Green Building Rating Tools Comparison, evolution and future
Green Building Rating Tools Comparison, evolution and future
Simon Wild CEO – Cundall www.cundall.com.au
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Green Building Councils & their tools
L
USA
S A C
Canada
Brasil
IC
ES
Mexico
UK
W E E
India
n e e New r r G taZealand Australia S
Has no tool – BREEAM already established
E E B
Japan
S
D E E
South Africa
H
Taiwan
Germany
Emirates
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star • BREEAM – 9 categories – Weightings – No innovation
35%
25%
• LEED – 5 categories – No weightings – Innovation
30%
• Green Star – 8 categories – Weightings – Innovation
Differences in credit topics covered e.g. LEED – heat island, BREEAM – sanitary shut off valves
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star ‐ weightings
25.0%
Category Weightings (based on Green Star categories)
20.0%
15.0% 10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Green Star
BREEAM
LEED
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star ‐ ratings Rating levels as % of total points available 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Outstanding
4 star Good Silver D
C
6 star Excellent Platinum
5 star Very Good Gold
B
A
A+
Green Star BREEAM LEED
VS1, Adelaide (New Building)
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) • New building in Adelaide CBD • 35,000m2 • Tough energy, water & IEQ contract requirements • 6 star Green Star – Office Design v2 • 5 star NABERS Energy required
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Platinum
LEED
BREEAM Excellent
BREEAM
6 Star Green Star
Green Star
0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) • Excellent = Platinum = 6 star • Why LEED was harder on this project – Difficult to get material credits – Specific points for renewable/green power (BREEAM looks at CO2 overall)
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment)
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) • Refurbished building in Melbourne CBD • 6,000m2 – net lettable area • BSJ Sustainable Refurbishment of the Year 2007 • Awaiting 4 star Green Star certification • Focussed on good design not points scoring! – – – –
Relocate air intake Improve facade Retain ceilings & HVAC Task lighting
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Gold
LEED
BREEAM
BREEAM Very Good
Green Star
5 Star Green Star 0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) • Very Good = Gold = 5 star • 4 Star Green Star tbc • BREEAM rewards improving existing building stock more than Green Star & LEED • BREEAM gives more points for energy improvement
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout)
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout) • 400m2 fitout in conventional office building • First LEED Platinum rating in southern hemisphere
Fitout ratings • BREEAM – Modified version of building rating
• LEED
25% to 50%
40%
– Separate tool (but similar to New Construction)
• Green Star – Totally different credits. Very specific to tenancy issues
40% Big differences in credit topics covered
Big differences between credits
100%
Category Scores (% of credits achieved in each category)
80%
60% 40%
20%
0%
Green Star
BREEAM
LEED
Cundall Sydney Office (Fitout) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Platinum
LEED
BREEAM Good
BREEAM
4 Star Green Star
Green Star
0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout) • TOTALLY DIFFERENT APPROACHES! • Green Star has 141 credits, LEED has 44 • Green Star & BREEAM focussed on major tenancies with formal contracts • BREEAM does not address fitout design issues (>80% of points relate to landlord’s building) • Radically different approach to fitout furniture – Green Star looks at each type of furniture – LEED lumps all together – BREEAM doesn’t really assess (< 3% of rating)
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Green Rating Tools Evolution
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
Performance Focus
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
Performance Focus
2012
2012
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Continued Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
Performance G IN Focus
2012
2012
Continued Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
1990
1992
As Built Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1994
1996
1998
PERFORMANCE
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
Performance G IN Focus
2012
2012
Total Accountability ACTUAL
PERFORMANCE
Total Carbon and Water Footprint
As Built Focus
D E E
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
FOOTPRINT
Performance G IN Focus
2012
International Audit And Measurement Standards Carbon Accounting
2012
Summary • Rating Tools cant be compared directly, particularly with fitout • As rating tools have evolved the focus has moved from design to actual • The near future focus will shift from actual to performance • The next evolution will be full carbon and water accounting • With greater accountability!
Simon Wild CEO – Cundall www.cundall.com.au
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Green Building Councils & their tools
L
USA
S A C
Canada
Brasil
IC
ES
Mexico
UK
W E E
India
n e e New r r G taZealand Australia S
Has no tool – BREEAM already established
E E B
Japan
S
D E E
South Africa
H
Taiwan
Germany
Emirates
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star • BREEAM – 9 categories – Weightings – No innovation
35%
25%
• LEED – 5 categories – No weightings – Innovation
30%
• Green Star – 8 categories – Weightings – Innovation
Differences in credit topics covered e.g. LEED – heat island, BREEAM – sanitary shut off valves
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star ‐ weightings
25.0%
Category Weightings (based on Green Star categories)
20.0%
15.0% 10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Green Star
BREEAM
LEED
BREEAM, LEED & Green Star ‐ ratings Rating levels as % of total points available 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Outstanding
4 star Good Silver D
C
6 star Excellent Platinum
5 star Very Good Gold
B
A
A+
Green Star BREEAM LEED
VS1, Adelaide (New Building)
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) • New building in Adelaide CBD • 35,000m2 • Tough energy, water & IEQ contract requirements • 6 star Green Star – Office Design v2 • 5 star NABERS Energy required
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Platinum
LEED
BREEAM Excellent
BREEAM
6 Star Green Star
Green Star
0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
VS1, Adelaide (New Building) • Excellent = Platinum = 6 star • Why LEED was harder on this project – Difficult to get material credits – Specific points for renewable/green power (BREEAM looks at CO2 overall)
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment)
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) • Refurbished building in Melbourne CBD • 6,000m2 – net lettable area • BSJ Sustainable Refurbishment of the Year 2007 • Awaiting 4 star Green Star certification • Focussed on good design not points scoring! – – – –
Relocate air intake Improve facade Retain ceilings & HVAC Task lighting
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Gold
LEED
BREEAM
BREEAM Very Good
Green Star
5 Star Green Star 0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
55 St Andrews Place (Refurbishment) • Very Good = Gold = 5 star • 4 Star Green Star tbc • BREEAM rewards improving existing building stock more than Green Star & LEED • BREEAM gives more points for energy improvement
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout)
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout) • 400m2 fitout in conventional office building • First LEED Platinum rating in southern hemisphere
Fitout ratings • BREEAM – Modified version of building rating
• LEED
25% to 50%
40%
– Separate tool (but similar to New Construction)
• Green Star – Totally different credits. Very specific to tenancy issues
40% Big differences in credit topics covered
Big differences between credits
100%
Category Scores (% of credits achieved in each category)
80%
60% 40%
20%
0%
Green Star
BREEAM
LEED
Cundall Sydney Office (Fitout) Points achieved (based on 100 total) LEED Platinum
LEED
BREEAM Good
BREEAM
4 Star Green Star
Green Star
0
10
Management Transport Land Use & Ecology
20
30
40
50
Indoor Environment Quality Water Emissions / Pollution
60
70
80
Energy Materials Innovation
90
100
Cundall Sydney Office (fitout) • TOTALLY DIFFERENT APPROACHES! • Green Star has 141 credits, LEED has 44 • Green Star & BREEAM focussed on major tenancies with formal contracts • BREEAM does not address fitout design issues (>80% of points relate to landlord’s building) • Radically different approach to fitout furniture – Green Star looks at each type of furniture – LEED lumps all together – BREEAM doesn’t really assess (< 3% of rating)
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Green Rating Tools Evolution
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
Performance Focus
2012
2012
Green Rating Tools Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
1992
R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G G
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
NG I D IL
Performance Focus
2012
2012
Discussion • Rating tools how do they compare – case studies • Green Rating Tool Evolution • The future Green Rating Tools!
Continued Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1990
1992
As Built Focus
1994
1996
1998
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
Performance G IN Focus
2012
2012
Continued Evolution DESIGN
ACTUAL
Design Focus
1990
1992
As Built Focus
AM E D -B E K H LE
M A EE R B 1994
1996
1998
PERFORMANCE
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
Performance G IN Focus
2012
2012
Total Accountability ACTUAL
PERFORMANCE
Total Carbon and Water Footprint
As Built Focus
D E E
G 2000
2002
LD I R RK BU A A N M ST E E NG N N R E E G ATI RE RE R G 2004
2006
2008
2010
FOOTPRINT
Performance G IN Focus
2012
International Audit And Measurement Standards Carbon Accounting
2012
Summary • Rating Tools cant be compared directly, particularly with fitout • As rating tools have evolved the focus has moved from design to actual • The near future focus will shift from actual to performance • The next evolution will be full carbon and water accounting • With greater accountability!
