Future-proofing Tip: Use Green Building Rating System Critiques

 

I have posted before about future-proofing being the hot buzzword for industry pacesetters. Property owners now dedicate an increasing amount of time to (re-)positioning their teams and portfolios for the expectations of a sustainability-conscious world.

But while everybody gets the catchy phrase, how does ‘everyday future-proofing’ actually happen?

I recently met with a group of executives, who detailed their process of moving their firm towards being a socially responsible corporate citizen. They talked about how sustainability has injected elements of excitement and risk into today’s real estate industry. They were happy about ‘going green’, but also expressed frustration about being on a ‘hamster wheel’, since the good green building initiatives they were currently implementing could easily be superceded by “bigger, better, faster” improvements to building science and the regulatory environment.

Fortunately for many firms with this type of anxiety, the American Institute of Architecture has just published “Quantifying Sustainability”, a report in which they have issued new position statements about the Green Globes, LEED NC-v2.2 and SBTool 07 rating systems. It’s a not-too-dense ten pager and a quick read – if you can squint through the 6 point font they are using.

Here are the Cliff Notes from the AIA report:

• On Green Globes: the AIA recommends that Green Globes ratings systems adopt more specific and stringent requirements for energy reduction and building operational performance since these are the two most important dimensions of carbon production. Green Journey Notes: Making recommendations about requiring items which are at the heart of carbon production is a slap.

• On LEED NC-v2.2: The AIA calls for more implementation of Life Cycle Analysis, and would like to see the greater use of renewable energy and a requirement for greater carbon reduction for certified projects. Green Journey Notes: While the report says that the AIA is neutral about all ratings systems, they did take the time to refer to LEED as “providing a measure of environmental achievement” and said that the recommended changes would “continue to make this system an effective resource for architects”. None of the other rating systems evaluated received this level of praise. Second of all, the USGBC has already announced, and we’ve already posted here,  that the next upgrades to the LEED rating system incorporates all of these suggestions in some form of another. I am guessing that this paper was written before the USGBC’s announcement of the changes.

• On SBTool 07: The AIA recommends that this system would be a stronger tool if there was an increase in the number of required items vs those that are simply encouraged and if project documentation were required. Green Journey Notes: Ouch!

So how can this intel improve “everyday future-proofing”?

• Rating system weaknesses can contain clues: revealed by the critiques are direct pointers to the most likely changes that you will see to those ratings systems. They are also a comment about what will define good industry practice in the near future. So there’s your content for potential future proofing. Here’s the core of where you can mine your ideas about staying ahead of the curve in a sustainable world.

• Beware of minimum compliance: Just trying to achieve the minimum certification level leaves your firm open to the risk that your buildings could easily fall outside the newer standards of acceptability, once any ‘tweaks’ are made to the rating system.

• The endgame is low and no carbon: Understand the difference between a single asset checklist process and achieving concrete energy and operational performance targets across your portfolio that are tied to quantifiable carbon reductions. As you can see from the AIA’s position on ratings systems, this is the tough measure that they are applying which means that this the the industry standard they are driving towards, even if the current ratings systems might not reflect it.