According to federal law, states may set building codes, but the federal government sets efficiency standards for appliances, such as HVAC equipment; states may not preempt the federal government by setting appliance codes that exceed federal standards. While the new Washington building efficiency rules passed in November 2009 do not directly preempt federal appliance codes, the Building Industry Association of Washington filed suit against the Washington State Building Code Council in May 2010, claiming that the updated codes effectively set higher-than-federal standards on HVAC equipment. The judge disagreed, however, saying that there are other ways to comply with the code aside from purchasing high-efficiency equipment, such as improving insulation.

The new state standards apply only to new construction and are expected to increase both residential and commercial building efficiency 15 to 18 percent.

This article was written by Paula Melton at GreenSource and originally appeared on BuildingGreen.com

Seventy-four percent of corporate real estate executives now say they would be willing to pay a premium to retrofit the office space they own to achieve sustainability goals, a new survey has found.

That figure compares to the 53 percent last year who said they would make such an investment, according to results of the 2009 CoreNet Global and Jones Lang LaSalle sustainability survey.

The survey findings released today showed that despite persistent tough times, corporate real estate execs continue to embrace and act upon sustainability values — and some do so more strongly than ever.

Sixty-seven percent of the respondents conceded that securing funds to carry out sustainability strategies is a “difficult” or “extremely difficult” challenge. However, the research also found that:

• 70 percent (up from 69 percent in 2008 and 47 percent in 2007) consider sustainability a critical business issue,
• 89 percent consider sustainability whenever making decisions about selecting office locations,
• 41 percent always consider green building certification when administering their corporate real estate portfolios,
• 46 percent consider energy labels, and
• 60 percent said they are adopting workplace strategies to meet sustainability goals while also reducing occupancy costs, compared to 54 percent last year.

With growing knowledge about green real estate and the increasing demand for it, fewer corporate real estate execs said they would be willing to pay more for environmentally friendly space:

• 37 percent said they would consider paying a premium of 1 percent to 10 percent,
• 21 percent said they would be willing to pay a rent premium if it were offset by lower operating costs,
• 8 percent said they expected to pay less, and
• 34 percent said they expected to pay the same.

In contrast, 42 percent said they were willing to pay a premium of 1 percent to 5 percent to lease green workspace in 2008, and 77 percent of those surveyed said they’d consider paying a premium in 2007.

This year’s findings are in keeping with CoreNet’s expectations.

Following the release of last year’s survey results, CoreNet leaders said they expected that development and implementation of workplace strategies — to address employee concerns, enhance 360-degree engagement in sustainability efforts and better manage energy costs with more immediate results — would be a growing factor in the greening of office space.

They also anticipated that the market would be more savvy about green real estate, have greater expectations about its availability and, because of that knowledge, be less inclined to pay a premium when renting or leasing green space.

“These results clearly show that sustainability as an issue is here to stay, but companies are increasingly aware of the commercial realities,” said Dan Probst, chairman of Energy and Sustainability at Jones Lang LaSalle, in the statement announcing the survey results. “It is no longer enough to simply be green; organizations want to see the benefits to the bottom line.”

In scrutinizing that bottom line for real estate portfolios, energy costs were ranked as the most important metric and cited by 37 percent of the respondents. Employee health and productivity followed with 29 percent naming those concerns as important indices.

Forty-five percent said they are “highly involved” in providing sustainability performance data to their companies. And with companies increasingly seeking targeted investments and tighter ROI windows, more than 50 percent said that doing so presents a “difficult” or “extremely difficult” challenge. The reasons cited included a lack of tools to more exactly calculate ROI and collect performance data. Respondents also said insufficient industry metrics contributed to the problem.

This year’s research involved 231 corporate real estate executives, who were surveyed in September and October. Their portfolios span billions of square feet of real estate worldwide, JLL and CoreNet Global said.

Commercial real estate services firm JLL oversees a global property and corporate facility management portfolio of 1.4 billion square feet. CoreNet Global is the leading international trade group for corporate real estate and workplace executives.

http://www.greenerbuildings.com/news/2009/11/09/companies-more-likely-ever-invest-efficiency-retrofits-study-says

The LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) rating system has become an important benchmark of sustainable building operations and maintenance. As facility executives consider implementing LEED-EB certification for their buildings, what can they expect the cost of certification to be?

A recent survey shows that the cost of LEED-EB implementation may not be a barrier to beginning an organizationwide LEED-EB initiative. Not only is the cost of certification less than many facility executives may think, also operating costs for LEED certified buildings are on average lower than traditional buildings. Many low and no cost credits can serve as a starting point for facility executives to begin the journey to LEED-EB certification.

Of the 53 buildings LEED-EB certified under the pilot project or under v2.0 through 2007, responses were received for 23 buildings, a 43 percent response rate. Information was gathered in three areas: the cost of certification, the rating of the cost of each LEED-EB prerequisite or credit as low/no cost or significant cost, and the cost of building operation.

The soft and hard costs of LEED-EB certification were received from 13 buildings. Building size ranged from 20,000 to 1.6 million square feet with a mean of 359,667 square feet. Soft costs included the USGBC LEED-EB registration and application fees, the cost of staff time, and the cost of consultants if applicable. The hard costs included the costs of building improvements required to meet the LEED-EB prerequisites and credits. The costs were analyzed as costs per square foot of building floor space.

The mean total certification costs show a trend for increased cost for higher certification levels, with the mean total costs for Platinum ($1.84/sq. ft.) and Gold ($1.73/sq. ft.) certification being higher than the mean total costs for the Silver ($1.22/sq. ft.) and Certified ($1.59/sq. ft.) levels. (See “LEED-EB Costs” on this page.) The same trend is shown for mean hard costs, with the mean hard costs for Platinum ($0.87/sq. ft.) and Gold ($1.19/sq. ft.) certification being higher than the mean hard costs for the Silver ($0.31/sq. ft.) and Certified ($0.57/sq. ft.) levels.

Operating Cost Comparison

The cost benefits of LEED-EB were investigated by comparing the 2006 operating costs per square foot of floor space of each building with the average operating costs of buildings in the same region, as reported in BOMA’s 2007 Experience Exchange Report. All of the 11 buildings included have significant components of office space. The total operating costs of the buildings as well as components of the building operating costs were analyzed. Components of operating costs included cleaning, repair and maintenance, roads/grounds, security, administrative and utility expenses.

Seven out of 11 (64 percent) of the LEED-EB buildings had operating costs per square foot that were below the BOMA average for their region.  The total mean operating cost for all buildings was $6.68 compared to the BOMA average of $6.85. The utility costs of 64 percent of the LEED-EB buildings were also below the BOMA average. The mean utility cost for all buildings was $1.76 compared to the BOMA average of $2.09.

Survey participants were asked to rate the cost of each LEED-EB prerequisite and credit from their perspective as “low/no cost” or “significant cost.” Ratings were received for 23 buildings. Ten out of the 14 prerequisites were rated as low/no cost by more than 80 percent of the respondents. All but one of the prerequisites were rated as low/no cost measures by 68 percent of the respondents. The exception was building commissioning, with only 43.5 percent of the respondents indicating that this was a low/no cost measure. It is important to note that in LEED-EB versions O&M and 2009, commissioning has been moved from prerequisite to optional credit. Other prerequisites rated as significant cost by about 30 percent of the respondents were minimum energy performance and adequate ventilation.

Participants were also asked to rate the cost of all of LEED-EB’s optional credits. The survey suggests that many low/no cost credits are available. Out of 50 credits to choose from, 42 (85 percent) were seen as low/no cost by at least 50 percent of respondents. Also, 67 percent were rated low/no cost by at least 60 percent of the respondents and 55 percent of the credits were considered low/no cost by at least 68 percent of the respondents. This suggests that facility executives have found multiple pathways to earning the certification credits, based on particular budgets and circumstances. Facility executives can choose to earn the credits that are most cost effective for the each situation. In addition, 42 of the 63 innovation credits achieved (67 percent) were rated as low/no cost.

LEED-EB provides benefits for facility executives interested in other facets of sustainability as well. Every LEED-EB prerequisite and credit drives an increase in sustainability for the component of building operation that it addresses. So even if it takes awhile to achieve certification, implementing the low/no cost prerequisites and credits starts delivering these environmental benefits right away. Meeting more prerequisites and credits over time increases the environmental benefits delivered.

All commercial buildings are good candidates for LEED-EB, and starting to move all buildings as far down the LEED-EB path as is practical has big positive environmental benefits. The survey suggests that many of the measures in LEED-EB are low and no cost to implement. Sustainability and LEED-EB certification are both journeys, not destinations, so the important thing is to get started and keep moving in the direction of sustainability. The three areas most likely to be significant costs are minimum energy performance (ENERGY STAR score), commissioning and ventilation. While implementing the low/no cost measures, facility executives can make plans to meet these requirements in the near future, or to upgrade the efficiency of their systems as they wear out and require replacement.

All buildings that have earned LEED-NC certification are great candidates for LEED-EB. They were all designed with the potential for sustainable ongoing operation. LEED-EB is a great program for assuring that this potential for sustainable operation is actually delivered. Think of it this way: Facility executives who have a five-year-old LEED-NC certified building that has not yet started regular recertification under LEED-EB should consider how they would feel entering a restaurant that has only a five-year-old health inspection posted in the entryway.

Link to this article:

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/articleemail/default/LEEDEB-Lowers-Operating-Costs-Report-Finds–10724