Green Building Advisory Committee
Green Building Certification System Review Briefing Meeting
08/13/2024 12:00pm est
Task group members present:
Fernando Arias — Co-Chair
Nicolas Baker — CEQ
Kevin Bates — Sharp Development
Ralph DiNola — New Buildings Institute
Projjal Dutta — New York MTA
Whitney Austin Gray — International WELL Building Institute
Christine Harada — Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB
Bill Healy — NIST
Joyce Lee — IndigoJLD Green + Health
Jane Rohde — JSR Associates
Timothy Unruh — NAESCO
David Wagner — VA
Conan Wilson — EPA
Observers:
Ligia Duarte, HCPA
Jenna Hamilton, GBI
Stephen Johnson, APTIM
John Park, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Sophie Morin, AWC
Alejandra Nieto, Rockwell
Joe Sollod, ICC
GSA attendees:
Michael Bloom — Designated Federal Official
Madison Battle— OFHPGB
Patrick Dale — OFHPGB
Meredith Holland — OFHPGB
Bryan Steverson — OFHPGB
Zach Geller — PBS
Ann Kosmal — PBS
Samuel Song — PBS
Mackenzie Robertson — OGP
Welcome and opening remarks
Michael Bloom, Designated Federal Official for GBAC, provided opening remarks.
- The GBAC follows the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a Federal law from 1972 that governs the establishment and operation of advisory committees. These rules emphasize the importance of open meetings, public involvement, and reporting.
- General Housekeeping:
- GBAC Members, please add GBAC to the end of your Zoom name so all can identify the GBAC members.
- Please mute phones when not speaking.
- If you’ve called in only, please identify yourself.
- Use the chat window to share questions or ask for clarification.
- For any post-meeting feedback, email Michael.Bloom@gsa.gov.
- Officially, we have Green Building Advisory Committee Members (those appointed by the GSA Administrator), and observers, (those who responded to the Federal Register Notice announcing these meetings). Members actively deliberate, vote, and decide the direction of this Advisory Committee. Observers are invited to make public comments only at designated times.
Presentation and Discussion: GSA’s Green Building Certification System Review
Bryan Steverson of GSA discussed GSA’s Green Building Certification System (GBCS) Review.
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007:
- Sections 433 (a) and 436 (h) require GSA to complete a review of green building certification systems every 5 years.
- EISA requires GSA to identify “a green building certification system…determined to be most likely to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach to the certification of green buildings within the Federal sector,”
- GSA provides recommendation(s) to the Secretary of Energy
- DOE publishes a regulatory rule as to what systems federal agencies can use
Green Building Certification System:
- A tool used to evaluate and measure achievements in sustainable design, construction and operations.
- Certification systems cover various elements of sustainable design including siting, energy, water, materials, and indoor environmental quality.
- Rewards relative levels of compliance or building performance with specific efficiency as well as environmental goals and requirements.
- Help to verify conformance to federal building performance requirements.
Federal agencies are not required to use certification systems, but if agencies decide to, the system needs to meet the following criteria under the 2014 DOE Final Rule:
- Independent verification of system criteria;
- A consensus-based development and revision process that provides an opportunity for public input;
- National recognition within the building industry;
- Periodic evaluation and assessment of the environmental and energy benefits; and
- Inclusion of a post-occupancy verification system.
GSA’s Process:
- Market Analysis to screen for available certification systems that:
- Are available in the U.S. market
- Evaluate whole building performance
- Uses 3rd party certification
- Measures actual building performance
- Once the market analysis narrows down the list of systems, these systems are evaluated for the following Effectiveness Criteria:
- Employ integrated design principles
- Optimize energy performance
- Protect and conserve water
- Enhance the indoor environment
- Moisture and mold control
- Reduce the environmental impact of materials
- Assess and consider building resilience
- Systems are then also evaluated based on Development and Conformance Criteria:
- Consensus based approach
- Transparency
- Usability
- Maturity
- Independence
- Verification
- Post-occupancy evaluation
Current Review Cycle:
- Six systems met screening criteria for review:
- LEED v4.1 (new construction and existing buildings)
- Green Globes, version 2021 and version 2023 (new construction and existing buildings)
- Living Building Challenge v 4.0 and CORE (new construction and existing buildings)
- PHIUS, version 2021 (new construction and existing buildings)
- BREEAM USA In-Use Commercial, version 6 (existing buildings)
- BOMA BEST 4.0 for Sustainable Buildings (existing buildings)
Findings:
- No single system fully aligns with federal green building performance criteria; each certification system demonstrates alignment with the criteria in varying degrees
- General consistency among all systems on the aspects of building design, construction, operation, and maintenance that lead to high-performing buildings
- Each system recognizes the value and efficiency gained from taking a whole-building, integrated approach
- Each system offers a unique framework, but also assumes a different user baseline and organizational sustainability expertise
Draft Recommendations:
- Agencies, should they choose to use a certification system, should consider, for new construction or major renovation projects:
- LEED v4.1 BD+C
- Green Globes for New Construction (2021)
- For existing buildings:
- BOMA Best 4.0 for Sustainable Buildings
- BREEAM USA In-Use Commercial version 6
- Green Globes for Existing Buildings 2023
- LEED v4.1 O+M
- Living Building Challenge 4.0
- Living Building Challenge CORE
- PHIUS CORE Revive 2021
Several systems are in the midst of revisions and GSA will conduct a similar evaluation of the new versions once they are released to the market:
- LEED v5
- Green Globes 2023 for New Construction
- PHIUS CORE Revive
Public Comment Period ends COB August 29, 2024
Questions:
- Based on the first chart shown, PHIUS seems to have a number of red crosses on the categories, how do you determine it is included in the list of certification systems?
- We’re not trying to compare the systems to one another, but rather see how these systems meet the DOE Rule and how they align with federal criteria. PHIUS met the four screening criteria and was included in this review cycle.
- Related to the sustainable procurement provision of EO 14057, any review lead to alignment on embodied carbon leadership or the buy clean policy, especially related to existing buildings?
- No, we did not look at that specific criteria. EISA does give us leeway in terms of what we review, meaning we can select different criteria than the federal director deems as necessary. We can include embodied carbon as criteria we consider for future reviews.
- To what degree does a building type or function provide system selection?
- Historically, certain agencies have used certain building types which tend to use a specific certification system (e.g., the VA using a specific certification based on the medical facility/hospital). Agencies tend to use systems that best meet their mission needs and building type needs, as well as their internal expertise.
- Were there any learnings from the review that provided GSA insights on gaps of knowledge or industry feedback needs that GBAC can focus on for 2025?
- A response will be given after some thought at the October GBAC meeting.
- To what degree does the cost of a certification system impact agency preference for a system, including ongoing certifications?
- This is definitely considered when an agency decides to use a system. We gather background information on costs from a usability standpoint, looking at costs for certification and recertification.
- Performance vs prescriptive standards - an issue that has come up is that buildings continue to sustain certification system standards overtime on an annual basis through a 3rd party. Are buildings being held accountable on a review cycle?
- We did not review a performance vs a prescriptive standard in this review, but this is something that we can consider in the future and discuss more about during the October GBAC meeting.
- What about the systems that are focused on zero energy and zero carbon, is it appropriate to start to evaluate them and bring them into this set of standards? Has there been a roadmap or a timeline of an evaluation for these standards in order to achieve decarbonization and emission reduction efforts of EO 14057?
- This is something that a GBAC task group or a workshop could help us with. We can consider including criteria in future reviews for zero energy and zero carbon.
- Is there a certification system emerging as a favorite amongst building designers and managers?
- Historically, the operational side of GSA’s Public Buildings Service that designs, constructs, and manages federal buildings typically favors LEED for new construction and major renovations. The leasing side of GSA’s Public Buildings Service considers multiple certification systems. Agencies do tend to use systems that they feel the most comfortable with overtime.
- Is it feasible in the future to include additional criteria for health and wellbeing in buildings or include certification systems focused on health and wellbeing?
- We can add additional system criteria for future reviews. The Health and Wellness Guidance crosswalk is a great start and has been a great reference for this review.
U.S. General Services Administration