Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)

2 | P a g e
IARU Sustainable Building Certification Report 2014
Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 4
Aim of the Report: .....................................................................................................................................4
Structure of the Report: ............................................................................................................................4
Planning Tools: LCA & LCC .....................................................................................................................6
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).........................................................................................................6
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ................................................................................................................6
Section 1............................................................................................................................................. 7
An Overview of Certification Schemes....................................................................................................7
Section 2: Certification Scheme Profiles.......................................................................................... 8
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) ................8
Background.....................................................................................................................................8
BREEAM International....................................................................................................................8
Countries with National Scheme Operators (NSOs) ......................................................................9
Countries without Specific NSOs (i.e. Denmark)............................................................................9
Types of Building BREEAM can be used on ..................................................................................9
How the Scoring Works..................................................................................................................9
The Benefits of BREEAM ............................................................................................................ 10
The Assessment Process............................................................................................................ 11
The Costs .................................................................................................................................... 11
Case Study: Carré Vert, Paris ..................................................................................................... 12
DGNB – German Sustainable Building Council .................................................................................. 13
Background.................................................................................................................................. 13
Certification Process in 4 Steps................................................................................................... 13
Weighting and Criteria ................................................................................................................. 14
Gold, Silver, Bronze Award System ............................................................................................ 15
Benefits of DGNB ........................................................................................................................ 15
USGBC’s LEED – Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design................................................ 16
Background.................................................................................................................................. 16
The Five Rating Systems ............................................................................................................ 16
Most Suitable for KU.................................................................................................................... 16
Credit Categories......................................................................................................................... 17
The LEED Certificate................................................................................................................... 18
Process of Application ................................................................................................................. 18
Certification Fees......................................................................................................................... 19

3 | P a g e
Key Differences between DGNB and LEED (9) .......................................................................... 20
STARS (Sustainable Tracking, Assessment & Rating System)......................................................... 21
About AASHE .............................................................................................................................. 21
About STARS .............................................................................................................................. 21
STARS Credits ............................................................................................................................ 21
STARS Rating ............................................................................................................................. 22
Registration Process and Cost.................................................................................................... 22
Reporting Tool ............................................................................................................................. 22
Section 3: IARU Member Profiles & their Certification Schemes ................................................. 24
Sustainability at ANU ............................................................................................................................. 24
Frank Fenner Building ................................................................................................................. 24
Sustainability at the University of Cambridge..................................................................................... 24
Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley...................................................................... 25
Future Goals................................................................................................................................ 25
Case Studies ............................................................................................................................... 25
Sustainability at the University of Oxford............................................................................................ 26
Actions toward Sustainability....................................................................................................... 26
Issues Oxford faced with BREEAM............................................................................................. 26
Sustainability at ETH Zurich.................................................................................................................. 26
Yale Sustainability.................................................................................................................................. 27
Case Studies – LEED Platinum................................................................................................... 27
Section 4: Sustainable Building Projects at KU............................................................................. 28
Wind Energy............................................................................................................................................ 28
Biomass................................................................................................................................................... 28
Background on Photovoltaics............................................................................................................... 28
Photovoltaics at KU ..................................................................................................................... 29
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 31
DGNB ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
LEED ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
BREEAM .................................................................................................................................................. 31
STARS...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Suggestions ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 33

4 | P a g e
Introduction
Aim of the Report:
This project will describe and analyse four different certification schemes used around the world to
assess and rate the sustainability of buildings. The primary aim of the report is to find a suitable
scheme that could be implemented at the University of Copenhagen (KU).
The report will focus on the following four certification schemes that are used globally by universities:
BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
DGNB – German Sustainable Building Council
USGBC’s LEED – U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design
AASHE STARS – The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education:
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System
Structure of the Report:
This report will be divided into four different sections, as briefly described below:
1) The report will begin with a simplified overview of how certification schemes work. This overview will
explain why certification schemes are used, as well as remove common misconceptions that
surround them. Planning tools often used in these schemes, such as Life Cycle Assessment and Life
Cycle Analysis, will also be discussed.
2) A profile of each certification scheme will then be provided covering the following information:
 Background
 Individual company information
 Criteria and weighting system
 How to gain credits
 Advantages and Disadvantages
 Incentives and rewards
 Registering procedure
 Assessment procedure
 Costs

5 | P a g e
3) Profiles will then be made on the different certification schemes used by other International Alliance
of Research Universities (IARU) members:
 Australia’s National University
 University of Cambridge
 University of California, Berkeley
 University of Oxford
 University of Zurich (ETHZ)
 Yale University
For each of the universities’ profiles, the sustainability criteria they have met, their future sustainability
goals and the rewards they’ve gained since joining will all be discussed. Observing the actions of other
IARU members may provide suggestions for KU.
4) The report will conclude with different proposals that could raise KU’s overall green rating.
This final section will look at potential sustainable building projects for KU, which may raise its green
rating:
 Wind
 Biomass
 Installation of solar energy
A cost-benefit analysis of these projects will be discussed as well as their payback times.

6 | P a g e
Planning Tools: LCA & LCC
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
LCA is a tool for quantifying and evaluating the environmental impact of a building/development project over its
entire lifetime from planning & construction to demolition (1).
Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
LCC analysis determines the economic costs and benefits of a building or specific system within the building,
such as heating, over its full life time. See Sustainability at ETH Zurich for the implementation of LCC at a
university.
LCA focuses on the environmental impacts of building sustainably, whilst LCC expresses the financial gains
and losses that should be considered. The two analyses go hand-in-hand.
Figure 1 showing the life cycle of a building from resource
extraction, construction, operation to demolition and recycling
Figure 2 showing financial aspects covered by LCC,
shown in purple. Some, but not all expenses are
covered by LCC analysis

7 | P a g e
Section 1
An Overview of Certification Schemes
A sustainable certification scheme for buildings should do exactly as it says on the tin; provide a
sustainability rating based on a set of different criteria. Despite this potential clarity, many common
misconceptions and myths have risen over how certification schemes work and what services they
actually provide.
One of the main misconceptions is the belief that certification schemes provide solutions to make a
building more sustainable once an assessment is complete. This is not the case. Certification
schemes purely provide a rating of the building based on their specific criteria. It is actually the
process of providing the correct documentation of a building that is the most useful aspect of the
schemes. This is because the documentation process requires great research and data on most
elements of the energy consuming parts of the building.
For example, when measuring heating and cooling efficiency, the insulation material used must be
recorded. This not only means the amount per square metre but also what type of insulation it is and
where it came from. To correctly document this, the company or university must follow the supply
chain and get signatures from the insulation suppliers to certify it is of a certain standard. The
suppliers must then get a signature from the manufacturers to certify it is made of the specified
material. Following this chain applies to almost all aspects of the assessment process, from the light
bulbs to the window glazing.
It is this very process of digging up the otherwise unknown information that highlights where the
unsustainable aspects of the building lie. This is then reiterated by the certificate rating.
Once the company/university knows which elements of the building are unsustainable, it is then up to
them to come up with and fund a sustainable energy strategy, such as the installation of solar panels
or new insulation material, to improve their green rating. They then must pay for another assessment
by the certification scheme, where they will hopefully be rewarded with a higher green rating.
Many do not see the benefits of a building certification scheme. Senior managers, planners and
designers tend to associate a sustainable building with high costs and little pay back.
However, the actual costs of green certification schemes are approximately 2% of the overall project
costs. The reduced energy consumption then means the initial investment will be repaid four to six
times over a period of 20 years (1).
The costs associated with assessing buildings to gain a certificate with a three-year expiry date often
deter investment. However, the short validity is beneficial in that it ensures constant upkeep of a
building’s high performance and external parties know that the assessment is up to date.

8 | P a g e
Section 2: Certification Scheme Profiles
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology)
Background
BREEAM was first published in 1990 by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 1990. BRE is a former
UK government establishment whose history runs back 90 years and privatised in 1997 (2). It carries out
research, consultancy and testing for the construction of sustainable buildings in the UK. Their certification
scheme was renamed BRE Global and uses BREEAM as their methodology for assessment.
BREEAM uses independent, licensed assessors who apply scientifically based criteria (see BREEAM Scoring)
to rate the sustainability of a building. They look at a building’s specification, design, construction and use. The
criteria cover a broad range of categories from energy to ecology.
More than 250,000 buildings have been BREEAM certified and over a million are registered for certification in
the UK as well as in more than 50 countries around the world (3).
BREEAM has expanded from its original focus on individual new buildings at the construction stage to now
encompass the whole life cycle of buildings, from planning to in-use and refurbishment. This means a BREEAM
assessor can be applied to any building, at whatever stage. BREEAM is intended to be highly flexible and can
be applied to any building and location, including international development projects.
BREEAM International
How BREEAM
can be used
internationally
BREEAM
Communities
Country
Specific NSOs
Refurbishment
New
Construction
(NC)
In-Use
Figure 3 showing the different
programmes BREEAM uses internationally

9 | P a g e
Countries with National Scheme Operators (NSOs)
BREEAM assessment can be used anywhere in the world, however several European countries have gone a
stage further to develop country-specific BREEAM schemes run by National Scheme Operators (NSOs).
There are currently BREEAM NSOs in:
1. The Netherlands
2. Spain
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. Germany
6. Austria
7. Switzerland
8. Luxembourg
Countries without Specific NSOs (i.e. Denmark)
BREEAM International New Construction is the standard for assessing the sustainability of new residential
and non-residential building.
BREEAM In-Use Scheme helps building managers reduce the running costs and improve environmental
performance of existing non-domestic buildings. Examples that have been certified against BREEAM In-Use
scheme include 11 Downing Street (UK) and The Hive (France).
BREEAM Refurbishment provides a design and assessment method for sustainable refurbishment projects.
BREEAM Communities focusses on the master planning of whole communities to design environments where
people want to live and work as well as being economically successful (4).
Types of Building BREEAM can be used on
 Whole new buildings
 Major refurbishments of existing buildings
 New build extensions to existing buildings
 A combination of new-build and existing building refurbishment
 New build or refurbishments which are part of a larger mixed use building
 Existing building fit-out
How the Scoring Works
BREEAM projects are assessed using a system of credits in nine categories:
1. Management
2. Energy
3. Transport
4. Health and well-being
5. Water
6. Materials
7. Waste
8. Land use and ecology
9. Pollution
Figure 4 showing in blue the country specific BREEAM schemes
and where BREEAM international has been applied in green

10 | P a g e
Each category is weighted differently (see Figure 5) and each credit given within a category is weighted
different i.e. one credit awarded does not equal 1%.
Credits are added together within each category and the environmental weighting is applied to the scores. A
single overall score is then produced which in the building being rated on a scale of 6 stars:
The Benefits of BREEAM
 Provides a certified % score measuring environmental sustainability that is widely recognised as credible
and effective by the global community.
 May enhance market value with higher rental incomes.
 Increased energy efficiency and lower life time maintenance costs.
 Environmental improvement for both homeowners and workers.
 Good for PR – a selling point to potential customers or tenants.
 Described by Sustainia as the ‘most developed system’ for environmental building assessment (1).
Figure 5 showing the weighting of the different criteria

11 | P a g e
The Assessment Process
The Costs
The Stage in a ‘New Construction’ Project The Price (DKK)
Registration ~ 80,000
Design ~ 77,000
Post-Construction
(Applies to a building with an area of 8,000m
2
)
~ 88,000
Certificate Cost 2,500
Annual Renewal 2,500 per certificate
Total ~250,000
BREEAM requirement
identified
Assessor assigned
Assessor and design
team start an initial
assessment (for either
a new building or
refurbishment)
BREEAM rating
produced
Client, Assessor and
Design team confirm
target rating(may
have additional cost)
Design team confirms
committment to try
and achieve the
credits
Assessor compiles
report to submit to
BRE for QA check
BRE issues interim
certificate with
BREEAM rating
Project finalised and
evidence of credits (e.g.
site inspection report,
invoices) is given to the
assessor from the
design team
Assessor compiles
final report which is
submitted to BRE for
QA check
BRE issue final
BREEAM rating
Initial phase
Design stage
Post-construction stage

12 | P a g e
Case Study: Carré Vert, Paris
Carré Vert is made of 5 buildings all linked to each other and of varying ages. The oldest building used to be a
chocolate factory (5).
BREEAM rating: Outstanding
Score: 87.07 %
Size: 18,939 m²
Stage: Post-Construction¨
BREEAM assessors initially carried out an
assessment where they rated the attributes of the
building based on the 9 categories.
The BREEAM assessors specifically noted the
importance of the following environmental features:
 Cooling production is provided through two geothermal heat pumps which dispatch into the building
through a cooled water loop.
 Electricity generated with 400 m² solar panels and 2 urban wind turbines.
 Solar thermal panels save energy for the hot water system connected to restaurants.
The initial rating was not as high as the Carré Vert managers would have liked and so they came up with and
implemented the following green strategy:
 Replacement of the two air to air heat installed on terrace by two geothermal heat pumps.
 Additional thermal isolation on the roof.
 400 m² photovoltaic panels.
 60 m² solar thermal panels for hot water production.
 2 urban wind turbines.
 Green roofing with sebum helping rainwater run-off and thermal isolation
 Rainwater recycling system for irrigation and toilets
 Sink water treatment recycling for toilets
This case study shows how it is possible to renovate old buildings into pleasant working and living
environments, whilst still running off primarily sustainable energy. The installments made in the green
strategy are possible solutions University of Copenhagen could implement to improve their green rating
and reduce running costs.

13 | P a g e
DGNB – German Sustainable Building Council
Background
Founded in 2007, DGNB now has 1,100 members (6) across the world. It prides itself on the value it places on
the socio-economic factors during the planning and design of a building. DGNB states they focus more strongly
on making the working environment both sustainable and more comfortable. it incorporates country-specific
differences such as climate conditions and differing legal structures.
DGNB is similar to BREEAM in that it aims to improve the whole life cycle of the building (see Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA)). However, it differs in that it works only from the planning stage of the building and so
cannot be applied to existing buildings, only new ones.
Certification Process in 4 Steps
1. Preparation and Registration:
The client contacts a DGNB auditor and registers the project. The client has now entered a contract with the
DGNB. The auditor accompanies the project from the beginning until the completion of the certification process.
2. Submitting Documentation (7):
The auditor compiles the certification documents and assesses the sustainability of the building on the basis of
DGNB’s criteria. Documentation and evidence is submitted to the certification office for compliancy testing.
3. Compliancy testing:
The certification team checks if further documentation is required, then carries out a second inspection until the
results are cleared. This can take 6-8 weeks.
4. Results and awarding of Certificate:
After results have been approved, the DGNB awards the certificate at high-profile and public event.
DGNB’s Academy is the educational
centre, providing training in the
specialised construction centre
DGNB’s Navigator provides
specialised, sustainable
building products
DGNB’s Certification System is
used for designing, assessing and
awarding sustainable buildings

14 | P a g e
Figure 6 (top) the 5 quality controls measured during a certification assessment. All are weighted equally
except for process quality.
(Bottom) examples of the specific criteria required for the sociocultural and functional quality control
Weighting and Criteria
There are 61 sustainability criteria within the 5 quality controls, shown in Figures 6 & 7. These add up to create
the overall site quality.

15 | P a g e
Figure 7 showing the different levels of certificates DGNB provides and the percentage performance
required to meet them
Gold, Silver, Bronze Award System
Benefits of DGNB
o By defining sustainable criteria early on during planning, clear targets are created.
 Increases transparency, improves risk management and ensures a secure basis for
funding.
o The recognised quality label increases the attractiveness of properties.
 Improves their rental and sales prospects.
o DGNB certified buildings consume fewer resources during construction and lower greenhouse gas
emissions. They can largely be recycled.
 Creates an active contribution to protecting the environment.

16 | P a g e
USGBC’s LEED – Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design
Background
A year after USGBC was formed in 1993, LEED was created as a system to define and measure green
buildings. The first LEED project was launched in 1998. LEED now certifies more than 54,000 projects in 135
different countries (8).
The most recent to the LEED rating systems is LEED v4. Launched in November 2013, it can be applied to a
wider range of building types and manufacturing industries.
The LEED International Roundtable represents the impact and application of LEED worldwide. 34 countries
worldwide are part of this ‘roundtable’, from Turkey to Romania, to Qatar and Germany. These countries
implement the LEED rating systems on some of their buildings.
LEED certification is granted by the Green Building Certification Institute (GCBI), which verifies a project’s
compliance with LEED requirements.
The Five Rating Systems
LEED is flexible enough to apply to all project types. There are five rating systems that address multiple project
types:
Most Suitable for KU
The entire gross floor area of a LEED project must be certified under one rating system. The most suitable
rating systems for the certification of KU’s old buildings would be ‘Interior Design & Construction’ and
‘Neighbourhood Development’.
Applies to newly
constructed buildings
or those going through
major renovation
(includes education).
Applies to buildings
that require interior
redesign and
renovation or
‘interior fit-outs’.
Applies to existing
buildings undergoing
improvement work with
little/no construction.
Targeted at single,
whole buildings.
Applies to new land
development /redevelopment
projects for residential and non-
residential. Can be at any stage
of the development process
(planning to construction).
Applies to family
homes

17 | P a g e
8 Credit
Categories
Figure 8 showing the 8 different credit
categories LEED assigns points to, which then
surmount to a certificate
Credit Categories
Each rating system is made up of a combination of credit categories. Projects must meet certain criteria with
each credit category in order to earn points.
The number of points the project earns determines the level of LEED certification.
The allocation of points between the credit categories is based on the potential environmental impacts and
human benefits of each credit (8).
 These impacts are defined as the environmental or human effect of the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of the building.
 E.g. Greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use and indoor environmental conditions.
The allocation of points to credit categories is called credit weighting.
 Each credit is worth a minimum of 1 point.
 All credits are positive, whole numbers.
 All LEED rating systems have 100 base points.
 Innovation in Design and Operations can provide bonus points.
 Credits that most directly address a reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions are weighted the most (they are worth the most).
(26 points)
(10 points)
(35 points)
(14 points)
(15 points)
(6 points)
(4 points)

18 | P a g e
1. Registration
•Create a USGBC account using the USGBC or GBCI website:
http://www.usgbc.org/registration/create-user
•Go onto LEED Online, log on and accept the terms and condition *Note this
must be done on internet explorer
2. Prepare
Application
•Prepare the documentation required for the application of a certificate.
•Documentation requirements vary depending on the rating system used e.g.
Neighbourhood Development or Interior Design and Cosntruction
3. Submit
Application
•Completed materials can be uploaded directly to LEED Online.
4. Review and
Certification
•The project must satisfy all prerequisites.
•Credits worth the minimum number of points must also be earned.
The LEED Certificate
The number of points a project earns determines the level of LEED certification, there are four levels of
certification. The typical point boundaries are:
Process of Application
Figure 9 showing the 4 steps to be taken in order to achieve a LEED certificate

19 | P a g e
Certification Fees
Registration is a flat fee paid at the time of registration. Rates are based on the date of registration. Discounts
are available based on the USGBC membership status of the project owner e.g. there is a 25% discount for
Silver, Gold and Platinum level members.
The certification fee is based on the project’s rating system and size; it is calculated and paid when the project
team submits documentation to LEED Online (see step 3 in Figure9). Different rating systems have different
prices. E.g. New Construction is roughly 3¢-5¢ per square foot.
Below shows the fees for Building Operations and Maintenance and Campus Development, as these are the
rating systems most likely to be used at KU: (using Exchange ratio USD/DKK = 5.75)
Campus Development Fees Non-Members’ Fees
Master Site Registration 6,900
Each individual on-campus project registration 6,900 per building
Combined Review: Design and Construction & Operation and Maintenance
Master Site 11,500
Each individual on-campus project registration 9,200
Faster review (reduce from 20-25 working days to 10-12) 57,500
Split Review: Design
Master Site 8,600
Faster review 28,700
Split Review: Construction
Master Site 4,300
Faster Review 28,700
Operations and Maintenance Non-Members’ Fees
(DKK)
Registration 6,900
Recertification registration (required within five years of O+M
certification)
Free
Initial Review and Recertification Review
Project gross floor area less than 50,000 sq. ft. (excludes car park) 11,500
Project gross floor more than 500,000 sq. ft. 0.23 per square foot
Project gross area more than 500,000 sq. ft. 115,000
Faster review (reduce from 20-25 working days to 10-12) 57,500

20 | P a g e
Key Differences between DGNB and LEED (9)
Points of Difference
(as of 2010)
DGNB LEED
Organisation Members 800 20,000
First Publication 2008 1998
Certified Projects 85 2,400
Accredited Auditors 150 125,000
Auditors Required? Yes No
Categories and Weightings Ecological Quality - 22,5
Economical Quality - 22,5
Socio-cultural and Functional
Quality - 22,5
Technical Quality - 22,5
Quality of the Process - 10
Quality of the Location - extra
Sustainable Sites - 24
Water Efficiency - 9
Energy and Atmosphere - 32
Materials and Resources - 13
Indoor Environmental Quality
- 14
Innovation in Design - 5
Regional Priority - 4
Number of Credits 49 63
Certification Scheme Bronze > 50
Silver > 65
Gold > 80
Certified > 36
Silver > 45
Gold > 55
Platin > 73
Costs in DKK (using Exchange ratio Euro/DKK = 7.44)
Project Registration 0 4800 - 6700
Pre-Certificate 15,000 - 97,000 14,000 – 27,500
Certificate 22,000 – 208,000 9,600 – 150,000
Software 6,000 – 30,000 0 (LEED Online)
Guidebook 3,700 1,100
Education Auditor 22,000 – 55,000 2,600
Total (using max. & min. prices) 68,700 – 393,700 32,100 – 187,900
Certification Process - DGNB auditor must be hired for the
whole certification process.
- Building has to be registered online
by the auditor.
- Building must be in early planning
stage to receive a pre-certificate.
- Building must be registered
online at the GBCI.
- Certification can divide into two
parts: design and construction.
- Documentation is submitted to
LEED Online.
- GBCI evaluates documentation.
Comparative Analysis DGNB is younger and more complete. It assesses the whole life
cycle of the building. DGNB’s 24 criterion against LEED’s 6 mean
that there is greater scope for planning after first assessment.
The drawback to DGNB is that it can’t be used on existing buildings.

21 | P a g e
Academics
58
Engagement
42
Operations
72
Planning &
Administration
32
Innovation
4
Points Available per Category
40
18
Academics
Curriculum
Research
2022
Engagement
Campus
Public
11
8
7
46
7
10
9
Operations
Air & Climate
Buildings
Dining Services
Energy
Grounds
Purchasing
Transportation
Waste
Water
8
10
7
7
Planning & Administratrion
Coordination & Planning
Diversity & Affordability
Health, Wellbeing & Work
Investment
STARS (Sustainable Tracking, Assessment & Rating
System)
About AASHE
‘STARS’ is a programme used by AASHE (the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher
Education) to measure and assess sustainability systems in universities and colleges. AASHE is a Non-
Governmental Organisation and was established in 2006.
About STARS
STARS is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges & universities to measure their sustainability
performance. STARS can be used by all colleges from community to research colleges of all ages. There are
more than 325 institutions in 8 countries that have earned a STARS rating (10).
It provides long-term sustainability goals for both the newly ‘greening’ universities and well established green
universities. The end of a STARS assessment provides feedback and suggestions.
STARS Credits
An institution’s STARS score is based on the percentage of applicable points it earns across five categories:

22 | P a g e
STARS Rating
A STARS rating is in effect for three years. STARS participants, much like DGNB, pursue credits and earn points
in order to achieve STARS Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum rating.
Registration Process and Cost
1. Make a free account with ‘AASHE’.
2. Log into STARS using this account’s username and password.
3. Click the ‘Register’ tab.
4. There are two levels of access:
Full Access ($900-$1400) or
(DKK 5,200 – DKK 8,100) and
Basic Access (free)
*Renewing membership after 12 months
costs $450(DKK 2,600) for AASHE
members and $700 (DKK 4,000) for
non AASHE members
5. Basic access gets you access to the online reporting tool.
6. Only Full Access can provide the STARS Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum rating. Full Access also
allows you monitor your progress with automated point calculation and provides promotion and
recognition in AASHE publication and social media.
7. After clicking you must provide the name of your institution from a list. However,
University of Copenhagen is not part of that list and so you must email stars@aashe.org
Reporting Tool
1. If you have selected ‘Full Access’ you may then use the ‘Reporting Tool’ and start the process of
providing the documentation for the 5 different criteria.
25
Minimum Points
Required: 45 65 85

23 | P a g e
2. The Reporting Tool Webpage
3. Adding data to credit e.g. OP-10 Computer Purchasing under Purchasing in Operations.
Submission deadline is 12 months after
registration
This webpage is where data is entered to get credits. It
provides a snapshot of your progress so far, showing status,
rating you’ve earned in terms of credits.
The table is expandable so you can find the sub-
categories within each credit
The criteria to gain these
credits are split into two.
The first part is based on
purchasing a computer
which has been
environmentally assessed
using EPEAT and has a
performance of silver or
higher.
Where you submit the data
on your purchased
computer
Note: All this information (the criteria, the applicability etc.) is provided on the STARS technical
manual, which is free online (12)

24 | P a g e
Section 3: IARU Member Profiles & their Certification Schemes
Sustainability at ANU
ANU uses ‘Green Star’ rating, which is awarded by the Green Building Council Australia (GCBA). Green Star is
the rating system used in Australia and was launched in 2003. A building can achieve 1-6 stars.
Frank Fenner Building
The Frank Fenner Building houses the School of Environment and Society. It was designed and built to achieve
a 6 star Green Star rating. This is the highest rating and is zero net kg production of CO2 per annum. It is in
the top quartile of sustainable buildings in Australia, placing it high in world rankings (11):
 80% of demolition and construction was recycled
 40kW solar PV cells generated 65,000 kWh per year and excess was fed back into the grid
 Hybrid air-condition unit
 Passive ventilation systems aided by a traffic light system and automatic windows
 High-grade insulation with double-glazed windows
 Rainwater collection tanks
 Recycled black-water system
 150% more fresh air than current Australian standard dictates
 Guaranteed comfortable working environment
 Minimised off-gassing of pollutants into the office space from building materials and products
The major challenge was building a 6 star building with a limited budget on a site with constraints and user
requirements. Users wanted all office space, with no open plan, which made it hard to design a six star building.
The site was also well protected by trees.
Most of these challenges were overcome by good building design and value management sessions. However,
the main reason for such a successful project was the consultants, clients and builders all working together and
using the ‘Keep it Simple’ approach. The benefits of a highly rated building mean there is a better working
environment to attract future employees.
Sustainability at the University of Cambridge
Cambridge University’s new buildings are certified through BREEAM. All new buildings should achieve a rating
of ‘Excellent’ where feasible and cost-effective.
 12 BREEAM certified new-buildings consisting of 8 Excellent and 5 Very Good.
 Local planning authorities require all new University buildings generate 10% of their electricity from
renewable energy.
 This is done through the use of natural ventilation systems, PV cells and ground heat
sources.

25 | P a g e
Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley
o The campus has 10 LEED certified building projects, representing 7% of total square footage (12).
o Ten more LEED certified projects will be constructed by 2015.
 This will add to more than 850,000 square feet of LEED certified campus space.
Future Goals
o New construction projects must now meet LEED Silver certification at a minimum.
o Goal of ‘No Net Increase’ in energy.
Case Studies
UC Berkeley used an Eco-charette, formerly called ‘Integrated Design Workshops’, to engage the design team
in brainstorming sustainable energy performance options with various experts and stakeholders before the
construction of the building.
E.g. the Eco-charette used during the design of the Li Ka Shing Labs was supported by the Savings by Design
programme and included participation by specialised energy engineers, as well as researchers from Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab.
As a result of the think tank, more than 50 energy efficiency options were developed with input from the various
design and facilities personnel.
Campbell Hall
 89,000 foot facility, 7 stories high.
 LEED Gold certificate.
 Building material is 15% slag, 40% ash and the rest reinforced concrete.
This returns to plumb after an earthquake and is recyclable.
 Saves $400,000.
Li Ka Shing Biomedical Labs
 LEED Gold certificate.
 Advanced automatic daylighting controls.
 Reduced air changes in labs.
 Night-purge ventilation.
 Used an eco-charette.

26 | P a g e
Sustainability at the University of Oxford
 By 2013, 14 buildings had achieved a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating and 2 achieved BREEAM ‘Very Good’
rating (13).
 19 major projects are currently undergoing BREEAM assessments.
Actions toward Sustainability
 Installation of ground source heat pumps and rainwater harvesting sites.
Libraries account for 7% of the university’s total utilities spending.
 In 2011 they aimed to reduce their utility consumption by £100k annual savings, which they achieved.
 They targeted 7 libraries and reduced boiler, lighting and ventilation consumption.
 They worked with library EcoReps to flag any wasteful practices and target the
students.
Issues Oxford faced with BREEAM
BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating does not guarantee that the selected building will be low carbon and low energy. In
turn, Oxford’s University Sustainability Team created the ‘Sustainable Buildings Philosophy’ in 2011 to
complement the BREEAM guidelines (14).
The philosophy is a set of documents aiming to help the University’s Estates Services create sustainable
buildings that are bespoke to the University. The methodology is becoming more embedded in the University’s
design process. External recognition of this bespoke certification scheme is increasing and other institutions are
aware of sustainability significance for these buildings.
Sustainability at ETH Zurich
ETHZ used LCC as a quality assurance tool (see Planning Tools: LCA & LCC). LCC is a cost-based analysis
tool used to identify the most cost-efficient building design and construction strategies over the life of a building.
It takes into account all costs of acquiring, owning and disposing of a building project. LCA is used to assess the
environmental costs.
At ETHZ they used the following cost parameters:
 Investment (construction)
 Operation (energy)
 Maintenance (cleaning)
 Repair
 Replacement (costs for new HVAC systems)
 Residual values (disposal costs or residual life time)
 Financial charges (interest payments)
Research buildings have to be very flexible during its life cycle as the research going on in the building is
constantly changing. These changes can lead to needing different initial costs, operating costs, maintenance
costs and even different life cycles.

27 | P a g e
100% of the wood was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council
98% of construction debris was recycled
30% reduction in annual potable water use
Sustainable transport is promoted through shower facilities and more
bicycle racks. Zipcar share program was introduced
9 changes per hour of outside air this ventilation efficiency rate was
achieved through resilient flooring and high standard interior finishes
Active chilled beams provide low volume radiant heating and cooling
Geothermal energy from a 1,500 ft well
105kW PV cells on the roof provide 20% of the electricity
Geothermal energy from a 1,500 ft. well for heating in the
winter
34% of purchased material came from regional sources
80% of the wood was certified by the Forest Stewardship
Council
61.1% reduction in energy use compared to similar sized
building
Yale Sustainability
Yale’s 300-year old campus has made it compulsory for all new buildings, laboratories and renovation project
designs to meet LEED ‘Gold’ standards or higher (15).
There are 21 LEED certified buildings and labs at Yale:
 2 LEED Silver Certified Buildings
 10 LEED Gold Certified Laboratories
 1 LEED Platinum Certified Laboratory
 2 LEED Platinum Certified Buildings
Case Studies – LEED Platinum
 6 LEED Gold Certified Buildings

28 | P a g e
Figure 10 showing the potential solar energy that can be produced in
Copenhagen at different times of the year, when there is varying solar radiation
Section 4: Sustainable Building Projects at KU
This section discusses the different potential sustainable energy projects that could be implemented by KU.
These projects aim to decrease energy consumption and could increase KU’s green rating. Although other
renewable projects have been considered, the main project involves installing photovoltaics at KU. The data
has been collected by Preben Buhl from the Green Campus office.
Wind Energy
Large wind farms are difficult to get permission for due primarily to ‘NIMBYISM’ (Not In My Back Yard), where
neighbours complain about noise and visual pollution. The most realistic way for the
University to implement wind power is to buy existing projects from DONG Energy or
HOFOR for example.
Small wind turbines with vertical tee rotors are small energy-producing units (2000kWh
per year). Therefore, many turbines would need to be installed to produce a significant
amount of energy. This requires a larger cost for maintenance.
Biomass
Biomass in the form of wood chips for heat supply has potential
outside of district heating areas, for example at the Forest School.
Biomass in the form of biogas provides more electricity and has
more potential. KU’s Højbakkegård (farm buildings and research
facilities) is starting a research project that includes a biogas plant.
Background on Photovoltaics
There are two types of cells that dominate 95% of the world market: Monocrystalline and Polycrystalline.
Many mistakenly believe that monocrystalline are the best to collect energy as they a slightly higher efficiency
per square metres. However, at lower light intensities, such as in diffused morning and evening light, their
performance curve quickly falls.
Therefore, polycrystalline can provide more energy
during diffuse light and shadowed days, which are
common in Copenhagen, and are also slightly cheaper.
The average life expectancy of a solar panel is between
25-30 years.
May, June, July are the highest energy producing
months, producing approximately 22,500 kWh per month
(16).

29 | P a g e
Figure 12 This table provides information on the top 10 locations for solar energy in KU. It highlights annual building consumption,
the number of panels needed, the estimated production of energy and the estimated cost.
Photovoltaics at KU
Solar cells producing under 6kW have no real significance as consumption in most buildings is significantly
higher than the solar PV plants can produce.
In collaboration with DONG Energy and their partner GermanSolar, a rough estimate of solar potential in the
university’s main buildings has been made. The assessment from Dong is made on the aerial photos from
Google Maps and potential site locations are based on building age and accessibility. 10 sites have been used,
which make up 3% of KU’s overall building consumption.
The new buildings at KU (Maersk building, Niels Bohr building, Pharma Science
Centre etc.) are designed with PV systems built-in. However, some designs mean
the solar energy is not being produced at its full potential. For example figure 10
shows only 50% of the roof is used to harbour solar energy (17).
These construction issues should be solved so that maximum solar energy can be
produced from each installation. By working with BYGST (Property Agency), a
policy could be used to ensure all new buildings have maximised solar energy, so
that future development of solar cells is a natural step with the construction of new buildings.
Building Name Roof Type Annual Building
Consumption
(kWh/year)
Number of
Panels
Estimated
Annual
Production
(kWh/year)
Cost of
Installation
(excl. VAT)
Panum Institute,
Blegdamsvej 3
Flat 13 653 002 4 320 896 400 kr. 12 350 000
Teilum Building, Frederik
V, Road 9-11
Flat 2 689 928 506 102 996 kr. 2 075 000
Zoological Institute,
University Park
Flat 1 982 951 990 205 425 kr. 3 030 000
University Park 1-3,
DIKU
44 374
University Park 5,
Ørsted Institute
521 411
University Park 13,
August Krogh Insitute
148 798
Ole Maaløes Road 5,
Biocentre
Flat 203 686 582 120 765 kr. 1 680 000
Thorvaldsen Road 40,
Area 2
Mixed 1 117 305 1 000 212 500 kr. 3 450 000
Roligheds Road 23,
Area 3
Pitched 766 200 300 63 750 kr. 1 025 000
Højbakkegard Alle 1,
Taastrup 8
Pitched 1 197 263 656 139 453 kr. 1 854 750
Figure 11 showing PV cells on
building KUA2 where only 50% of
the roof is used

30 | P a g e
Figure 13 showing the payback time for 7 of the 10 buildings with potential solar power projects around KU
From this data, the payback time of the installations can be calculated using the following equation:
( ) ( ) ( )
Cost of Installation – Shown in Figure 11
Savings per Year in Fuel Costs – This data can be extrapolated by multiplying the ‘Estimated Annual
Production in kWh/year’ by the cost of electricity per kWh in Denmark as of 2013  DKK 1.63 per kWh (18).
This table shows that the average payback time for installing solar panels in buildings around KU is a 9½
years. The total cost of installing 7 of the 10 solar projects is DKK 25,464,750 (extrapolated from Figure12). This
cost could be paid back after just 9½ years and from then on money would be saved. Considering the age of the
university, 535 years as of 2014 (Est.1479), one decade is not long before the initial costs are repaid.
The installation appears well worth the cost. It would also add to KU’s overall ‘Green Rating’. In all four
certification schemes mentioned in this report, the ‘energy’ section is often weighted the most. For example, in
BREEAM it attributes to 19 points and in LEED it attributes to 35 points.
Building Name Estimated Annual
Production
(kWh/year)
Savings per year in
Fuel costs
(Estimated annual
production x 2.23)
Cost of Installation (excl.
VAT)
Payback Time in Years
(Cost of installation/Saving
per year in Fuel Costs)
Panum Institute,
Blegdamsvej 3
896 400 1 461 132 kr. 12 350 000 8½
Teilum Building,
Frederik V, Road 9-
11
102 996 167 884 kr. 2 075 000 12½
Zoological Institute,
University Park
205 425 334 843 kr. 3 030 000 9
Ole Maaløes Road
5,
Biocentre
120 765 196 847 kr. 1 680 000 8½
Thorvaldsen Road
40,
Area 2
212 500 346 375 kr. 3 450 000 10
Roligheds Road 23,
Area 3
63 750 103 913 kr. 1 025 000 10
Højbakkegard Alle
1,
Taastrup 8
139 453 227 308 kr. 1 854 750 8

31 | P a g e
Summary
This report has looked at four different sustainable building certification schemes in detail (BREEAM, DGNB,
USGBC’s LEED and STARS). It has analysed their criteria schemes, their differences, their advantages &
disadvantages and their costs. The final aim of the report is to find the certification scheme that would be most
cost-effective and beneficial to KU.
DGNB
KU currently uses the German sustainable building certification scheme, DGNB. DGNB has created a scheme
specific to the unique requirements of Denmark. This makes it easier to implement and more effective, raising
its value above most of the other schemes. However, its main drawback is that it cannot yet be applied to
existing buildings. BREEAM and LEED are older establishments that have developed certification schemes for
existing buildings. It may be another two years before DGNB releases a similar certification scheme. Another
drawback of DGNB is the requirement to carry out an extensive Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis and a Life Cycle
Cost Assessment (LCA). This takes up a lot of time and can put many people off.
LEED
Even though LEED has a wide range of criteria and is used by respected and prestigious establishments, like
Yale University and UC Berkeley, it would not be well-suited for Denmark. This is because Denmark is further
ahead than the USA in terms of sustainability and energy-efficient buildings. This means there are many aspects
of LEED that are outdated and wouldn’t fit Denmark or KU.
An example of this is LEEDs criteria for the use of locally produced material. This might be applied to USA where
there is a large diversity of domestic products and industries. Denmark, as a smaller country in both size and
population, may need to buy products internationally or from Europe. Even if this product, a certain type of
insulation for example, is more energy efficient and has a lower Carbon footprint than a domestic one, it will
receive a poor green rating from LEED, when it should actually receive a higher one. This may in turn promote
less efficient and incorrect practices.
BREEAM
BREEAM is potentially the best choice to fill the gap of certifying existing buildings. It has a long & rich history
and is expanding internationally with National Scheme Operators (NSOs) in 8 different countries around Europe.
Even though Denmark doesn’t have a specific NSO, it can still implement the BREEAM International scheme,
which includes New Construction, Refurbishment, In-Use and Bespoke Communities.
The main drawback to BREEAM is the large price tag on its head. An entire BREEAM assessment may cost up
to DKK 250,000. This is more expensive than LEED (DKK 32,100 – 187,900) but could be cheaper than DGNB
(DKK 68,700 – 393,700) depending on the specific project.
However, the overall view of BREEAM is positive, with 88% of people saying they would use it again and would
recommend it to others (19). The additional costs were seen more as an investment for the future due to the

32 | P a g e
reduction in a building’s running costs. Similarly, costs were saved by combing through the high energy
consumers in the supply chain. BREEAM often also drives the client toward innovation.
There is also an argument that states DGNB focuses more on the working environment than BREEAM or LEED.
This is true; however, a survey (Figure 14) has shown that after a BREEAM assessment, the social benefits
outweigh the environmental and economic.
STARS
AASHE’s STARS is a certification scheme from USA that is designed specifically for Higher Education
institutions and Universities. This certification scheme can be applied to existing buildings and is of a smaller
scale than BREEAM and LEED.
It is also much cheaper, with a registration fee of around DKK 8,100. Unlike BREEAM, where an assessor is
provided to guide you throughout your assessment, in STARS it is all ‘do-it-yourself’ using the online reporting
tool.
Suggestions
Overall, my suggestion would be to implement BREEAM as the certification scheme for KU’s existing buildings.
Despite its expenses, it has a good track record for being well worth the cost and saving money in the long run.
Many prestigious universities such as Oxford and Cambridge use BREEAM as their certification scheme.
As described in section 4, there are already some steps KU can take to improving their green rating before
sending off for a certification scheme. Biomass and wind are unlikely to prove fruitful in the city campuses,
however installing photovoltaic cells may well be worth their cost in the long run. Although the installation of 7
solar cells will cost around DKK 25 464 000, this would all be paid back in 8-12 years and after that would start
saving money.
Figure 14 showing the main benefits taken from a survey of clients (19)

33 | P a g e
Bibliography
1. Guide, Sustania Sector. Exploring the sustainable buildings of tomorrow. Copenhagen : Sustainia.
2. BRE Our History. BRE. [Online] 2014. [Cited: Sept 2, 2014.] http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1712.
3. BrochureThe world’s foremost environmental . BREEAM. [Online] [Cited: 3 Sept 2014.]
http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM_Brochure.pdf.
4. Neighbourhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evlauaion of three assessment systems and their
cases from the US, the UK and Japan. A, Sharifi and A, Murayama. 72, s.l. : Building and Environment, 2014.
5. Carre Vert, Paris. BREEAM. [Online] [Cited: 4 Sept 2014.] http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=299.
6. Overview of DGNB. DGNB. [Online] [Cited: 5 Sept 2014.]
http://www.dgnb.de/en/council/dgnb/?pk_campaign=evtiledgnb.
7. Certification Mini Guide. DGNB Syste. [Online] [Cited: 5 Sept 2014.]
http://issuu.com/manufaktur/docs/dgnb_system_en_06-
2012?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true.
8. GBCI, Green Building Certification Insitute. LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations and
Maintenance. [Online] 2009. [Cited: 8 Sept 2014.]
http://www.gbci.org/Libraries/Credential_Exam_References/LEED-for-Operations-and-Maintenance-Reference-
Guide-Introduction.sflb.ashx.
9. Eberl, S. DGNB vs. LEED: A Comparative Analysis. Central Europe towards Sustainable Building Prague.
2010.
10. Why Participate in STARS? stars a program of aashe. [Online] aashe, 2014. [Cited: 15 Sept 2014.]
https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/why-participate.html.

34 | P a g e
11. Frank Fenner Building. Australian National University. [Online] 15 August 2013. [Cited: 23 Sept 2014.]
http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/about-us/facilities/frank-fenner-building.
12. Sustainability Berkeley. UC Berkeley. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 17 Sept 2014.]
http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/built-environment.
13. Oxford, University of. Environmental Sustainability Report. 2011/2012.
14. The University of Oxford. Project Sponsor Group Handbook. Oxford Admin. [Online] 2007. [Cited: 23 Sept
2014.]
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/estatesdirectorate/documents/capitalprojec
tsforms/Supplementary_Documentation_v3.pdf.
15. Sustainable Building & Design. Sustainability Yale. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 16 Sept 2014.]
http://sustainability.yale.edu/planning-progress/areas-focus/leed-buildings.
16. GermanSolar. Ability to install solar heating systems. [Online] 21 Oct 2013. [Cited: 24 Sept 2014.]
17. Riberfelt, Sten. Teliumbygningen. 24th June : Valentin Software, 2013.
18. Eurostat. Half-yearly electricity and gas prices, first half of the year, 22011-13. epp.eurostat. [Online] 2 June
2014. [Cited: 24 Sept 2014.] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Half-
yearly_electricity_and_gas_prices,_first_half_of_year,_2011%E2%80%9313_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB14.png.
19. BSRIA. The Value of BREEAM. s.l. : Schneider Electric, 2012.
20. Stars Technical Manual. [Online] Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, Jan
2014. [Cited: 16 Sept 2014.] http://www.aashe.org/files/documents/STARS/2.0/stars_2.0_technical_manual_-
_administrative_update_two.pdf. version 2.0.

Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)

Ähnlich wie Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1) (20)

Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)