T
he predominant issue for almost anyone inter-
ested in the pursuit of a more sustainable build-
ing project is: what is the cost to go green? Most
building industry professionals have been using stand-
ardized percentage increases for “green premiums”
based on published studies and reports. This can be of
some use, but is rather like evaluating a sprinter’s finish
time without taking into account whether the race was a
20-, 50- or 100-meter dash. Determination of a project’s
baseline or “starting block” allows the cost, benefits and
even scope change of a specific design decision to be
evaluated much more intelligently and accurately.
Obviously, such a first-cost approach does not include
life-cycle or other costing analyses which provide infor-
mation about long-term or collateral savings. Efforts
are ongoing to educate owners, developers and occu-
pants about the cost benefits associated with life-cycle
paybacks, return on investments and other financial
parameters that support the decision to invest early for
long-term benefits, but tight budgets and deadline-driven
schedules often mean that a first-cost analysis is often
the only opportunity to quantify the cost to go green.
Standards and Measures
Generally speaking, a building project’s baseline reflects
the prevailing minimum building and fire safety stand-
ards. As a result, a project’s baseline can vary—some-
times significantly—from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
For example, California’s “Title 24” energy efficiency
standards set minimum performance thresholds substan-
tially higher than those of most other states, thereby
raising the baseline in terms of both scope and budget.
Although there are a number of sustainable building
metric tools available, the LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) rating system developed by
the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is currently
the one most widely used by federal and state agencies
to facilitate the integration of energy efficiency and
environmental responsibility into building design, con-