Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes

system.

Chapter 1

Green Concepts and Vocabulary

1.1 The green building movement today

The construction industry and the architectural/engineering professions have witnessed fundamental changes over recent years in the promotion of environmentally responsible buildings. Since the 1973 oil crisis, the green building movement has continued to gain momentum across all sectors of industry and green construction has become the norm on many new construction projects. Architects, designers, builders, and building owners are increasingly jumping on the green building bandwagon. National and local programs advancing green building principles are flourishing throughout the nation as well as globally.

Indeed, the green movement has penetrated most areas of our society, including the construction and home-building industries. Still, according to Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), If targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction are to be met, decision-makers must unlock the potential of the building sector with much greater seriousness and vigor than they have to date and make mitigation of building-related emissions a cornerstone of every national climate change strategy. Steiner goes on to say:

Public policy is vital in triggering investment in energy efficient building stock, achieving energy and cost savings, reducing emissions, and creating millions of quality jobs. In developing countries where more than 50 percent of households (up to 80 percent in rural Africa) have no access to electricity, affordable, energy efficient, low-carbon housing helps address energy poverty.

Green construction remains in its relative infancy and is continuously developing. Moreover, although the practices and technologies used in green building construction continue to evolve and develop, and vary from region to region and from one country to the next, there remain certain fundamental principles that apply to all green projects: siting, structure design efficiency, energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality (IEQ) operations and maintenance, and waste and toxics reduction. In today’s world, national and global economic conditions, political pressure, and good environmental stewardship dictate that our built environment be sustainable. At local and state levels, government is increasingly mandating that projects be built to green standards of construction, and this is driving our industry toward making sustainable projects for our clients and communities a priority.

With respect to building green and sustainability, architects and project teams should concentrate on designing and erecting buildings that are energy efficient, that use natural or reclaimed materials in their construction, and that are in tune with the environments in which they exist. Building green means being more efficient in the use of valuable resources such as energy, water, materials, and land than conventional building that simply adheres to code, which is why green buildings are more sympathetic to the environment and provide indoor spaces that occupants typically find to be healthier, more comfortable, and more productive. This is supported by a recent CoStar Group study finding that sustainable green buildings outperform their peer non-green assets in the key areas of occupancy, sale price, and rental rates, sometimes by wide margins.

Studies clearly show that buildings are primary contributors to environmental impacts—both during the Construction Phase and through their operation—which is why they have become a focus of green investment dollars. Studies also show that buildings are the world’s prime consumers of natural resources, which is why today we see a flurry of architects, engineers, contractors, and builders reevaluating how residential and commercial buildings are being built. Additionally, we now see various incentive programs around the country and internationally to encourage and sometimes stipulate that developers and federal agencies go green. It should be noted, however, that while sustainable or green building is basically a strategy for creating healthier and more energy-efficient buildings—that is, environmentally optimal buildings—it has been found that buildings designed and operated with their life-cycle impacts taken into consideration provide significantly greater environmental, economic, and social benefits.

Moreover, the incorporation of green strategies and materials during the early Design Phase is the ideal approach to increase a project’s potential market value. Sustainable buildings amass a vast array of practices and techniques to reduce and ultimately eliminate their negative impacts on the environment and on human health. For example, the EPA states that as many as 500 out of the 4100 or so commercial buildings that have earned the federal government’s ENERGY STAR® rating use a full 50% less energy than average buildings. And many of those efficiency practices, such as upgrading light bulbs or office equipment, pay for themselves in energy cost savings.

Most green building programs typically focus on a number of environmentally related categories that emphasize taking advantage of renewable resources, such as natural daylight and sunlight, through active and passive solar as well as photovoltaic techniques and the innovative use of plants to produce green roofs and reduce rainwater runoff. But, as mentioned earlier, sustainability is best achieved when an integrated team approach is used in the building design and construction process. In fact, in today’s high-tech world an integrated team approach to green building has become pivotal to a project’s success; this means that all aspects of a project, from site selection to the structure, to interior finishes, are carefully considered from the outset.

Architects and property developers have come to realize that focusing on only one aspect of a building can have a severe negative impact on the project as a whole. For example, the design and construction of an inefficient building envelope can adversely affect indoor environmental quality in addition to increasing energy costs, whereas a proper sustainable envelope can help lower operating costs over the life of a building by increasing productivity and utilizing less energy and water. As mentioned earlier, sustainable developments can also provide tenants and occupants with a healthier and more productive working environment as a result of improved indoor air quality. This means that exposure to materials such as asbestos, lead, and formaldehydes, which may contain high volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, are less likely in a green building and so potential health problems such as sick building syndrome (SBS) are avoided.

The main objective of most designers who engage in green building is to achieve both ecological and aesthetic harmony between a structure and its surrounding environment. Helen Brown, former board director of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC®) and a fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, echoes the sentiment of many green proponents:

Viewed through a green building lens, conventionally built buildings are rather poor performers. They generate enormous material and water waste as well as indoor and outdoor air pollution. As large containers and collection points of human activity, buildings are especially prodigious consumers of energy. They depend on both electricity and on-site fossil fuel use to support myriad transactions: transporting and exchanging water, air, heat, material, people, and information.

Brown also believes that the green building movement, which is now in its second decade, reduces (and eventually eliminates) the negative impacts buildings have on local and global ecosystems.

According to Rob Watson, author of the Green Building Impact Report issued in November 2008:

The construction and operation of buildings require more energy than any other human activity. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated in 2006 that buildings used 40 percent of primary energy consumed globally, accounting for roughly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [Figure 1.1]. Commercial buildings comprise one-third of this total. Urbanization trends in developing countries are accelerating the growth of the commercial building sector relative to residential buildings, according to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

Figure 1.1 U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) typically breaks down U.S. energy consumption into four end-use categories: industry, transportation, residential, and commercial. Almost all residential greenhouse emissions are CO 2 , and are strongly related to energy consumption.

Source: Adapted from Paul Emrath and Helen Fei Liu, the National Association of Home–Builders, Special Studies, Residential Greenhouse Gas Emissions, April 30, 2007.

Additionally, it is estimated that buildings account for about 71% of all electricity consumed in America and 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

The impact of building on the U.S. economy is clearly evident from the use of construction materials. For example, it is estimated that infrastructure supplies, building construction, and road building make up about 60% of the total flow of materials (excluding fuel) through the U.S. economy. Likewise, studies show that building construction and demolition waste accounts for roughly 60% of all nonindustrial waste. As for water usage, it is estimated that building occupants consume about 50 billion gallons per day (i.e., more than 12% of U.S. potable water consumption). This amount of water consumption is mainly to support municipal, agricultural, and industrial activities, which have more than tripled since 1950. Construction also impacts the indoor levels of air pollutants and VOCs in buildings, which can be two to five times higher than outdoor levels.

For all of these reasons, sustainable/green building strategies and best practices present a unique opportunity to create environmentally sound and resource-efficient buildings. By applying an integrated design approach from the beginning, this can be achieved especially by having the stakeholders—architects, engineers, land planners, and building owners and operators, as well as members of the construction industry—work together as a team to design a project. Indeed, architects and urban engineers around the world are building cities designed to cope with a future of growing populations, increasingly scarce resources, and the need to reduce carbon emissions. We see examples of future cities debuting in Great Britain, China, and the United Arab Emirates.

At the forefront of the U.S. green building offensive is the federal government, the nation’s largest landlord. The General Services Administration (GSA) was one of the first adopters of LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC)—to be discussed momentarily—and is committed to incorporating principles of sustainable design and energy efficiency into all of its building projects. It is the GSA’s intent to integrate sustainable design as effortlessly as possible into existing design and construction processes. In this regard it recently announced that it will apply more stringent green building standards to its $12 billion construction portfolio, which presently includes more than 361 million square feet of space in 9600 federally owned and leased facilities occupied by more than 1.2 million federal employees. This portfolio consists of post offices, courthouses, border stations, and other buildings.

The GSA decided to use the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System as its tool for evaluating and measuring achievements in its sustainable design programs. In keeping with the spirit of sustainability, the GSA recently increased its minimum standard requirement for new construction and substantial renovation of federally owned facilities by adopting the LEED Gold standard, which is the second highest level of certification (just below Platinum). Until recently, the GSA had only required a LEED Silver certification. In justifying this move, Robert Peck, former GSA commissioner of public buildings, stated, Sustainable, better-performing federal buildings can significantly contribute to reducing the government’s environmental footprint and this new requirement is just one of the many ways we’re greening the federal real estate inventory to help deliver on President Obama’s commitment to increase sustainability and energy efficiency across government.

CEO and founding chairman of the USGBC, Richard Fedrizzi, echoed the federal government’s lead in adopting green building practices when he said: The Federal government has been at the forefront of the sustainable building movement since its inception, providing resources, pioneering best practices and engaging multiple Federal agencies in the mission of transforming the built environment. A first ever White House Summit on Federal Sustainable Buildings held in January 2006 attracted over 150 federal facility managers and decision makers in addition to 21 government agencies, coming together to formulate and witness the signing of the Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Signatories to this MOU committed to federal leadership in the design, construction, and operation of high-performance and sustainable buildings. The MOU highlights the sense of urgency felt by green building proponents and represents a significant accomplishment by the federal government through its collective effort to define common strategies and guiding principles. The signatory agencies now need to work with others in the private and public sectors to consolidate these goals.

The initiatives just described are clear indications that the gap between green and conventional construction is narrowing, and they signal that green construction has come of age, especially when we learn that there are more than 80 green building programs operating in the United States alone, and even more in numerous other countries such as Canada, Japan, China, India, Australia, and the United Kingdom. A measure of the growth of green building programs and their success is reflected by the number of cities that have established or adopted them. For example, the American Institute of Architects reports that by 2008 92 cities with populations greater than 50,000 had established green building programs—up from 22 in 2004—which represents a 318% increase.

Many programs in the United States are city, county, or state operated; there are also three that are national in scope: USGBC’s LEED program, the Green Globes program of the Green Building Institute (GBI)—designed by the U.K. Building Research Establishment—and the National Green Building Standard of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). In the United States, LEED is the most widely recognized, but all of these programs were developed and operate outside of government.

The USGBC recently announced that, as of November 2010, the footprint of LEED-certified commercial space in the United States had surpassed 1 billion square feet. This is in addition to 6 billion square feet of projects around the world that are registered and working toward certification. It should be noted that, while not all projects that register with LEED achieve certification, this milestone remains significant. The impact of these one billion square feet resonates around the world, according to Peter Templeton, president of the Green Building Certification Institute, which certifies LEED projects.

Chicago’s recent hosting, for the second time, of the USGBC annual Greenbuild International Conference and Expo proved to be a great success in uniting many people from different countries, different backgrounds, and different professions around a single common cause: building a better, healthier, more sustainable world. Following the Chicago event, Rick Fedrizzi said,

For years, we’ve asked ourselves: Can we build it taller? Can we build it faster? Can we build it cheaper? At the USGBC, we ask a different question: Can we build it better? Can we build in ways that are more sustainable, more energy efficient and that provide clean air and good lighting? In ways that can create jobs, restore our economy, and build healthier, more livable communities?

1.2 Green basics—what makes a building green?

The term green building, or sustainable building, is relatively new to our language, and a precise definition is not easy. Green/sustainable building is also known as high-performance building. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), for example, defines it this way:

A structure that is designed, built, renovated, operated, or reused in an ecological and resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.

The EPA defines it as, The practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Still another definition of sustainable development was offered at the Gothenburg European Council meeting of June 2001: a means of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future.

However one wishes to define the term, green building or sustainable development has had a profound impact on the U.S. and global construction market over the last two decades, although it may be some years before we can ascertain its full impact on the building construction industry and its suppliers. Since there is no uniform definition of green, it is essential that every green term be specifically defined and that agreed-to objective standards of performance be established in a contract. For example, explicit energy efficiency requirements must be set forth in a carefully drafted and technically correct and verifiable standard.

While the United States remains the undisputed global leader in the construction of green buildings, we are witnessing a sharp increase around the world in investment in sustainability and green building practices. In this respect, the European Union (EU) agreed on a new sustainable development strategy in June 2006 that has the potential to determine how the EU economy evolves in the coming decades. In addition to the USGBC’s LEED Rating System, there are many other green building assessment systems currently in use in many countries. Examples are the U.K. Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), the Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), the U.S. Green Globes®, the Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS), and the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) Green Star Rating Tool (Mago and Syal 2007).

As previously outlined, green building strategies relate primarily to land use, building design, construction, and operation, which together help minimize or mitigate a building’s overall impact on the environment. The chief objectives of green buildings are therefore to increase the efficiency with which buildings utilize available natural resources such as energy, water, and materials, and simultaneously to minimize a building’s adverse impact on human health and the environment. There are numerous strategies and approaches that can be used in green construction of a new building designed for long-term operation and maintenance savings. Moreover, the United States has a vast reservoir of existing buildings that can be made greener and more efficient; studies indicate that many property owners have shown considerable interest in exploring that possibility.

First of all, however, it is important to dispel the myths and misinformation that surround sustainability and green design. Only then will a number of pertinent strategies become apparent that will help achieve the goals and desires of building green. As discussed in the Introduction and echoed by Leah B. Garris, senior associate editor at Buildings magazine: Myth and misinformation surround the topic of sustainability, clouding its definition and purpose, and blurring the lines between green fact and fiction. Remarking on aspects of aesthetics, the well-known green building proponent Alan Scott, principal of Green Building Services in Portland, Oregon, says, You can have a green building that doesn’t really ‘look’ any different than any other building.

Ralph DiNola, also a principal with Green Building Services, affirms this statement, believing that a level of sustainability can easily be achieved by designing a green building that looks normal: People don’t really talk about the value of aesthetics in terms of the longevity of a building. A beautiful building will be preserved by a culture for a greater length of time than an ugly building. Thus a building’s potential longevity is one of sustainability’s principle characteristics, and aesthetics is a pivotal factor in achieving it.

Sustainability is really about understanding nature and working in harmony with it, not against it. It is not about building structures that purport to be environmentally responsible but that in reality sacrifice tenant/occupant comfort. This is not to suggest that purchasing green products or recycling assets at the end of their useful lives is not sustainable—it is. It is also appropriate for the environment and for the health of a building’s occupants. However, before making a final determination, a developer or building owner should first take the time to research the various options that are most appropriate for the project and that offer the best possible return on investment. Failing to take the time to research the various sustainability options may lead to making incorrect decisions.

Many green professionals believe that sustainability starts with a thorough understanding of climate and that the primary reason green strategies are considered green is that they work in harmony with, not against, surrounding climatic and geographic conditions. This necessitates a true understanding of the environment in which a project is being designed in order to fully apply these conditions to a project’s advantage. Most architects and designers who specialize in green building are fully aware of the need for familiarity with year-round weather conditions, such as temperature, rainfall, humidity, site topography, prevailing winds, indigenous plants, and so forth, to succeed in sustainable design. Although climate impacts sustainability in various ways, partly depending on a project’s location, a measure of success in achieving sustainability can be made by comparing a project’s performance to a baseline condition that relates to the microclimate and environmental conditions of where it is located.

To successfully achieve sustainability, it is also necessary to identify and minimize a building’s need for resources that are in short supply or locally unavailable and to encourage the use of readily available resources such as sun, rain, and wind. A thorough understanding of the microclimate where the project is located is imperative because it reflects an understanding of what is and is not readily available, such as sun for heating and lighting, wind for ventilation, and rainwater for irrigation and other water requirements. CalRecycle, for example, cites the main elements of green buildings and sustainability as the following.

Siting. This includes selecting a suitable site that takes advantage of mass transit availability, and protecting and retaining existing landscape and natural features. Plants should be selected that have low water and pesticide needs and that generate minimum plant trimmings.

Water efficiency. This can be achieved by applying certain water efficiency strategies that, according to CalRecycle, include designing for dual plumbing to use recycled water for toilet flushing or a gray water system that recovers rainwater or other nonpotable water for site irrigation and Minimize wastewater by using ultra low-flush toilets, low-flow shower- heads, and other water conserving fixtures. In addition, CalRecycle suggests recirculating systems for centralized hot water distribution and the installation of point-of-use water-heating systems for more distant locations. The landscape should be metered separately from the buildings, and micro-irrigation should be used to supply water in nonturf areas. Whenever possible, state-of-the-art irrigation controllers and self-closing hose nozzles should be used.

Energy efficiency. To achieve optimum energy performance and energy efficiency, a number of passive strategies should be employed such as utilizing a building’s size, shape, and orientation; passive solar design; and natural lighting. Alternative sources of energy should be considered such as photovoltaics and fuel cells, which are now widely used and readily available. Renewable energy sources are a sign of emerging technologies. Computer modeling has also become part of the mainstream and is a helpful tool in energy calculations, and optimizing the design of electrical and mechanical systems and the building envelope. (These are discussed in greater detail in later chapters.)

Materials efficiency and resource conservation. Selection of construction materials and products should be based on key characteristics such as reused and recycled content, zero or low off-gassing of harmful air emissions, zero or low toxicity, sustainably harvested materials, high recyclability, durability, longevity, and local production. Likewise, the incorporation of dimensional planning and other material efficiency strategies increases sustainability as well as the reuse of recycled construction and demolition materials.

Environmental air quality. Studies show that buildings with good overall indoor air quality can reduce the rate of respiratory disease, allergy, asthma, and sick building symptoms, and increase worker productivity. In addition to adequate ventilation, construction materials and interior finish products should be chosen with zero or low emissions to improve indoor air quality. Many building materials and cleaning/maintenance products emit toxic gases, such as VOCs and formaldehyde. These gases can have a harmful impact on occupants’ health and productivity.

Building operation and maintenance. Commissioning of green buildings on completion ensures that they perform according to the design goals that were intended. Commissioning includes testing and adjusting the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems to certify that all equipment meets design criteria. It also requires staff instruction on the operation and maintenance of equipment. Proper maintenance allows a building to continue to perform at optimum levels, as designed and commissioned.

Both water conservation and energy efficiency rely heavily on climate, whereas indoor environment quality and material and resource conservation are largely independent of it. And although site sustainability depends on climate to some degree, and more specifically on the specifications and micro-elements that are particular to a site, it is important to note that different regions or locations may encounter different climates—hot, arid, humid, freezing, and windy. Therefore, understanding a region’s climate and readily available resources can help avoid the use of inappropriate techniques on a project that may have an adverse impact and invariably increase the project’s costs and therefore its viability.

1.3 Going green: incentives, barriers, and benefits

Since the oil crises of the 1970s, but particularly over the last two decades, architects, designers, builders, and building owners have increasingly taken an interest in green building. The green building movement is flourishing throughout the nation as well as globally mainly because of increasing demand (as a result of public awareness of the benefits of green building) and because of the many national and local programs offering various incentives. Thousands of projects have been constructed over recent years that provide tangible evidence of what green building can accomplish in terms of resource efficiency, improved comfort levels, aesthetics, and energy efficiency.

Some of the primary benefits of building green, which are not always easily quantifiable and therefore not typically adequately considered in cost analysis, include

• Reduced energy consumption

• Reduced pollution

• Protection of ecosystems

• Improved occupant health and comfort

• Increased productivity

• Reduced landfill waste

The Dutch economist Nils Kok has published what is reportedly the most comprehensive statistical analysis to date on the relative value of green and conventional buildings. His September 2010 study concludes that U.S. buildings certified under LEED or the ENERGY STAR program charge 3% higher rent, have greater occupancy rates, and sell for 13% more than comparable properties. According to Kok, Labeled buildings have effective rents (rent multiplied by occupancy rate) that are almost 8% higher than those of otherwise identical nearby non-rated buildings.

As for residential buildings, McGraw-Hill Construction’s 2008 SmartMarket Report issue, The Green Home Consumer, says that 70% of homebuyers are more or much more inclined to buy a green home over a conventional home in a depressed housing market. That number is 78% for those earning less than $50,000 a year; moreover, the report shows that 56% of respondents who bought green homes in 2008 earned less than $75,000 per year and 29% earned less than $50,000.

It is also interesting to note that studies have also shown that buildings’ operating costs often represent only 10% or less of an organization’s cost structure whereas personnel usually constitute the remaining 90%. This lends strong credence to the view that even minor improvements in worker comfort can result in substantial dividends in performance and productivity. Likewise, there is substantial evidence linking high-performance buildings with improved working conditions, which in turn typically lead to reduced employee turnover and absenteeism, increased productivity, improved health, and other benefits. This in turn has become a major contributing factor to the growth of building efficiency, particularly with respect to a building’s occupants and tenants.

Even as the global economic recession continues to dominate year-end headlines, we see a cascade of newly released studies and reports that point to green building as one of the growing bright spots for the U.S. economy. With regard to existing buildings, more than 80% of commercial building owners have allocated funds to green initiatives according to 2008 Green Survey: Existing Buildings, a survey jointly funded by Incisive Media’s Real Estate Forum and GlobeSt.com, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International, and the USGBC, released at Greenbuild 2008. The survey concluded that nearly 70% of commercial building owners have already implemented some form of energy-monitoring system, and it confirmed that energy conservation is the most widely employed green program in commercial buildings, followed by recycling and water conservation. In addition, according to the survey, 45% of respondents planned to increase sustainability investments in 2009 and 60% of commercial building owners offered education programs to assist tenants in implementing green programs in their space, a number up 49.4% from the previous year. Pike Research has predicted that comprehensive efficiency retrofits will likely more than triple in annual revenue to $6.6 billion by the year 2013.

A study recently conducted by Henley University of Reading in the United Kingdom concluded that commercial building owners can reap higher rental premiums, of about 6%, for green buildings if the buildings enjoy LEED or ENERGY STAR certification. It also concluded that the more highly rated a building is, the higher the rental premium, and suggested a sales price premium of about 35% based on 127 price observations of LEED-rated buildings and a 31% premium based on 662 price observations of ENERGY STAR-rated buildings. Andrew Florance, president and CEO of CoStar, echoes these findings: Green buildings are clearly achieving higher rents and higher occupancy, they have lower operating costs, and they’re achieving higher sale prices.

In Turner Construction’s Green Building Barometer survey, 84% of respondents report that their green buildings have resulted in lower energy costs and 68% report lower overall operating costs. These figures are perhaps not as high as one might expect from truly sustainable buildings. However, nearly 65% of those who have built green buildings claim that their investments have already produced a positive return on investment.

The constricted supply of green buildings, which still accounts for only a small percentage of the total U.S. building stock, appears to be one of the factors contributing to green premiums, particularly since the number of green-certified buildings continues to grow even as the supply fails to keep pace with demand. Most developers and property owners generally agree that among the more tangible benefits of attaining a green certification for a building (e.g., LEED, Green Globes, ENERGY STAR) is the use of this accomplishment as a marketing tool, and designers and contractors who have certified buildings in their portfolios typically find that they have a greater competitive marketing edge. Tenants and employees continue to show a clear preference for living and working in certifiably green buildings, resulting in a greater demand and in a greater capability to attract quality tenants and thus higher rents.

1.3.1 Tax Deductions and Incentives

In addition to the health and environmental benefits of living and working in a green building, there are various tax incentives for homeowners and businesses that purchase and install energy-efficient equipment or make energy efficiency improvements to existing structures. The federal government directly participates in cost-shared research by offering tax incentives to encourage consumers and businesses to develop and adopt energy-efficient technologies and products. Today many local and state governments, utility companies, and other entities nationwide are offering rebates, tax breaks, and other incentives to encourage the incorporation of eco-friendly elements in proposed building projects. In fact, the majority of large cities in the United States now do so. Recent estimates show that more than 65 local governments have already made a commitment to LEED standards in building construction, with some reducing the entitlement process by up to a year in addition to offering tax credits. Energy costs have become a major office building expense, although this can be reduced by as much as 30% and even more with the development of new