This month, we are pleased to have Sheri Lucas share her perspective and experience with LEED EBOM.  

Sheri has been charged with introducing sustainable design, construction, operations and maintenance practices into Wells Fargo’s retail banking stores since 2005. With over 12 years experience in retail real estate strategy, this LEED AP loves the win-win game of increasing efficiency while reducing environmental impact. Sheri has a BS in Interdisciplinary Studies from Boston University and is currently studying for the GMAT while juggling her love of hiking, baking, and photography. She can also be found on Twitter and the Wells Fargo Environmental Forum.

EBOM, EBOM, EBOM. I utter this acronym with every other sentence. It seems LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance has become the love of my life. 

Yes, I really do love EBOM. Not because I’m a masochist. No, because EBOM is so much more than prereq’s and points and templates and calculations and performance periods. EBOM is a much-needed agent for greatly changing the way we do business, from floor to ceiling, from input to output. Nearly everything that happens in and around the four walls of every business is covered by EBOM.  

I’m stating the obvious when I point out that EBOM is designed for our existing building stock. And that stock is beyond enormous. According to the EPA, in 2002 there were nearly 4.9 million office buildings in the US alone. Anyone familiar with LEED knows the built environment has significant impact on the natural environment, its occupants, and the communities that surround every building.  

This is what makes EBOM so vital. We can wax poetic about the brand new NC Platinum high rise all we want, but most of our buildings already exist. Most are not optimally performing. They ingest precious resources like it’s going out of style.  

Oh, that’s right, it is going out of style!  

I’m also sorry to say that most of those pre-existing buildings aren’t very pleasant to be in, whether it’s due to bad lighting or lousy air quality.  

So there you have it. EBOM is the most important of all the rating systems. My hope is that more building owners jump on this bandwagon and stat. We have a lot of work to do. 

But there’s more – something I didn’t realize when I first elected to roll EBOM out across a couple thousand buildings. EBOM not only focuses on the physical system and structure, it focuses on our on-going, day-to-day habits, procedures, and events. And even while we’re still compiling our prerequisite submittals, we’re already triggering great changes across our footprint.  

We’re working with our contract management team to secure a recycling component to our waste management contracts. We’re working with our purchasing teams to ensure our supplies are environmentally friendly in a meaningful way. We’re designing an integrative green cleaning policy. We’re measuring our greenhouse gas emissions and aiming for our benchmarks. I could go on and on. 

But what do I mean by “meaningful” environmental-friendliness? Well, the ever-important certification path associated with all the rating systems necessitates a rigorous approach. That third-party nod confirms we’re walking the talk. This is immensely important, especially in consideration of all the hard work that goes into eliciting great change. We want everyone to know we understand the difference between green and greenwash. Meanwhile, there is currently lack of strong national green business certification in the marketplace. There is no widespread independent system for verifying sustainable practices within the four walls. 

Stephanie Rico, from our Environmental Affairs group, recently commented to me, “We have great localized green business programs like San Francisco Green Business, but recognition from one local body isn’t going to resonate in another town across the country. Having a nationally recognized system for verification would be my dream come true.” Well, Stephanie, I have some good news. To my (pleasant) surprise, much of EBOM covers actual business practices. I often find myself telling people it not only addresses the building itself, but everything that goes on inside, as well. And certification of those efforts is indeed on a national scale. 

In seeking to reduce our impact, we looked to EBOM as a way to reduce our buildings’ energy use. What we hadn’t recognized was how effective it would be at greening our daily practices. We’re already seeing great changes. And I’m excited to witness the ongoing expansion of those changes as we continue on this path.

Advisory Board member, Elaine Hsieh shares with us her thoughts this week.  You can find out more about Elaine on the B2S team page.

As a green building consultant, I often find myself torn between day-to-day consulting realities and my vision for true sustainability. 

We all know that mainstream methods of building, especially in the US, are unsustainable for the environment, and many builders who call themselves "green" are just following checklists toward an end goal of getting some sort of green label or certification. These lists are mostly just collections of prescriptive, accessible steps aimed at performing better than minimal standards. As a consultant, it is my job to help these owners, developers, design teams, and other building professionals understand the value of pursuing green building certification goals that include rigor and transparency and third-party verification to ensure credibility. I help teams make more sustainable decisions and perform as well as they can to achieve their certification goals, and I do my best to support an integrated project delivery process, manage expectations, educate, and assist the team toward their greening efforts. 

In some cases, people are motivated to pursue certifications out of their enlightened interest in sustainability. Even though education and cost-benefit discussions are usually part of these efforts, they can lead to innovative results and rewarding work as a consultant. In many cases, however, project teams are motivated to chase green building certifications because there is either a local ordinance requirement or because the owner is trying to compete in a market where these labels are in demand. As a consultant, the outcomes of these situations are usually far less satisfying; they often wind up feeling like mindless point-chasing, with needless cost additions, uncooperative construction teams that didn't account for "extra paperwork," and a lot of people who shake their heads at how annoying "green" building is. The unfortunate reality is that most people don't care to listen to consultants like me unless the owner (i.e., the one with the purse strings) cares. 

Regardless of their motivation for certification, I'm happy that people are doing something to modify past behaviors and look for greener, more sustainable solutions. But are these minimalist, box-checking approaches to green building enough? Most green building certifications help teams get acknowledged and rewarded for taking small steps toward reducing their environmental impact, but will these baby steps make a difference when 99% of the world's buildings still need to be addressed? 

Some have suggested that tighter local regulation is a way to move beyond voluntary green building certification recognition. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it's mostly unrealistic. Consider how few building departments in the US know how to actually enforce their local green building ordinances credibly. It's impossible to issue a building permit after a project gets built and certified, which makes it impossible for an inspector to ensure the building is actually going to meet the required certification standards. This is not to say that green building regulation is not good, but the experience enforcement authorities have with green building rating systems is generally low and some of these "green" policies are just plain hard to enforce. These are some of the reasons why many well-intentioned green building regulations often lead to buildings with perceived "green label equivalence" that contribute to greenwashing and confusion in the marketplace.  

Another possible step beyond basic green building certification lies in tighter federal building codes. If these codes become stricter and incorporate more sustainability elements (e.g., adopt ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA Standard 189.1P), then this may force awareness, education, and change. Unfortunately, not all parts of the US are created equal in terms of building codes, so this transition to a federal green building code may take a while. 

All of these approaches are a bit superficial, though. They lack a true philosophical foundation. It would be great to find a deeper, less prescriptive approach to sustainability. 

One green building certification system that is trying to do some "pulling" in the building industry is the Living Building Challenge. The system's author, Jason McLennan, indicated that its purpose is to "act as a lighthouse" for project development teams striving to achieve true sustainability. More specifically, the system is only made up of prerequisites (i.e., imperatives) like net zero energy, net zero water, no "red list" materials, and other equally challenging systems-based targets. In the Living Building Challenge, "all aspects are guided by identifying an ideal and positioning that ideal as an indicator of success, so decisions are steered by restorative principles instead of code-minimum solutions." Here is a system that is based on constant reminders of the objectives we are working to achieve. In my world, I think it's one of the few green building systems that is aligned with what most "deep green" professionals can generally get behind. Although the risk of setting goals too high may stop most people from even trying, a system that is guided by ideals is not intended for everyone. 

And that's the conundrum. Keep the sustainability bar low (i.e., check-box green building), and you'll get more adoption, but slower overall progress. Set the sustainability bar higher, and you'll get better results where they're implemented, but less adoption. 

If we can't strike the right balance between green ideals and practices that people can actually adopt, how long will it take for us to reach the vision we share for a sustainable future? 

When I think of sustainability, part of what I think of are quality structures that will be used for generations.  Historic buildings to me are a good example of that kind of durability, though in the past there was debate here at Build2Sustain over whether the Coliseum should be considered sustainable. So, isn't there a natural alignment between historic preservation and sustainable renovation?  Sure, the historic aspects and the regulations around renovating a historic building can present challenges, but surely there must be a way to preserve the features of a building that makes them special historically while updating the technology and materials to make it a high performing building.  John M. Tess of the Heritage Consulting Group writes an interesting piece about this very topic, highlighting successful projects that were able to attain both historic preservation and green building credits (and reap the rewards of tax benefits in the process).  One of the projects highlighted is the Oregon National Guard Armory Annex pictured left.  In the end, by using the resources and abilities we have now to help these buildings perform better, we ensure their survival for many generations to come--and isn't that the very point of historic preservation?