Model Does the tool require an energy model? Y/N

Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools



Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools (cont.)

C= Title Key Question Sub-Questions

c1 Comprehensiveness How comprehensive is the tool? What is range of building performance aspects that are covered?

What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover? How

extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired

performance levels?

c2 User-friendliness How user fr iendly is the tool? How easy is the tool to adopt and implement? How easy is it

(real and perceived) to conduct an assessment? How easy is

it to access and understand the results? How quickly does the

learning curve taper off? What is the time required to gather data

and conduct an assessment?

c3 Support How much feedback and support is offered

for the tool?

What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the

tool’s administrators? How much supporting information is

provided? Does support result in additional costs? How much

feedback is provided during the analysis and submission

phases? How is feedback provided?

c4 Value What is the value of certication? What is the perceived value to different actors? What kind of

market recognition is offered for certication? Does the tool

result in awards? How does use of the tool impact on the triple

bottom line?

c5 Education How does the tool provide / support

education?

Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational

tool about environmental issues? Does the tool communicate

emerging concerns and issues? How transparent is the processand the results? Can outputs represent stand-along materials for

education of a broader audience?

c6 Versatility How versatile is the tool? How adaptable is the tool to local conditions? Is the tool

applicable to a range of building types? Is the tool useful to a

range of actors / needs withint the retrot / renovation process?

Does the tool have a balance between performance and

prescription?

c7 Challenge How rigorous is the tool? Does the tool push the envelope well beyond code and / or

standard performance? Is there a broad performance spectrum

permitted within the tool? Does the tool require verication of

results by a third party?

c8 Management Tool Does the tool align with management

responsibilities?

Does the tool align with job responsibilities? Does the tool

support a management plan? Can the tool guide management

towards achievement of high performance buildings? Does thetool permit an analysis of portfolios of buildings?



Table 8:Criteria for Determining Ratings for “C” Attributes

ATTRIBUTE

LOW HIGH

Comprehensiveness Cursory treatment of strategies Detailed treatment of strategies

Light coverage of issues Inclusion of broad range of issues

Low depth of coverage Different parameters included for each issue

User-FriendlinessResults confusing Results easy to understand

Assessment difcult to conduct Assessment easy to conduct

Lack of templates or standard approach Templates easy to use

Level of effort high Time and costs not onerous

Support Input / information provided periodically Fast access to input / information

Feedback provided at end Feedback provided during analysis

Assistance dependent on hiring professionals Assistance in identifying and selecting strategies

Value Low market recognition Wide recognition by market

Costs exceed return on investment Process affordable to undergo

Impact on market transformation low Resultant bottom line savings substantial

Measurable change encouraged by techniques

Education Information not embedded in material Emerging issues / concerns included

Too academic to support broad understanding Transparent enough to aid behavioural change

Explanations of rationale not robust Raises awareness about going beyond standard

Provides details necessary to incur innovation

Versatility Applicable to narrow audience / sector Can be adapted to regional / other circumstances

Does not allow for regional differentiation Allows different levels of achievement

Difcult to link to other tools Is applicable to range of audiences

Can link to other tools

ChallengePerformance standards not included Level of rigour is high

Results in limited change over the norm Goes substantially beyond conventional

Certication possible without broad coverage ofissues

Provides incentives to do more

Keeps key issues as priority

Breadth of activities required

Management Tool Adds extra layers to job responsibilities Aligns with job responsibilities

Does not support management plan Fits within management plan

Applicable to individual buildings only Supports portfolios of buildings

Does not inform design / operat ion process Helps priorit ize strategies



A

S S E

S S M

E

N

T

O

F

R

A T I N

G

T

O

O

L S



5.0 Assessment of Rating Tools

The following section contains the detailed assessmentof each rating tool shortlisted through the projectmethodology. As mentioned previously, the layout isintended to clearly articulate the characteristics of eachrespective tool, and to provide a level of specicity ofinformation that permits a decision to be made aboutwhich tool best suits the given situation. The intent is to

permit different target audiences to assess their respectivesuitability to any given application.

The table below provides a summary of the “B” and “C”attributes as assessed on the following pages.

Table 9: Summary Table of “B” and “C” Attributes

Attribute

Audubon

Green

Leaf

BOMA Go

Green

BOMA Go

GreenPlus

CASB

b1 Verication Yes Yes Yes Ye

b2 MandatoryRequirements

Yes Yes Yes Ye

b3 Score Yes No Yes Ye

b4External

BenchmarksNo No Yes N

b5 Baseline Model No No No N

b6 Customization Yes No Yes Ye

b7 Building portfolios No Yes Yes Ye

b8 Recertication Yes Yes Yes N

b9 Energy Model No No N

c1 Comprehensiveness Medium High High Hig

c2 User-friendliness High High High Med

c3 Support Medium Medium High Hig

c4 Value High Medium High Hig

c5 Education High Low High Hig

c6 Versatility Medium Medium High Hig

c7 Challenge Low Low Medium Hig

c8 Management Tool High High High Med



GB Tool

Green Guide

for HealthCare

GreenStar LABS21 LEED-CI LEED-EB

No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes



Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No No No N/A No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

High High High High Medium High

Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Low Low Medium Medium High High

Medium Medium High Medium High Medium

High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

High Low Medium Low Medium Medium

High High High Medium Medium Medium

Low High Medium Low Medium Medium



RATING SYSTEM: AUDUBON GREEN LEAF

The program was developed by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing in 1997 with

the Hotel Association of Canada. In 2004 it partnered with Audubon to continue to

deliver the program. Available throughout North America and internationally, the

program is managed by TerraChoice, a Canadian company that is a leader in deliver-

ing eco-rating programs of various types.

There are two levels to Green Leaf. The firstprovides materials that result in increased

awareness and understanding of the issues.. The second level entails a full audit of a

hotel’s operations in relation to best practices, as well as a rating of one to five greenleafs (one for a minimum of devising and committing to a set of environmental policie

and principles; and two through five for results achieved by applying those principles)

and a report that details how to get to the next level of performance.

R A T I N G A P P R O A C H

Outputs include individualized reports that provide specific guidance on opportunities

in a range of resource areas, as well as checklist-based self-assessment reports. The

facility can then display the number of Green Leafs it has received as a rating. Facili

ties earning at least four Green Leafs are eligible to apply for Environment Canada’s

EcoLogo.

O U T P U T S

Annual fees vary based on size of facility.

C O S T S

Initially developed in 1997 by TerraChoice, the program was enhanced by partnership

with Audubon International in 2004.

T I M E O N M A R K E T

Verication?Terra Choice conducts independent verification of as-sessment results, as well as periodic spot checks.

Mandatory requirements?

Certain minimum best practices must be in place inorder to achieve Green Leafs. The adoption of any one,individual practice is not required though; the achievedscore is cumulative.

Y N

Y N

T A R G E T A U D I E N C E /

B U I L D I N G T Y P E

G E N E R A L D E S C R I P T I O N

D E V E L O P M E N T &

D E L I V E R Y

www.terrachoice.ca F O R I N F O R M A T I O N

Audubon Green Leaf is targeted specifically at the accommodations aspect of the hos

pitality industry. It includes functions that target the owners and operators of hotels

as well as providing travellers with access to a verified environmental ‘seal of approval

for hotels they stay at.

Audubon Green Leaf is an eco-rating program developed for the hospitality sector. The

program is focused on encouraging the hotel industry to improve their environmenta

commitment while simultaneously demonstrating the eco-effiiciency advantages of

doing so. It aims to provide assurance that audited facilities meet environmental best

practice standards, allowing people to understand the extent of the measures under

taken to improve a hotel’s environmental performance.

Score?

External benchmarks?

A rating of 1-5 Green Leafs is provided.

NY

Y N



Low High

M A N A G E M E N T T O O L

U S E R - F R I E N D L I N E S S

S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N

V E R S AT I L I T Y

C H A L L E N G E

The rating is based on a survey questionnaire that is filled out by the hotel and

independently verified. It includes energy efficiency, resource conservation, pol-

lution prevention and environmental management.

C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

The program is tailored to easy fulfillment of the certification process. A surveyquestionnaire is filled out with questions requiring simple responses. Following

this, TerraChoice scores the survey, and returns it with a technical report outlin

ing methods for improving results. Finally, an independent audit is performed.

Through the provision of the technical report, and the final audit, much of the

work is done by TerraChoice. However, there is very little online information

that supports the process, and the process is iterative as opposed to dynamic.

Significant marketing is conducted to communicate Green Leaf hotels, ensuring

that an important by-product of running the program is the attraction of trav-

ellers. The program is also very good at showing how the rating can translate

into savings in operating costs.

Using the best practice model, the program attempts to ensure that a major fo-

cus is on educating hotel/motel owners and operators about how to improve the

performance of their facility. Not a lot is done to communicate to the travelling

audience what specific best practices the Green Leafs are associated with.

The program is directed solely to the accommodation sector. It is flexible given

its focus on a best practice approach -- ratings are based only on services and

circumstances associated with the property in question. This being said, the

Green Leafs concept has been successfully applied to other commercial sectors.

The best practices are fairly easy to implement, and are not related to specific

performance targets. For example, rather than specifying overall energy perfor-

mance, the practices ask that lightbulbs be changed to preferred eco-efficient

models. The overall rating does not demand an enormous amount beyond code.

The program is very focused on providing information and recommendations

in a way that is directly applicable to an owner or operators responsibilities.

The requirements are broken down in a way that leads to direct action (see the

lightbulb example above) rather than the need to determine actions to achieve a

prescribed goal.

Audubon GreenLeaf

Baseline / energy model?

Customization?

The rating is related only to the services provided by

the hotel.

NY

Y N

Building portfolios?

Recertication? Y N

Annual fee required.

NY



RATING SYSTEM: BOMA GO GREEN

BOMA Go Green targets institutional and commercial sectors, with a key focus on the

office and retail segments. As the tool was developed by the Building Owners and

Managers Association, the tool has been designed to specifically target building own-

ers, managers and operators.

The BOMA Go Green Environmental Certification program is a voluntary program

designed for existing or occupied buildings. It is offered by BOMA Canada as a service

to all member and non-member commercial building owners. The tool is being market

ed nationally, however, BOMA Go Green has been used mostly in Vancouver, Calgary

and Montreal, with little exposure in other locations in the country.

The tool was developed in British Columbia by the Building Owners and Managers

Association of BC (BOMA BC). BOMA GO Green was initially delivered only through

BOMA BC, but is now directed and administered by Building Owners and Managers

Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). Delivered by BOMA local associations acros

the country.

BOMA Go Green utilises “best practices” as defined by a survey of the commercia

building industry. These best practices cover energy use,water use, construction wate,recycling,hazardous materials,material selection,ozone depleting substances,indoor

air quality, HVAC maintenance, communication program.


A series of audits and management plans are generated in each of the issue area

described above. Upon successful application a decal and GoGreen designation is pro

vided to the applicant.

O U T P U T S

Costs range from $750 - $3,500 depending on size of building or number of buildings in

an office park. Fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA members.

C O S T S

BOMA Go Green has been operating since 2003 in British Columbia. It is now being

rolled out as a national program.


Score?


The system uses a pass or fail approach.

There are no standardized benchmarks used to define

the requirements of the audits or management plans.

NY

NY

Verication?


Y NApplication is completed by building management.

BOMA certifies accuracy with walk-through.

Mandatory audits and a written management plan are

required in each issue area. All ten best practices must

be addressed.

Y N





D E L I V E R Y

www.bomagogreen.com

www.bomacanada.org F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

BOMA Go Green is comprehensive in terms of breadth but less so in terms of

depth. While Go Green covers a broad range of aspects, the level of detail and

the performance expectations is left to the individual user.


The tool is easy to implement, but does not have the ability to be customised.The tool is simple to use and understand. The time requirements to conduct the

necessary audits may be relatively short.

Go Green documentation provides information on program requirements, rec-

ommended practices and documentation requirements. Target user is building

manager, therefore, the requirements are integrated into their work environ-

ment.

The value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance, and peer

recognition. Cost savings have been profiled and demonstrated. By structuring

Go Green as a system of pass or fail, it does not permit third parties to assess

whether one rated building performs better than another rated building.

The tool provides a high level assessment of environmental issues and opportu-

nities, thus providing education to the user.

The tool is primarily focused on the office sector, and was originally designed

and piloted in BC. However, Go Green has now gone national and is providing

ratings across the country.

BOMA Go Green uses “best practices” as defined by industry experts. No addi-

tional recognition is provided for innovation. A common criticism of BOMA Go

Green is that the best practices represent a minimum level of performance and

the tool does not encourage performance that exceeds it.

The target user for Go Green is the building operator and is aligned with his/her

reponsibilities. Further, the tool was designed with input of the target users,

and therefore it is structured with that user group specifically in mind.

BOMA Go Green


Recertication? Y N

Y NThere is a reduced price for office parks.

Recertification is required every three years.


Customization?

NY

NY



RATING SYSTEM: GO GREEN PLUS

BOMA Go Green Plus is an industry developed national environmental recognition

and certification program for existing commercial buildings. While designed primarily

for office buildings, Go Green Plus is being used for institutional, industrial, and retai

properties.

BOMA Go Green Plus (formerly Go Green Comprehensive) is the newest element of

the Go Green program. Based on the Green Globes web-based assessment tool, Go

Green Comprehensive adds a more in-depth benchmarking tool to Go Green’s best

practices model. Go Green Plus uses an on-line audit tool for assessing and rating

buildings against best practice, industry standards, and general concepts underlying

green buildings.

BOMA Go Green Plus is directed and administered by Building Owners and Manag

ers Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). The verification process is delivered by

BOMA local associations across the country. Based on Green Globes Assessment Tool

Builds on 10 best practice requirements of Go Green and drills down into additiona

depth, adding a benchmarking tool for each requirement. The Report gives an overalpercentage rating. Buildings must achieve at least 70% to be certified, and receive a

pass or fail score.


Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the

ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential

savings. Recognition signage and materials (including a certificate of achievement) ae

provided for display at the site.

O U T P U T S

Costs range from $1,500 to $7,000 depending on the size of the building, or the numbe

of buildings in an office park. The fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA

members.

C O S T S

May 2005, as a development from BOMA Go Green (which was launched in January

2004).






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


Y NA verifier authorized by BOMA conducts a site review

to ensure conformity.

Improvements in energy performance may be required

as a condition for maintaining certification.

Y N

Score?


A score is provided, although certification is either pass

or fail.

References CBIP requirements. Is more focused, how-

ever, on leveraging each building’s strengths.

Y N

Y N

www.bomagogreen.com

www.bomacanada.org F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

Includes fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues, including such as-

pects as noise. Light coverage in areas of environmental impact.C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

The dynamic on-line tool asks directed questions, and then generates a reportthat includes recommendations, sources of information, preliminary modelling

results, etc. The comments and input are generated on-the-fly by the tool.

Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing

and unlimited.

Provides good value in terms of tenant health, comfort and productivity. Pro-

vides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.

The online tool and report provides a detailed range of information and links

specifically directed towards possible strategies for inclusion.

Because the emphasis is on leveraging the value of each building, a fair amount

of versatility is provided in terms of strategies, best practices, and so on. The

on-line tool includes examples of best practices that allow the applicant to

choose those that best suit the situation.

Program measures each building’s environmental factors such as energy use,indoor health and environmental performance against the existing best industry

operation and management practices.

Is developed to allow for the development of action plans to achieve savings on

resource consumption costs and through waste management.

Go Green Plus


Recertication? Y N

Y NPortfolios of buildings can be assessed, although the fo-

cus in this regard is on office parks. Buildings on other

multi-building complexes must be certified individually.

Certification is valid for three years from date of appli-

cation. Certification applies to the building, so does not

change with ownership transfer.


Customization?

A baseline model is not required, although audits

are called for. A preliminary CBIP rating (compli-

ance path) is automatically generated based on reportinputs.

NY

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: CASBEE (EXISTING BUILDING)

The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency, or

CASBEE, is a suite of assessment tools for the various phases of the building being

evaluated: planning, design, completion, operation, and renovation. It also adopts an

environmental efficiency approach, by providing results that are based on the quality

of environmental performance, divided by the environmental load.

Research and development of CASBEE has been carried out as a cooperative project

between industry, government and academia with the assistance of Japanese Ministry

of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Newly-formed Japan Sustainable Building

Consortium and affiliated sub-committees provide overall management of CASBEE,

The assessment result is communicated in terms of an equation: BEE=Q/L. Building

environmental efficiency is equal to building environmental quality and performance

divided by building environmental loadings. The numeric score is translated to a chart

which results in a letter rating (Class S, which is excellent, to Class C, which is poor).


Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the

ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential

savings.

O U T P U T S

C O S T S

Disseminated for use in June 2004.






D E L I V E R Y

This assessment tool targets the existing building stock, based on operation records forat least one year after completion. It was developed to be applicable to asset

assessment as well. It can be used to generate proposals for building operation moni-

toring, commissioning and upgrade design with a view to ESCO (Energy Service Com

pany) projects, which will be increasingly important in future, and for building stock

renovation. This tool is designed for ascertaining the degree of improvement (increased

BEE), relative to the level that preceded renovation. Labeling is also possible by third

party agencies.

Verication?


Y NVerification can be provided, although typically the

tool is used to improve performance. Some municipali-

ties are mandating its use.

Y N

www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english F O R I N F O R M A T I O N

Score?


Scores are given on program areas and then translated

into an overall number. The final score is associated

with poor to excellent designations.

Y N

NY



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

Includes detailed coverage of a wide range of criteria, and allows for extension

of these to scales broader than building alone.C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

A fairly mathematical approach is used, which can be confusing in the process.However worksheets are simpler, and the final result is easy to understand.

Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing

and unlimited.

It is mandatory for building permit applicants (larger than 2000m2) in Nagoya,

Osaka, Yokohama to submit the assessed data, part of which is to be disclosed

on the website of local government.

Outputs are provided in a standardized, yet graphical way that is educational

and indicates broader impact of performance.

Can be applied to range of different buildings, regions, scales, and the synergy

between different tools in the suite is strong.

CASBEE includes a broad range of categories, and has many sub-areas undereach category. The level of rigour is very good, and weightings are included that

ensure a suitable mix of effort.

CASBEE is designed to support the management of assets, although the struc-

ture of the inputs and outputs are not closely aligned with typical job reponsi-

bilities.

CASBEE (Existing Bldg.


Recertication?

Y NMultiple projects can be evaluated.


Customization?

Models are required for an evaluated building and a

standard building so that comparisons can be done.

Scores are relative to a standard building, which can

be selected to reflect the regional circumstances within

which the assessed building will be considered.

NY

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: CHPS

CHPS was designed to enhance the performance of new school facilities in California

and targets school administrators and designers. Many of the credits are based on a

customisation of LEED-NC Credits to a california school environment.

The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS, often pronounced “chips”)

aims to facilitate the design of high performance schools. CHPS is developing a cer

tification system that explicitly defines a high performance school while remaining

flexible to accommodate a particular district’s needs.

CHPS was developed and is delivered through the Collaborative for High Performance

Schools (CHPS) in California, USA.

CHPS utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the aggregation

of points based system and prerequisities. A minimum of 28 points is required forcertification and a maximum of 81 points are available.


A scorecard is developed in completion of CHPS. The program is marketed primar

ily to reduce operating energy costs, and increase school attendance and these are the

primary outputs.

O U T P U T S

An annual membership is required. C O S T S

CHPS has been operating since 2002.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


Self certification is used.

Prerequisites are defined, utilising Title 24 energy and

ventilation codes, as well as a range of US national

standards.

Y N

NY Score?


CHPS uses a pass/fail system. A minimum of 28 out

of a possible 81 points are required to achieve CHPS

certification.

The primary benchmark is the california energy code

requirement, Title 24.

NY

NY

www.chps.net/ F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

CHPS is a customised version of LEED. Therefore it is comparable to LEED-

NC in terms of issues addressed.C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

The Tool is designed to be easy to use, with less flexibility and more prescriptiverequirements than LEED.

There are design guidelines and a support network to assist in tool application.

Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance.

CHPS offers design support, workshops best practice guides and a resource

manual for program participants.

The tool is designed specifically for schools in California and has less applicabil-

ity ouside that building segment and jurisdiction.

CHPS is based on LEED-NC so is comparable to LEED-EB and LABS21 interms of rigour.

CHPS aligns with building operations by including maintenance procedures and

requirements.

CHPS


Recertication?

Y NSchool districts can participate

NY


Customization?

A baseline energy model is requred to demonstrate

compliance with relevant codes.

The tool focuses on schools and school districts in Cali-

fornia, and is not supported outside that jurisdiction.

Y N

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: GBTOOL

GB Tool covers all Institutional and Commercial Segments targeting architects, en-

gineers, and academics. GB Tool was originally designed for rating new buildings

however it has also been applied to existing buildings. Finally, the tool has been used

most extensively within a reaserch context, and while commercially available, it does

not target widespread commercial application.

The GBTool software has been developed as part of the Green Building Challenge

process, an international effort to establish a common language for describing “green

buildings”. GBTool provides a standard basis of comparison for a wide range of build

ings. A feature of GBTool is that the method is designed from the outset to reflect the

very different priorities, technologies, building traditions and even cultural values that

exist in various regions and countries.

GBTool is under development and is currently supported by iiSBE. It was originally

developed as the rating tool used in the Green Building Challenge (1998), and has been

used in subsequent forums.

GBTool includes an assessment scale and best practices. One of the key benefits of

GBTool is that it is based on a life cycle assessment methodology, and permits customised weighting of aspects. As the tool was designed to permit comparison among

international design teams, GBTool can account for the very different priorities


Spreadsheet documentation is prepared in support of accreditation. As the tool ha

been used primarily in support of international sustainable building competitions, a

complementary output is the potential for recognition within the international design

community.

O U T P U T S

The tool is free for members of iiSBE ($75 annual membership fee). C O S T S

Since 1998.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


The tool requires self-assessment.

Y N

NY Score?


Scores are provided for 4 phases of building activ-

ity including, Pre-Design, Design, Construction and

Operations.

National benchmarks are defined by the teams using

the tools.

Y N

Y N

www.iisbe.org/iisbe/gbc2k5/gbc2k5-start.htm F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

GB Tool can be customised to expand the breadth and depth of analysis to

accommodate different situations. Includes normal to detailed coverage of a a

very broad range of issues, including a number of environmental impacts such

as global warming, ozone depletion, smog, etc.


GB Tool is primarily a research tool and has limited application beyone the GBCactivities, therefore, user-friendliness has come second to research rigour.

GB Tool is supported by the iiSBE, but there is little support during assess-

ment.

As a research tool, certification provides a basis of comparison for international

competitions.

The tool offes a lifecycle assessment methodology that provides an extensive

educational component.

The tool has been applied to a range of building types and throughout the

world, permitting extensive comparison.

The tool may be scoped up or down in terms of rigour to accommodate theinterests of the user. In addition, the user may adopt his own benchmarks and

best practices, permitting flexibility in terms of rigour.

The tool is intended as a research tool and is not designed as a tool to assist in

the management of buildings.

GBToo


Recertication?

Y NMultiple projects can be evaluated.

NY


Customization?

GB Tool includes an assessment baseline model. An

energy model is mandatory.

GB Tool can be customised in terms of weighting of as-

sessment criteria and customisation of benchmarks.

Y N

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: GREEN GUIDE FOR HEALTHCARE

The GGHC is focused on the healthcare sector, and applies to new freestanding facili

ties, additions to existing facilities along with renovation, and extensive rehabilitation

/ adaptive reuse projects. It is customized for buildings such as acute care hospitals,

medical office buildings and clinics, and others.

Green Guide for Health Care™ is the healthcare sector’s first quantifiable sustainable

design toolkit integrating enhanced environmental and health principles and practices

into the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of their facilities

The Green Guide for Health Care borrows the credit numbering scheme and credit

outline structure of the US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® family of prod

ucts, with some modifications.

The GGHC was initiated by a diverse group of health care industry leaders. It is con

vened by the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and has three major

founding sponsors (Hospitals for a Healthy Environment; Merck Family Fund; NY

SERDA); 25 Founding Partners; and numerous Endorsers.

The GGHC borrows the credit scheme and organizational structure of the LEED. It

does not provide achievement level thresholds, but these come during the current pilot

phase. During the pilot phase, achievement is indicated by total number of pointsTotal of 96 points for design and construction, and 72 for operations.


Similar to LEED, outputs include the various documentation materials that are re-

quired to show compliance with individual credits.

O U T P U T S

The GGHC is an open source document provided at no charge. C O S T S

Pilot version released in November 2004.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


As it is informed by LEED products, GGHC has pre-

requisites in the same vein as LEED tools.

Y N

NY Score?


Provides points, but does not translate them into

achievement ratings (such as silver or gold, etc.)

Includes thresholds and reference standards.

Y N

Y N

www.gghc.org F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

It includes different credit categories associated with Construction and Opera-

tions. For Construction, the credit categories are the same as LEED-EB, but for

Operations a different structure is used. Includes many of the LEED strategies,

but has also added some standards from ISO 14001.


The main document is somewhat dense, with over 400 pages included. Navi-gating the full document requires a lot of time and focus. Some information is

included in the document of what strategies to employ to achieve credits, but in

a minimal, text-based way. Not linked to on-line tools.

Currently, the Steering Committee and staff are unable to offer consultation on

individual projects. Participants can engage in peer-to-peer discussions through

a web-based Forum.

Currently identifies early adopters.

The program is designed to serve as a voluntary educational guide for early

adopters of sustainable design, construction, and operations practices, to en-

courage continuous improvement in the healthcare sector.

Is focused on healthcare buildings, and in particular, institutional occupancies

such as acute care hospitals, where regulatory requirements have created par-

ticular needs. Medical office buildings, clinics and other buildings where health-

care concerns are dominant can also use the Guide.

Provides some strategies for how to achieve credits, but like LEED does notprioritize.

The Operations section is structured in a way that facilitates management roles

and responsibilities. In the Operations section, alignment is much more direct

than within the Construction section.

GGHC


Recertication?

Y NIs targetted to healthcare facilities, thus allows for

portfolios to be considered (particularly in terms of

Operations section).

NY


Customization?

Similar to LEED tool.Y N

NY



RATING SYSTEM: GREEN STAR (OFFICE SUITE)

Focuses on encouraging developers, professional services, and project managers to as-

sess the environmental attributes of existing office buildings. The tool is oriented to

wards all existing buildings that have been constructed and handed over not less than

24 months prior to application.

Green Star is a national voluntary rating system which evaluates the environmenta

performance of buildings. It has been developed by the Green Building Council of

Australia, but has been built on existing systems and tools in overseas markets includ

ing the British BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assess

ment Method) system and the North American LEED (Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design) system.

Was developed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Is also delivered

by the GBCA. The UK’s Building Research Establishment is acknowledged, as is Vi-

cUrban.

A six star approach is used to rate building performance. Credits are given a score, with

different weightings for each. 1-3 stars are not eligible for formal certification. 4 stars

(45 points) represent Best Practice, 5 stars (60 points) is Australian Excellence, 6 stars

(75 points) is World Leadership. Based on original BREEAM approach.


Building input worksheet with general information about the building construction

and services, net lettable area, etc. Checklist of points. Graphical summaries provide

bar chart analyses. Successful certification results in an award certificate and Green

Star logos.

O U T P U T S

The GBCA provides worksheets and credit calculators free of charge. The tools al

low for a quick evaluation for points likely to be received through formal certification

process. Less 5000m2 NLA=$5500;5,000 - 10,000m2 NLA $6,500; 10,000 - 20,000m2

NLA $8,500 ; 20,000 - 40,000m2 NLA $11,500; greater than 40,000m2 NLA $15,500.

C O S T S

While some of the Green Star tools have been on the market since 2003, OfficeAsset i

still in pilot phase.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


Y NFormal assessment required in order to publicly com-

municate a Green Star rating.

Y N

N

Score?


A single overall score is identified through aggregat-

ing the weighted scores for each category. This is then

translated into a “Star” rating.

References “predicted” performance as calculated by a

calculator tool.

Y N

Y N

www.gbcaus.org F O R I N F O R M A T I O N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

Addresses a wide range of issues (energy, emissions, water, indoor environ-

ment, materials, transport, biodiversity,some environmental impacts). Does

not address embodied or renewable energy, materials consumption, water reuse,

amongst others.


An excel worksheet tool is provided that assists in managing the identificationof credits and requirements. Automated, linked calculators are provided for in-

dividual credits. Graphical summaries are provided. Identifying what strategies

to use to achieve credits is not part of the tool.

Incorporates calculators and tools right into system. Provides manuals and

training sessions. Technical clarifications are provided on-line.


vides recognizable label. Facilitates carbon emissions trading.

Some information is provided, and access to resources, but it is up to the design

teams to identify.

Is applicable to “Class 5” office buildings, so not directed at all types of com-

mercial buildings. Allows for modification based on regional location -- the

building’s location and type alters the predicted rating. Is appropriate for use by

both design professionals and property managers.

Achieving full points for credits requires a broad range of strategies that ad-dress all aspects of a building’s impacts.

Includes strategies that can be incorporated into action plans,and that are

aligned with management responsibilities. Certification necessary for each

building in a portfolio.

Green Star (Ofce Asset)


Customization?

The building’s location and type can alter the predicted

rating, against which the ultimate score is calibrated.

NY

Y N

Building portfolios?Is suitable for portfolio profiling.

Recertication? NY

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: LABS 21

The target audience for LAB21 includes owners and designers of laboratory facilities

As the tool is based off a LEED rating platform, the target audience will likely have a

previous knowledge of that tool.

Labs21 is a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental perfor-

mance of U.S. laboratories.

LABS21 was developed in partnership with the US EPA, US Federal Energy Manage

ment Program, Lawrence Berkely Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory. LABS21 is delivered though the US EPA.

Performance standards Using the LEED rating criteria with additional credits that

are specific to the unique circumstances of laboratory facilities, including for example

management of hazaedous materials, and occupant safety. In addition, LABS21 en

courages users to utilise lifecycle costing in their decision making process related to

building retrofit and renovation activities.


Documentation is prepared in support of each credit, including for example, signed

letters of compliance, drawings, work sheets and simulation model outputs. The

USGBC presents the project team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED

plaque indicating the certification level

O U T P U T S

There is no cost to participate in LABS21, although should participants also wish to

participate in the LEED Program there are costs associated with that.

C O S T S

LABS21 has been available since 2002.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?

Mandatory requirements? Y N

Y NThere is a team of expert reviewers who provide design

advice. In addition, for those wishing to achieve LEED

certification, 3rd party verification is provided.

Yes, all the prerequisites defined in LEED are manda-

tory. In addition there are a number of requirements

specific to laboratories,

www.labs21century.gov F O R I N F O R M A T I O N

Score?

External benchmarks? Y N

Like LEED, a score is associated with level of perfor-

mance, including certified, silver, gold, platinum.

A range of external benchmarks are referenced (pri-

marily LEED-NC), however all are US based bench-

marks.

Y N





S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

The tool covers all the aspects of LEED NC. In addition there are a range of

aspects related specifically to laboratories, including hazardous materials etc.C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

The tool includes a series of case studies and resource guides to enhance the userfriendliness. As noted previously, LABS 21 is built off a LEED NC platform

and sufferes from the structural limitations of that program.

There is a users group, case studies and an extensive support network to assist

in the implementation of the tool.

Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance, peer recognition.

In addition to the resources provided through LEED, LABS21 offer design

courses, telephone forums and a student design competition.

The tool is designed specifically for labs and is not intended for other building

types.

LABS 21 Is more rigourous than LEED as it contains additional prerequisites

and points.

LABS 21 is intended as a design tool for new construction and is not designed as

a management tool for operating facilities.

LABS 21


Customization?

Y N

Y N

ASHRAE compliance is a prerequisite, resulting in

mandatory energy models.

There is the potential for points related to design in-

novation. As noted previously, LABS21 is largely a

customised version of LEED, so extensive customisa-

tion has already occurred.

Low High


Recertication? NY

Y N



RATING SYSTEM: LEED (CI)

LEED-CI deals with design and construction during tenant improvement --focuses

on aspects of fit-out that are within control of the tenant and design team. As such i

more relevant to new construction than to existing buildings, considered to go hand-

in-glove with LEED-Core &Shell. Its focus on the tenant is a unique characteristic of

this tool.

The LEED-CI (Commercial Interiors) Rating System is part of a comprehensive suite

of LEED assessment tools under development by the USGBC to promote sustainable

design, construction, and operations practices in buildings. The LEED-CI Rating

System is applicable to tenant improvements of new or existing office space. LEED

CI gives the power to make sustainable choices to tenants and designers, who do not

always have control over whole building operations.

LEED-CI was developed and administered by the US Green Building Council, a

diverse non-profit membership based organization. It will be administered by the

Canada Green Building Council for Canadian projects at the end of September 2006.

Aggregation of points (up to 57) to end up with a final score that is then correlated to

4 performance levels (certified,silver,gold,platinum).


Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance

letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project

team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certifica

tion level.

O U T P U T S

For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq

ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft

- $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.

C O S T S

Launched in November 2004 following a pilot phase.






D E L I V E R Y

Verication?


Y NVerification of credits is completed by USGBC staff.

As with other tools within LEED suite, prerequisites

are included.

Score?


Y

Y N

Score is associated with level of performance, including

certified, silver, gold, platinum.

A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are

US-based benchmars.

www.usgbc.org F O R I N F O R M A T I O N

N



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

Includes a fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues. Light coverage in

areas of environmental impact.C O M P R E H E N S I V E N E S S

LEED Online is being launched in March 2006 for LEED-CI. This makes thedocumentation and submittal process much easier, although it is more of an

information management tool than an input tool. The Reference Manual is still

a necessary component of the process, however, and is not yet online.

Technical support is provided through credit interpretations, as well as gen-

eralized training workshops. As well, full review and validation of submission

package is included.


vides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.

The Reference Guide has some information, although less than the original

Guide for LEED NC. The USGBC website offers some links, but the educationa

value tends to be directly related to the research activities of the design / man-

agement team.

Is applicable to a broad spectrum of commercial buildings, and can be used for

interiors on different floors of a building. Like other LEED tools, references US

standards, and is not easily customized to different locations / regions.

LEED CI ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements.Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.

Is relevant to capital costs associated with design and construction of tenant

improvements. Permits managers to identify priorities and strategies for interior

improvements.

LEED-C


Customization?

Simulation models are required to demonstrate achieve-

ment of energy performance.

Y N

NY


Recertication?

NY

NY



RATING SYSTEM: LEED-EB

LEED-EB covers all institutional and commercial segments. Whereas LEED-CI

targets tenants in commercial buildings, LEED-EB focuses on building managers

and owners. The intent of LEED-EB is to certify the operation of the building

capturing both its physical systems (equipment, design, etc.) as well as the way the

building is occupied and operated by its managers (waste management, temperature

monitoring,etc.) So where LEED-NC and LEED-CI certify the act of renovating

constructing or tenant fit-out, EB certifies the completed and operated building as it

functions on an ongoing basis.



(LEED-EB) is part of a suite of assessment tools under development by the USGBC

to promote sustainable design, construction, and operations in buildings. Focused

on existing buildings, the LEED-EB criteria cover building operations and systems

upgrades in existing buildings where the majority of interior or exterior surfaces re

main unchanged. It provides sustainable guidelines for building operations, periodic

upgrades of building systems, minor space use changes and building processes.


LEED-EB was developed and is delivered through the US Green Building Council

The LEED-EB Committee, a group of experts representing various facets of the

industry, developed a draft of the rating system with input from the LEED Steering

Committee. Technical Advisory groups, the Technical and Scientific Advisory Com-mittee, and representatives from all major sectors of the building industry also guided

the development of LEED-EB. The rating system was piloted in 100 buildings to

ensure its practicality as a tool for achieving sustainability.


D E L I V E R Y

LEED-EB utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the ag

gregation of points based system and prerequisities. A maximum of 85 points are

available. Four performance levels are considered including certigied, silver, gold and

platinum.


Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance

letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project

team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certifica

tion level.

O U T P U T S

For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq

ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft

- $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.

C O S T S

Comments on the pilot rating system received from pilot participants and members of

the public guided revisions to the draft system, and the USGBC membership approved

a final, ‘balloted’ version of LEED-EB in October of 2004.There are currently no

plans to support a Canadian version of the product.


Verication?


Y NVerification of credits is completed by USGBC staff.

Mandatory requirements include such categories as

Erosion & Sedimentation Control, Age of Building,

Water Efficiency, Existing Building Commission, En-

ergy Performance, etc.

Score?


Y N

Y N

Score is associated with level of performance, including

certified, silver, gold, platinum.

A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are

US-based benchmars.



Low High



S U P P O R T

V A L U E

E D U C A T I O N


C H A L L E N G E

Addresses cleaning and maintenance issues including chemical use; ongoing

indoor air quality; energy efficiency; water efficiency; recycling programs and

facilities; exterior maintenance programs; and systems upgrades to meet green

building energy, water, IAQ, and lighting performance standards.


A criticism of the current version of LEED-EB is the labour intensive require-ments for certification. Future plans may include development of a web based

platform to enhance the user-friendliness.

Reference guides and user templates are provided. In addition, workshops are

delivered periodically. Target user is architect or registered professional, rather

than occupant of building.

Value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance and peer rec-

ognition. LEED-NC is currenly positioned as the premier new building rating

tool with a high level of brand recognition. As a result, the value of LEED-EB

certification may be enhanced.

USGBC is developing an accreditation for LEED-EB. As noted above, exten-

sive resource material is currently available, including training and a resource

guide.

LEED-EB references US Standards, limiting its versatility in Canda in the

short term. LEED-EB covers a range of ICI building segments and focuses on

building managers. LEED EB includes performance based and prescriptive

based requirements.

LEED EB ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements.Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.

As an outgrowth of LEED_NC, the tool is designed more with architects in

mind, rather than building owners or managers. While LEED-EB was not de-

signed to align with management responsibilities, it is consistent with property

manager responsibilities.

LEED EB


Customization?

Y N

Y N

Baseline energy model required. Minimum EnergyStar

60 required.

Points are provided to design innovation, which may be

customized.


Recertication? Y N

Y NMay be addressed by modelling and submitting for each

building.

Required every five years.



6.0 ConclusionsMultiple rating tools are available and in use through-outthe commercial and institutional building sector. Thesetools may contribute to a range of benets to buildingowners and tenants, including cost savings and reducedenvironmental impact. As the drivers for utilising ratingtools vary among a range of actors, there is a rationalefor the support of multiple tools

While there is a range of tools available, experiencewith their application in Canada is limited. Currently,the BOMA Go Green product has the most signicantmarket penetration with over 60 buildings rated and atarget of 100 buildings by the end of 2006. Go Green Plushas recently been chosen by Public Works GovernmentServices for the rating of their owner occupied stock,and while application of the tool to date is limited,other large corporate users (such as Great Western Life)are using it. Conversely, there have been no buildingsrated using LEED EB, and the application of LEED CI forrenovation is limited. Evaluating and showcasing theimpact of the rating tools in terms of cost savings andenhanced environmental performance will be key tocreating market demand for these tools. Analysis of theimpact of rating tools through a post-retrot performanceevaluation is recommended.

The development of multiple stand alone building ratingtools is symptomatic of an immature market. As themarket matures over the next three to ve years, itcan be expected that harmonisation of tools will occur,resulting in a more streamlined process. The ISO iscurrently developing a protocol for the design of buildingrating tools, and this will provide a framework for

subsequent harmonisation efforts that may be supportedby the client group.

While rating tools are an important component of amanagement system for buildings, they will benetwith greater integration to other management systemscurrently in place, such as the nancial, environmentaland human resources management systems, andadditional analysis of this issue is recommended.

Finally, the explosion of building automated controlsystems is having a profound impact on how buildingsand facilities are being operated and managed. There is

growing interest and awareness in the opportunities tointegrate “smart” and green technologies as the “nextbig thing”. Better understanding of the opportunities andchallenges may have a much greater impact than focusingefforts only on rating tools.



A

P P

E

N

D

I C E

S



Criteria Description

Existing/New Building Describes whether the tool targets new or existing buildings. The scope of thecurrent analysis is on rating tools for existing buildings.

Industry Supported As a market transformation driver, tools must evolve to remain relevant andto push the envelope of innovation. This criteria reects whether the tool iscurrently supported and whether continued evolution of the tool is likely.

Commercialized /Research Tool

Different tools focus on discrete stages of the market transformation process.While a research tool may assist the early adopters in more of a researchcapacity, rating tools that focus on the design community and have beencommercialized will have the largest uptake.

Used in North America Most industrialized countries have developed rating tools that reects the

unique social, environmental and economic opportunities and constraints fromthe country of origin. The current focus is on tools that can be readily adaptedto t the Canadian context. This in turn is reected by whether the tool hasbeen used previously in North America.

Range of Building Types Different tools focus on specic segments of the commercial/institutionalsector, while other tools may be applied across all segments. The scope of thecurrent analysis is the entire commercial and institutional sector, however, asnoted previously, educational services, ofces and retail trade make up almost70% of commercial oor area. Tools that target those segments will have themost signicant impact.

Educational Value Tools can offer education value through the broader awareness they bring tothe environmental impacts of buildings. They can also offer value throughencapsulating methodologies and approaches that are interesting and importantfor those developing / investigating tools to be exposed to.

Analyse Based on the results of the above criteria, a decision whether to analyse thetool was made using the qualitative analysis.

6.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Criteria for Determining

Shortlist of Rating Tools



Appendix B: Evaluation of Comprehensive

List of Rating Systems

Rating SystemExisting/New

BuildingIndustry

SupportedCommercialized

/Research

Used inNorth

America Range of Building Types Educational Value A

LEED-EB Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes

LEED-CI Existing/New Yes Commercial Yes Commercial YesCASBEE New No Research No Commercial Yes

Green Star Existing No Commercial No Ofce Only Yes

NABERS Existing Yes Commercial No Residential/Commercial Yes

GBTool New Yes Research Yes Commercial Yes

BOMA Go Green Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes

Boma Go GreenPlus New/Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes

ECO QUANTUM New No Research No Commercial No

HK-BEAM Existing/New Yes Commercial No Residential/Commercial NoBREEAMGreenleaf Existing/New

Yes, ButSuperceded Commercial Yes Residential/Commercial No

TGBRS Existing/New No Commercial No All NoGreenGuide forHealthcare Existing / New Yes Commercial No Healthcare Yes

Audubon GreenLeaf Existing Yes Commercial Yes Hotel / Motel Yes

CHPS Existing / New Yes Commercial No Schools Yes

LABS 21 Existing /New Somewhat Both No Laboratories Yes

ISO 14000 Existing Yes Commercial Yes Yes

Assessment of Tools for Rating the Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Tools for Rating the Perfomrance of Existing Buildings