Heifer.org is dedicated to solving world hunger. Their organization is not only effective, but they’ve developed a body of intellectual work around philanthropy that’s worth a read, if you’ve never checked them out you should. The organization posts thought pieces under their learning section and one passage really struck me.  I often wonder if the green building sector and more importantly the green building market is stuck in a mode of Paralysis By Analysis (I borrowed the graphic from Heifer.org, thanks). The writers desribe a condition we all know well. We know we should take action...we know how to make things better, but we’re also aware of the risks involved. We calculate the risks at the same time we calculate the benefits.

What if I promise we’ll be LEED Gold certified and we don’t make it?
What if I promise a 40% reduction in energy and we don’t deliver?

Even over at our podcast the very first episode was dedicated to managing client expectations and protecting building pros through professional liability. Our caution can lead to inaction, no one wants to over promise on green results. Cautious soft language dominates our websites and our literature. Statements like...(and I’m not quoting from anyone in particular here)

Gains in efficiency will significantly reduce energy consumption and therefore carbon footprint. 

Tepid. Uninspiring. Why Bother? This language makes our potential clients less enthusiastic about jumping into sustainability.

Couple that kind of language with conflicting reports in the media about the best initiatives in the industry, like LEED and Energy Star. Stories like these only foment cycles of misinformation and lead to further paralysis. Am I saying LEED or Energy Star or any competing standard is perfect? Couse not. What I'm saying is they're making progress. Progress should be something we're all after.

Imagine if we’d had the same kind of caution when it came to proliferating say, the automobile or the PC. What if Henry Ford had promised marginal improvement to our daily lives with the automobile? What if Microsoft’s goal had been to put a computer on 20-30% of the desktops in the world? These companies set bold goals. They had big ambitions larger than profit alone. They wanted to fundamentally change the world, change markets and improve people’s lives. Yes, they also stumble, remember the Ford Pinto? Remember Windows Vista?  Big companies with bold goals sometimes fail, but we must fail forward. Has the building industry created so many barriers to success that we are afraid to set bold goals? Are we afraid to change the world? Are we too afraid too fail forward?

There are some that will say the industry doesn't lack big vision. It lacks a big market. The argument goes something like:

There is no incentive (particularly in this economy) for building owners in the commercial world to take up the cause. They will lease their buildings to businesses and continue to make a profit on their building stock whether or not they improve it for the betterment of their clients, the nation, the globe or whoever.

To those people I would remind them of two things...

First, the buildings that are the most efficient, productive, healthy and well designed i.e. the best buildings will be leased first and at higher rates. Period.

Second, I would also quote the great Henry Ford...

The highest use of capital isn't to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life. 

So how bold should we be...

I can’t speak for the industry, but I can tell you Build2Sustain’s North Star Goal:

To make every commercial space in the United States sustainable.

Northstar goals are big and open ended by nature, but if we don’t start pursuing them...
 
Who will?

We tweeted this the other day, but I thought it was worth more attention. Build2Sustain seeks to become a leader in sustainable retrofit and renovation for commercial spaces. This story is a prime example of what's possible with intelligent retrofit.

Caterpillar Headquarters in Peoria Ill. underwent a retrofit focused on efficiency. Here are some of the highlights:

-Caterpillar’s headquarters will save about $800,000 a year in energy costs.

-Tom Gerike, Engineering Project Team Leader, provided the following: Previously, the building’s annual energy usage of electricity and natural gas was 111,591 MMBTU. Now, it uses 60,622 MMBTU.

Some Key Retrofit Features:

From Gerike:

There was no night setback in place for HVAC equipment or for lights,” he said, adding that consistent setpoints were established at 70 degrees in the heating season and 76 degrees in the cooling season.

From The Environmental Leader Article:

For lighting automation, the new system has smart breaker panels controlled by a lighting schedule with pushbutton overrides for common areas. Also, motion sensors were installed into private offices and conference rooms.

As a result of these improvements the site earned LEED Gold Certification. What's missing from this story is project ROI and payback periods of the renovation. We're working to get that info and hopefully will have it for you soon. In the meantime, for more on the retrofit, read the entire story at Environmental Leader or see Caterpillar's Press Release for more.

LEED certification from the USGBC has done more to promote sustainable building practices in the US than any other force of the last decade. For some, the LEED program is indeed the equivalent of green building and design. So if LEED is the future and is a value add for clients shouldn’t architects and engineers advocate for certification? Recently, Stephen Del Percio outlined this argument in his blog post he pits two schools of thought against one another. The first is advocated by green building rock star Jerry Yudelson, who this past September gave two keynotes at a event sponsored by Central Texas Green Building Council. As quoted in the press release Yudelson presented the following:

clear evidence that high-level green outcomes add significant value to buildings.

“...What part of a 30 percent increase in value from LEED certification is hard to communicate?...You are doing your clients a disservice by letting them build projects without LEED certification,’ he said. ‘It almost amounts to dereliction of your duty as professionals....”

These quotes demonstrate Mr. Yudelson’s clear belief that it is the responsibility of architects and designers to advocate for LEED certification, under the guise that it is a clear value-add when designing a new building.

For his part, in the same blog post Del Percio, discusses why attorneys caution against such advocacy:

First, the design professional who functions as an advocate, extolling the promises of increased energy efficiency, asset values, and rental premiums of LEED-certified buildings is creating a corresponding high expectation in the eyes of his or her client.

...insurance coverage implications of the Energy Ace LEED certification “guarantee.” Unbridled green building advocacy could also provide an insurance carrier with the argument that the design professional has provided the functional equivalent of a guarantee- either LEED certification, performance, or otherwise- that might give the carrier grounds to deny coverage for negligence claims arising out of the project...

Build2Sustain’s blog always seeks to explore the issues important design/build pros. We feel it’s important to drill into these issues in more depth. So we’ve asked Stephen Del Percio and Shari Shapiro to be part of our first ever podcast. The podcast will discuss green certification and managing client expectation. We’re thrilled to be recording the podcast later this week for release next month.

In the meantime, we throw the comment section open to you. Architects-do you advocate for LEED certification in your design practice? Attorneys, what are the risks involved to advocating green building practices broadly and certification specifically? The best comments and questions will be used in our discussion with Stephen and Shari later this week.