Comments on: Contractor Leads Attack Against Nashville’s LEED Legislation

By: Tom Hall

Tom Hall — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:04:23 +0000

Thanks for the write up about Nashville. I am definitely happy that our Metropolitan Government has taken steps in the right direction towards implementing some green building standards. I think all of us are seeing that while LEED may be the standard, it is not perfect and probably never will be perfect. As the green construction and building industry changes, LEED must change with it.

By: Deb Teall

Deb Teall — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:49:31 +0000

Stephen — Following up on Nashville’s LEED law, I’m sure you saw that Baltimore has now legislated LEED Silver for all new construction and renovation. ALL. Not just public buildings. An ongoing concern of mine, as you know. I object to third-party, GUIDELINE rating systems becoming law. Too risky for contractors, among other issues…deb

By: Brian D. Anderson

Brian D. Anderson — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:49:38 +0000

Larry,

How does 90.1 encourage the efficient wasting of energy or is that a discussion far too long for this blog?

By: Larry Spielvogel

Larry Spielvogel — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:42:51 +0000

There is a very good reason why a building may not meet LEED energy requirements. If a building complies with the local building and energy codes, it probably will not comply with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 energy standard, which is a prerequisite for LEED. Only one or two states require compliance solely with 90.1, while most states adopt the IECC, which has 90.1 as an option that is rarely used because it is too complicated. One of the results from using 90.1 is that the complications can result in the unintended consequences of wasting energy efficiently. That is why so many LEED buildings are energy pigs.

Unfortunately, USGBC often accepts a Certificate of Occupancy as code compliance, without stating whether the building envelope and HVAC complies with 90.1. It is commonly found that LEED buildings also do not comply with ASHRAE Standard 62.1, the LEED prerequisite ventilation standard, which is also extraordinarily complicated.

Contrary to the statement by Mr. Jameson, LEED does require compliance with the HVAC provisions of ASHRAE 90.1, or the building will not be certified at any level.

(Editor’s note- Councilman Mike Jameson sponsored the original Nashville legislation and is quoted in the article as follows: “LEED allows points toward certification for a variety of efficiencies. Even if you completely ignored the HVAC component, you could garner enough points in dozens of other categories to obtain certification.”)

By: Michael Gibbons

Michael Gibbons — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:18:23 +0000

The proposed municipal legislation in Nashville is more alternative to LEED than “attack” on LEED (though some LEED proponents may choose to view it as an “attack”). Interestingly, and tellingly, the Contractor behind the new proposed performance based legislation is a design builder of HVAC systems and building envelopes. One obvious problem with the proposed legislation is that, in the absence of a design build delivery system, no contractor is likely to agree to warrant the engergy performance of a newly designed and constructed building.

In the traditional and still frequently utilized design-bid-build project delivery system, there are a number of risk factors beyond the contractor’s control that would typically prevent it (or its surety) from “guaranteeing” certain improvements in energy consumption including :

1. Errors or omissions by the MEP engineer designing the hvac system;
2. Errors or omissions by the architect designing the building envelope;
3. Errors or omissions by the commissioning agent preparing the commissioning plan or reviewing the hvac and envelope designs;
4. Improper operation of the mechanical systems by the owner post completion;
5. Improper maintenance of the mechanical systems by the owner post completion;
6. Occupant thermal “comfort” settings below (for A/C) and above (for heat)design assumptions.

Factors 4,5 and 6 above would also be beyond the control of the design builder. Risk factors 4 and 5 can be mitigated by systematic training and testing of facility personnel on the equipment they are managing. Risk factor 6 above is a wildcard in the absence of some kind of “governor” built into the controls.

This is a timely article in light of the recently published piece by Pat Murphy. I suspect that there will be few persons interested in assuming the risk of a performance guarantee on a newly designed building other than the design-build sponsor of the legislation. I can see, however, the attractiveness of the thought behind it. Legislative efforts like this one in Nashville will help to ensure that the USGBC continues to move towards a more performance based building rating system.

Like Stephen, I am curious to learn why the energy saving strategies pursued by Energy Systems, Inc. do not satisfy applicable LEED criteria. There may be another interesting story there.