The cost of building green
Sustainable design, also called “green” or high-performance building, provides economic, human and community benefits as well as reduced environmental impacts.
- Economic benefits. Green buildings may be easier to finance because they are designed to be durable, flexible, and healthy. In addition, the lifetime costs are lower. Energy efficient and water conserving strategies yield operational savings for the lifetime of the building. Integrated design strategies allow tradeoffs that can reduce first costs. For example, strategies such as passive solar allow heating equipment to be downsized. Chiller size can be reduced with the use of high efficiency lighting, which generates a smaller heat load in the building.
- Human benefits. Daylighting, improved air quality, greater thermal control, and other indoor environmental quality strategies typically improve occupant satisfaction. Greater satisfaction often leads to increased productivity and morale, decreased turnover, and reduced absenteeism. Potential risk and liability may be reduced as well. Integrated design strategies reduce the risk of sick building syndrome and minimize callbacks.
- Community benefits. Green buildings often result in less wind/water erosion and sedimentation of waterways during construction. Sustainably designed sites permanently reduce stormwater runoff and watershed pollution. Furthermore, resource-efficient buildings place less demand on the community infrastructure for potable water, sewage conveyance, and power generation.
Concerns about the potentially higher first costs of building green have not been borne out by research. Studies conducted during the pre-recession building boom demonstrate that reasonable levels of sustainable design can be incorporated into most building types at little or no additional cost.
International study: The Business Case for Green BuildingThe Business Case for Green Building - A review of the costs and benefits for developers, investors and occupants
This 2013 report by the World Green Building Council examines whether or not it’s possible to attach a financial value to the cost and benefits of green buildings. According to this compilation and analysis of peer-reviewed research, green buildings can be delivered today at a price comparable to conventional buildings and investments can be recouped through operational cost savings and, with the right design features, create a more productive workplace. The website provides free download of the report and links to green building case studies from around the world.
Minnesota cost and benefits study
The Weidt Group was contracted to develop an assessment of the air pollution savings results from high performance buildings in Minnesota, using their database of Xcel Energy Design Assistance custom-consulting projects. The building performance results are based on energy simulations of the building during the design phase. The study quantifies how the 41 high-performance buildings are both saving energy dollars that otherwise would leave the state economy and preventing pollution that otherwise would contaminate our air and water. (June 2005)High Performance Building Design in Minnesota
- High Performance brochure A companion piece to the June 2005 study by The Weidt Group, this four-page brochure highlights the benefits of the studied high-performance buildings to the economy and the environment.
- What Does Green Really Cost? Reasonable levels of sustainable design can be incorporated into most building types at little or no additional cost. Advanced or innovative sustainable features can add significantly to the cost of a project, however, and these must be valued independently to ensure that they are cost- and/or environmentally effective. (Peter Morris, PREA Quarterly Summer 2007)
- The Cost of Green Revisited This update to "Costing Green" research from 2004 shows there is no significant difference in average costs for green buildings as compared to non-green buildings. Many project teams are building green buildings with little or no added cost, and with budgets well within the cost range of non-green buildings with similar programs. This study provides cost analyses by building type and implications for each LEED 2.2 credit. (Lisa Fay Matthiessen/Peter Morris, Davis Langdon, 2007)