Boulder Expands Green Building Programs to Include Commercial Construction

The Boulder (Colorado) city council has just adopted changes to the city's green building and Green Points program which will increase the existing energy efficiency requirements for new residential construction and remodels, and, for the first time, has expanded these requirements to include new commercial construction. The new rules go into effect on March 2, 2009.

In brief summary, below are the new energy efficiency requirements for new residential construction. In all cases, the standard that these rules are based upon and measured against is the 2006 IECC (International Energy Conservation and Insulation Code).

• Up to 3,000 square feet: 30 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
• 3,001-5,000 square feet: 50 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
• 5,001 square feet and up: 75 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
• All Multi-Unit dwellings: 30 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC

The residential changes also include changes to the requirements for remodels and additions, boilers, demolition and windows. The entire ordinance which amends the residential energy requirements and Green Points program can be found by clicking here (PDF file).

Commercial construction will be impacted in that the new commercial energy efficiency requirements are that all new commercial construction (of any size) be 30% more efficient than what is specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Currently, commercial buildings in Boulder must simply meet ASHRAE 90.1, so this is a big step forward in reducing energy use in new commercial buildings in the City of Boulder. The changes also require energy modeling for all new commercial buildings larger than 20,000 square feet, which is a great way to squeeze additional energy savings measures out of these buildings.

The press release and more information can be found by clicking here.

Green Building Grows 500% in 3 years

I just read this which was posted by the Portland (OR) Business Journal (Nov. 20, 2008):

"Green building starts up five-fold"

"McGraw-Hill Construction released a report on Wednesday that found the value of green building starts was up five-fold from 2005 to 2008.

According to the Green Outlook 2009: Trends Driving Change report, starts were up from $10 billion in 2005 to $36 to $49 billion this year and could triple by 2013, reaching $96 to $140 billion.

The report — based on data found in the McGraw-Hill Construction Network — was released on Wednesday at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo in Boston. The survey found that, since 2005, the perceived benefits of green building have increased as people become more informed about it. The decrease in operating costs is the most often cited benefit (13.6 percent, up from 8 percent to 9 percent in 2005), followed by the increase in building values (10.9 percent, up from 7.5 percent in 2005).

The McGraw-Hill Cos. (NYSE: MHP) is a global information services provider with more than 280 offices in 40 countries and $6.8 billion in sales in 2007."

The Value of Green Building Programs to Consumers

There is a fair amount of confusion in the marketplace regarding green building programs. There are dozens of them around the country, from the well known (like LEED) to the lesser known (Green Globes) to the local and regional. I have posted a bunch of them on Inhabit's web site. One criticism about these programs is the fact that there are so many of them can be confusing to the home buyer. While this criticism is valid, I do think that there is value to consumers in "packaging" green building the way these programs do.

Lets compare buying a house to the process of buying a car. There are lots of technologies in a car today: ABS brakes, Electronic Stability Control, double overhead cams, variable valve timing, electronic ignition, blah blah blah. What are these things? They are features. They are not benefits. The benefits from these technologies are really what most people care about, and these benefits are what drive the decision to buy one car over another: the car is safer, gets better mileage, handles better, is more powerful, etc.

So it goes with building houses. There is an almost limitless list of features that can go into a green house (or any house), but most people do not care whether a house has an ERV in it or uses SIPs or ICFs or Icynene insulation. What they do -- and should -- care about is the benefit that these things provide to them.

In this way, green building certification programs distill all of the myriad building science and arcane technological details into a package of benefits: it's healthier, it's more energy efficient, it's more sustainable and it's more durable.

Regardless of which green building organization a house is certified by, in all cases a consumer can feel confident that he or she will be buying a house that is greener than the "typical" house being built today, and often much more so. The certification is the assurance from that organization that a particular house has met its minimum standards, so the home buyer does not have to sort through all of the bewildering technologies present in a house. The builder is usually free to choose how to meet the minimum criteria using whatever method or technology is appropriate, but the bottom line is that the criteria is met, one way or another, and the benefits afforded by these technologies are there for the homeowner to enjoy.