Preventing Point Chasing
by Leidy Klotz LEED AP
September 1, 2007
 |
Penn State’s LEED-Gold School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA) building, courtesy of Penn State’s Department of Public Information. Photo by Greg Grieco.
|
|
Having recently received its first LEED Gold certification, and with approximately $1 billion of sustainable building projects scheduled for the next five years, Penn State is taking strides to ensure that its buildings are aligned with its sustainable goals, and that the process does not become a point-chasing exercise. A simple, logical process is in use at Penn State to prioritize LEED points in accordance with this goal. While the results of Penn State’s efforts are unique to the university, other large building owners may wish to emulate Penn State’s process or adapt it to meet their needs.
Sustainability at Penn State
Penn State’s university-wide Environmental Stewardship Initiative “strives to identify specific actions and objectives aimed at conducting the university’s business in a manner that demonstrates a commitment to envi-ronmental stewardship and moves the university toward sustainable practices.” Part of this broad, university-wide initiative is the specific mandate that all major building projects at Penn State achieve LEED certification. In charge of the planning, design, construction and operation of the university’s facilities, Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant (OPP) bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that this LEED certification mandate is met. With the experience of building several LEED certified projects under its belt, OPP has been charged with prioritizing LEED points and establishing a guideline for design consultants to follow on future projects.
LEED Point Prioritization Process
Guiding OPP’s LEED prioritization process is University Architect David Zehngut, who is working with a multi-disciplinary team to provide an integrated perspective to the prioritization effort. Contributing to the integrated process are representatives from architecture, landscape architecture, various engineering disciplines, project management, maintenance, janitorial, transportation/parking, health and safety, and purchasing. Team members include LEED APs with backgrounds in design, construction and energy engineering. Based on five guiding criteria specifically developed to address sustainability at Penn State, the team has classified each LEED point within three categories to guide the future efforts of design teams on Penn State projects.
Guiding Criteria
Penn State’s guiding criteria, in no particular order, are:
- Energy conservation (including a mandated 30 percent energy reduction from minimum code requirements);
- Natural resources conservation;
- Prevention of environmental degradation;
- People’s health, well-being, and comfort; and
- Financial payback.
Point Categories
 |
LEED-Silver Forestry Building, courtesy of Penn State’s Department of Public Information. Photo by Greg Grieco.
|
|
To maintain simplicity, and allow flexibility for individual projects, OPP limited the categories for point classification to: Mandatory – Compliance will be required. Significant effort – The design professional must show clear evidence that an honest attempt to achieve this credit has been made. If compliance is not achieved, reason for this failure must be shown by the design professional and accepted by the university. Minimal effort – The design professional will investigate the possibility of accomplishing this credit. If circumstances are such that broad university policies or the project’s programmatic requirements make a credit achievable, the design professional will provide the necessary documentation; however, no additional effort or resources will be dedicated towards it.
Discussion with Integrated Team
Two short examples are valuable to illustrate the process used by Penn State.
EA Credits 1.1-1.10 (Optimize Energy Performance)
EA credit 1 illustrates a straightforward example of credit classification. Because of the mandate to save 30 percent of energy on top of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, EA credits 1.1 – 1.6, which specify energy savings up to 28.5 percent, are classified as mandatory. While not mandatory, EA credits 1.7-1.10, which specify energy savings up to and more than 42 percent, are classified as significant effort due to their alignment with the energy conservation guiding criteria.
WE credit 1.2 (Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Use or No Irrigation)
WE credit 1.2 provides a more complex example of credit classification while illustrating the benefits of the multi-disciplinary team. The initial expectation of nearly all team members was that Penn State would receive this credit even with minimal effort simply by following existing policy and not installing permanent irrigation. However, the team’s maintenance representative noted his men spent a large portion of the last summer manually watering turfgrass around campus to keep it alive. The manual process required extensive manpower and consumed more water as watering took place in the middle of the day (during regular work hours), increasing evaporation. The multi-disciplinary perspective provided by the maintenance representative allowed the group to re-evaluate the point based on Penn State’s natural resources sustainability criteria. As a result, the team is now considering other options, such as recovered rainwater and use of native plants, to satisfy the intent of WE credit 1.2.
Information Sharing
By prioritizing LEED points to align with guiding criteria, Penn State will avoid point chasing on individual projects while building sustainable buildings that are tailored to the university’s needs.
We hope Penn State’s point prioritization process will prove helpful for other owner organizations in their sustainable building efforts. As this sharing of ideas is essential to the progress of sustainable building, Penn State welcomes any questions or suggestions related to its sustainable projects and processes.
|
Comments (0)
