Saw this chart and wondered if we are all just Stupid or just unaware of the facts. I think that we should strive to make positive change with all our might and no pussy around with so much effort on this mediocre LEED Standard that everyone is working towards. Look at the Chart below and smell the Roses.

Just to clarify,  LEED is not a standard.  It is a voluntary "scale" that measures sustainability (of which energy is just one component).  LEED's rating system is consensus based and relies heavily on industry (design, construction, etc.) support.  If the entry level is set too high, very few will support it.  LEED (for new commercial buildings) is in its 3rd generation, and with each generation, the bar has been raised.  Whether or not it is a "hoax" depends a lot on your perception and expectations.

I don't know if the numbers on the chart are accurate or not, but lets assume they are.

Questions to the forum: 

1.  What level (in kWh/m²) do YOU think building energy codes should require?

2.  How much better than energy code (in %) should LEED require for:
      A.  Basic LEED certification?:
      B.  Platinum certification?:
   note LEED levels are Certification, Silver, Gold and Platinum...I am skipping Silver and Gold

3.  What do you think the energy code requirement in question 1. above will add to the construction cost of a 2000 SF house?

Please answer the questions as asked, then feel free to add comments.

Bruce

1. When Pennsylvania set up a grant/loan program based on LEED certification, it set an additional energy requirement of half or less of IECC 2006, which translates to 25kwh/m2.

2. I am reasonably confident I could build this house as DIY at modest additional cost by substituting labor for expensive material (recycled EPS; Tyvek and Attic Wrap with tons of caulk.) The problem is what is subtracted. Would you really want to live in a nearly windowless bunker?

The irony is that my passive solar design will probably land around 25 kwh/m2. The trouble is proving it. I'd need a professional energy designer to say, why yes, there is a mountain back there that will shade your west facing windows by 5 p.m. And the designer would have to accept on faith that I will tolerate daily temperature swings and faithfully substitute wood heat for sun as necessary.

Which brings us to the real problem with LEED. Until the X axis says "$ savings" you aren't convincing anyone who needs convincing.

Sorry, missed a question. With construction in the toilet no one is going to impose tougher energy standards. You will notice that the states are not embracing 2009 IRC and its sprinkler requirement.

All of this relates to the fact that energy prices are subsidized (low) and should be high (to conserve a limited resource, reduce warming, reduce foreign dependence, wars, etc). IMO, the world would be a better place if they raised my energy taxes $1000 and reduced some other taxes by $1000.

Your chart seems to show that an energy star/LEED house, which one can assume is the most basic LEED rating, uses 15% less electric than a code built house. This house would also use much less water than a code house, have less runoff, contribute significantly less waste to the landfill during its construction and over its whole life since it would be more durable, would have a longer lifespan would probably house more people per square foot while using less land due to the bonuses for certain percentages and ratios used to score such things and would certainly be easier to sell since it would be cheaper to live in and healthier than a theorectical code house. Did i mention it would probably be good for your karma? I am going to go with "unaware of facts"

The primary "issue" with LEED, is that as a prescriptive-only methodology it is as theoretical as the baseline model.  Real efficiency should be measured (& corrected, where shortcomings are found.)   LEED structures as-measured are all over the map,  with the theoretical benefits often missed.  Any standard that does not require a performance measurement is a sub-standard standard, IMHO.

Separate from LEED, any standard that focuses on annual energy per unit of floor space has a fundamental flaw, that often comes with perverse consequences.  Smaller structures typically use less total energy, but more per unit area.  (This is a function of geometry:  The ratio of exterior surface to floor space increases as the structure shrinks.)  The total amount of resources to build the larger structure are greater too.  Is annual kwh per square meter really a useful metric of sustainability?  (Methinks not.)  In a dwelling or office, a per-occupant standard seems more relevant.  (Four person families in a 8,000ft^2 LEED-platinum or EnergyStar McMansions is not necessarily a standard to embrace.)

Not of overall sustainability, but it is one of the better metrics we have for measuring the energy efficiency of a building.  All of the models, whether it is an energy model (if used consistently) or the mileage rating for your car, are useful only for comparing products, not for predicting absolute values.

In looking at the LEED for Homes Reference Guide the following verifications must be performed:
1. Thermal bypass visual inspection
2. Visually verify all energy-consuming systems and energy saving components.
3. Blower door test
4. Duct leakage test.

Remember, LEED, Green Globes, NAHB, etc. are all designed to rate NEW construction.

In LEED NC and CS, a rigorous commisioning process is required.  This at least verifies that the equipment is installed and working as it should.

None of this means it will be USED as it should or could.  My company frequently buys and sells office buildings.  We have our own Property Management Group and it is not unusal for us to take over the management of a newer, well designed building and be able to reduce utility costs by 10 to 30% over a 3 year period, just by paying attention to operating/maintenance details and making upgrades with a 1 year or less paybacks.  Value added!

LEED for existing buidings gets into actual energy usage and the Brits now require a Display Energy Certificate showing energy usage for public buildings over a certain size.  I think we will see more performance based sustainability rating systems in the future....but one thing at a time.

Your conscience, and to some extent your wallet, will dictate how green you care to be.  I personally hope that we never get to the point of legislating (or measuring) lifestyle.  The 115m² flat I rented in Moscow for my wife and I (and a room for visiting daughter) would have been home to a family of 6 or more in Soviet times.  My wife and I continue our negotiations about the size of our future house.  It will be efficient, but probably not very small.

Bruce

1. What level (in kWh/m2) do YOU think building energy codes should require?

Less than 40 kWh/m2/year. The German model provides a substantial interest break for both new and existing structures. There is no reason that we; as the richest industriailized nation in the world would not be able to create a simular program (We - the taxpayer - bailed out the Banks - therefore we should ensure that "investments are made wisely).

2. How much better than energy code (in %) should LEED require for:
A. Basic LEED certification?:
B. Platinum certification?:
note LEED levels are Certification, Silver, Gold and Platinum...I am skipping Silver and Gold

The LEED certification IMHO attempts to encompass to many different areas into one simple equation. We should concentrate primarily on A.) KWh/m2/year and B.) the additional initial cost. Producing (photovoltaic) and Reducing (passive solar, near surface geo-thermal, ICF, SIP) energy; while both important, are two different subjects. Reducing energy usage will - in almost all cases be far less expensive.

3. What do you think the energy code requirement in question 1. above will add to the construction cost of a 2000 SF house?

Less than 15% (non DIY). Assuming a +/- of $100.00/sqft. At +/- $30,000.00 for 2000sqft one can achieve less than 12KWh/m2/year. This has already been done in Spain, Poland, Germany, Luxembourg, France as well as China and many other countries.

I agree, any residential tax credit based on kwh/m2 is crazy - it's doesn't encourage smaller houses. Of course most tax credits are crazy - raise energy prices to reflect all the costs and let the market sort out how to best reduce consumption.

To me it seems kind of crazy to apply the same standard to a house in southern california an a house in Fargo North Dakota.  You have to build to  apropriate microclimates.

If I have 6000 heating degree days and you have 500, of course it is going to be harder for me to get to a spesific target. 

I think instead of kw/m^2ft  per year, you should do it by structure, ie a single family house should consume no more than  XXX BTU or KWH per heating and cooling degree days in an area.

Formula is very simple  You take how many housing units in the structure * [(HDD +CDD) X1.1 kwh +3000kwh] for base loads like laundry, hot water and refrigerator and lighting.

Now you encouraged small families, penalized large houses and acounted for  regional differences

My own house wound be 1 family* (7034+283)*0.9 +3000 = 9585 kwh

This should be easy to get to for a small house, quite difficult for a mcmansion, takes into account regional differences.

cheers,
Eric

I think it would be helpful if everyone would read the LEED for homes rating system handbook. LEED is a system, not a set standrd, with many levels designed to function from alaska to key west. As bruce said, energy use and atmosphere is one of eight different areas of LEED credit. The others are 1Innovation and design process 2 location and linkages 3 Sustainable sites 4Water efficiency 5 ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE 6 Materials and resources 7 Indoor enviromental quality 8 Awareness and education Focussing on energy use is fine and there is a program for that. ENERGY STAR. LEED is designed to adapt to the conditions in a comprehensive way. I have seen no other nationally adopted rating system that has been accepted by industry and the public. Calling it a hoax reminds me of ole G.W. focussing on hydrogen cars instead of a steady improvement of current auto tech, in a manner driven by consumer demand IE diesel and hybrid.

First off energy star is a very basic and not too usefull energy reduction goal.  If you can't hit energy star levels on new construction you should get your building liscence pulled and be allowed to only build sheds and outhouses.

I do like the fact that large house size is penalized under LEED.  Of course this is easily beaten by adding more bedrooms which negates the effect
My problem with LEED is that I feel Energy Efficiency is given short shrift. It is only about 25% of the creiteria and can be ignored for a leed basic certification.   Most of the rest of the LEED creiteria come from what are in fact good building practices.
Secondly the cost basis for ataining LEED insures it is only done to high cost custom homes.

Thirdly a large fraction of the population live and work in decentralized locations,  which don't have the population density to support public transportation.  Leed unfairly  penalizes them.  Allso many of the Points for land usage, etc are not possible under Zoning reguations in rural areas

Becasue this represents only a fraction of the housing market, in a larger sense it is useless.


Has anybody built a LEED Gold or better house for the affordable housing market and turned a profit on it? 

As far as I am concerned a more robust energy reduction mandate would make a whole lot more sense.

Lots of ramblings on my part.  Leed seems like a good effort, but its complexity rules it out in most cases
A simpler rule mandating energy efficiency would pe preferable by me.

Eric

Eric, you make many good points. I guess the question is what are your alternatives if you want a nationally certified green home? Nationally leed has no competition . I know it does not adress every situation but i dont see how it could with all the variables and differing opinions invoved in home building. I think its great! Kind of like a UL sticker for a home. I dont really think giving points for density is unfair. It is simply greener than urban sprall. As for adding a bedroom to gain a couple points easily gained elsewhere, it just doesnt seem likely. Again, LEED is a GREEN rating system. If you think it is to restrictive then adding a more stringent energy mandate for the lowest level leed would seem conterintuitive. thnks michael

What I thought the Chart was showing was that, we are not trying to solve the Global Warming thing y, but only dragging our feet on the subject. What we should be striving towards is the NET ZERO Standard and STOP making the LEED such a big deal.

The chart shows that the LOWEST level of LEED is = to energy star. Maybe if it included averages for all the levels of LEED it would be a better basis for this thread. I don't think the Green building concils main goal with leed was to stop global warming although reduction in greenhouse gasses would be a likely for the majority of LEED homes. Ergo you asked the question. Do you think it a "hoax"?

I think it's a lame effort towards Energy Efficiency in building construction overall in times when we should be trying to do our best. these Leed efforts seem to little to late. My opininion, whats yours? Here we go deeper in Leed, geezzzz. http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/07/the-concept-of-leed-decertification.html

Michael,

I don't place much faith in the term green building.  to me this is what ethical builders have been doing for the last 2000 years

My points are the following.  The cost basis of LEED prevents its use for the majority of houses built in the united states, therefore it will have no apreciable effect on the curent energy usage of US housing stock.    Most of the tennents of LEED are normal GOOD building practices anyway.  
To me what makes the most sense is a national energy standard for new construction with strict standards.  The GVT has a number of research projects aimed at low cost highly insulated structures.  On todays basis, it is reasonable to get to  about 1/3 of current average house energy usage which would have a huge impact.  This can be absorbed 2 ways.  First by making houses more expensive, secondly, by making houses smaller.  I firmly believe total energy use per dwelling, not energy/ m^2 is the metric to use.

Eric

I think this is the right track. 

LEED provides a bit of incentive to exceed the energy code by ±16% or more (as well as to do other good things).  You can get up to 34 LEED points if you can get to HERS 0, so they do reward performance.

The real issue is the code itself.  LEED will probably keep its basic certification at that level (i.e., 16%) above the code....wherever it is. 

Donnerwetter opined that 40W/m2 (or similar, for those of you that don't like the metric) is a reasonable code target and I think that is reasonable long term goal....maybe phased over 10-15 years.  I don't think it is politically possible to implement sooner.  Make your voice heard.  I think reducing energy consumption is a better use of our tax dollars than much of what it is being spent for now.

Even at that code level, how much new construction is there?  1% of the housing stock/year?   It will take a loooong time to lower the average energy use significantly.

Bruce

Yup- retrofitting buildings/dwellings is absolutely critical to meet anyone's fanciful Y2050 greenhouse gas targets, even if all new houses met PassivHaus spec.  

Something like 80% of the buildings that will be standing in 2050 are already built, and most are nowhere near LEED/EnergyStar efficiency (and razing + rebuilding just isn't a viable option.)


But retrofitting can still be cost-negative in sub-10 year NPV analyses.  I found the Empire State Building energy-makeover a fairly cheeky & high profile hack.  It cuts energy use 38% and becomes present-value-positive in ~6-7 years on saved utility cost:

http://www.esbsustainability.com/SocMe/?Id=0

That level of efficiency boost (and deeper!) is dead-easy, with quicker returns, on most pre-1980 housing stock. But homeowners are short-termers (average turnover in the US is what, 5 years?), and boosted energy effiency still returns nothing at time of sale. Presented with spending $15K on efficiency upgrades vs. a quick make-over on a bathroom or kitchen, the latter are bankable immediately, whereas the former, not-so-much, and the short-termers (rightly, in direct-economic terms) opt for the mostly-cosmetic stuff.  That's where CA Title 24 2008 ratcheting building-efficiency standards are going to get VERY interesting in 3-5 years! (It's enforced at time of sale.)