Excerpt

LEED supporters are typically “puzzled” as to why builders don’t bid what they say the additional green features should cost. Builders, by temperament and experience, are suspicious. They will evaluate the green requirements and will often quote a price higher than that estimated by architects or LEED AP professionals. Then the sighs and “puzzlement” of the designers and engineers follow, underlain by an unspoken implication that the builder is unintelligent or unscrupulous.

This is exacerbated by the vagueness of the design specifications for “going green.” For some, green means energy efficiency and that means tighter and thicker envelopes with more and better insulation as well as higher quality and higher cost windows. It also means a higher performance and higher cost HVAC system. But for the LEED proponent it may mean only a bicycle rack or a special paint.

Furthermore, owners and builders may well be skeptical of the LEED energy savings claims. They may have done extensive due diligence regarding energy savings achieved by LEED buildings and other high performance buildings. They may think that those who argue that a 1-3% investment will yield up to 35-50% energy savings have insufficient evidence. They may have experience in building a truly energy-efficient structure but lack the knowledge to build a “green” building when energy efficiency is removed from the equation.

Arguing about the difference of opinion will do little good. Instead, well-documented case studies, which are few and far between at this point, need to be done in an objective manner. Although some newer energy-efficient products and materials may not have higher initial costs, builders may still reasonably resist implementing them because of the additional time required to train workers to install them. And until a builder gains experience with these energy-efficient materials and products, they will be considered risky. There is always higher cost involved with learning new techniques and changing practices.
As an ex-builder, it is hard for me to consider any significant improvement to a building that does not add construction cost. Such cost may be very worthwhile and in future times, when energy is very expensive, will become even more important. But insisting there is no cost increase or that the additional cost is inconsequential appears to be “greenwash.” I recently completed a deep energy retrofit of an existing building, budgeting 30% of the cost of a new building. I actually spent more than 50% of the new building expense. This is the cost of gaining experience.

Why do the USGBC and other LEED advocates continue to insist that green buildings with significant energy savings do not “have to cost more?” One possibility is that if energy-efficient green buildings do cost more (and maybe significantly more), then fewer owners and builders would take the financial risk, being unsure of a market. If this is correct, the appropriate public policy response may be government intervention. When new requirements are placed in the building code the playing field is leveled since all builders must provide the feature and thus the bidding risk is avoided. If LEED promoters acknowledged that it actually does cost more to be green (let’s say 7-10% for dark green rather than 1-3% for light green) and voluntary participation was not forthcoming, then pressure might build for enforcement by new building codes – which would probably be strongly resisted by the building industry since the industry is conservative and, like the car industry, resists government performance standards.

However, our situation is grave. Global warming demonstrates that resistance to environmental regulation is now dangerously short-sighted. Such resistance is a pattern of the past with many industrial products, including air bags in automobiles or miles per gallon standards for car engines. Today new financial requirements are being implemented in response to the public harm done by the failure of the financial industry to regulate itself. The U.S. building industry, both designers and builders, have not done a good job of protecting the public against CO2 emissions from buildings. Government legislation may be the only solution.

The issue of investing in the building to save energy has been part of green building for a long time. In a 2003 article (early in the LEED program) “Not Building Green Is Called a Matter of Economics” 34 author Michael Brick says that commercial developers have not adopted the principles of what is commonly called green or sustainable building because a compelling case demonstrating the economic rewards has not been made, according to specialists in real estate, finance, design, construction and environmental health and safety.
He notes that, “A movement is under way to promote green development as economically compelling, complete with a trade organization that sets standards and awards certifications to buildings under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program administered by the private U.S. Green Building Council. This amounts to the early stages of an effort to create a marketable brand of buildings.” He further says, “And the Green Building Council’s certifications, created as a marketing tool for developers and building owners, have even in their infancy become less than compelling to their intended audience, corporate tenants, according to brokers and developers across the country.” He then quotes Edward W. Caulkins, a board member of the Green Building Council as saying “It can be very costly, and at the end of the day, you get a plaque.”

The continued debate has become more acrimonious. The NAIOP and ConSol study is the most recent example of these differing world views. LEED has accommodated the staid, slow history of the building industry and has not risen to the planetary challenge.