It would be nice to see someone other than the USGBC issue data on the cost of “going Green”.  I disagree with the statement in this article that the majority of the additional cost is for A/E design time and commissioning. It is apparent that the cost of higher efficient & oversized HVAC components, daylighting clerestories, renewable resource materials and contractors’ general conditions to address the construction waste management and indoor air quality requirements yield inflated building costs.  While I do not argue the advantage of sustainable design, I feel the USGBC/LEED approach to cost reporting is misleading, if not self-serving.

CMinWPA,

why would a sustainable design have “oversized HVAC”? any system that is designed should not be oversized, usually that is the result of a contractor designing a system as opposed to an engineer.
yes, sustainable materials MAY raise the cost of construction, but cost arises more with the amount of documentation required for LEED certification, by the A/E and Contractor.  Also, commissioning MAY be a big factor. Depending on your facility size, you may not have even used commissioning if not for certification.

To J. Morschl…

The HVAC systems need to bring in more outside air (increased ventilation), thus more air volume to condition, then you need to address have to handle that volume AND conserve energy.  Or the added heat loading from more glazing due to daylighting…again, more conditioning required.  If documentation costs are of a concern, then you have not educated the staff/contractors properly, imho.

why do you need to bring more air in with HVAC? isnt that what windows are for? why more windows? you dont have any windows in the bldg to start with? which costs more, documenting LEED certification or not going for LEED?

Here is a report done by Rutgers University regarding the Life Cycle Cost of building to LEED standards:

LCC Final Report 5/21/08

They found that the difference in cost was $2.29 per sq. ft vs. a conventional building for a savings of $2.17 - $2.79 per square foot.

Why not just incorporate smart sustainable design principles in the first place and not spend dollars documenting and chasing points so you can get a plaque from the USGBC ?  If the intention of LEED certification is for good and not for profit, why such an elaborate scheme for testing/accrediting/certifying ?  Again, I believe in sound sustainable/conversation measures - I don’t believe in chasing points in a monopolized system.

CMinWPA,
i totally agree with the chasing points comment.  LEED is a marketing too for owners to sell to potential’s (clients, consumers, etc…) it’s a way for them to show a piece of paper that says they are green.

LEED is a “voluntary” standard. From an investor or leasee perspective wouldn’t you want to clearly know all LEED claims have in fact been implemented since you are supposedly paying more per square foot than another similar building?

Who is auditing the post certification implementation activities of developers/owners who have certified LEED? The commissioning agent (CxA’s as they are known are only partially looking at such systems but not LEED certification). Moreover, wouldn’t claims that affect on-going common area maintenance and utilities be ones that lessee and investors would want to know on at least an annual basis? Is this a potential coase of the fox guarding the hen house?

Brad, this appears to be a report about the possible savings relating to building use. I could not find your cost difference quote within the report, although I only previewed it quickly. Would you be so kind as to point out where this cost difference is documented? Additionally, is this cost difference proposed after the “discounts” or perks given to achieving LEED certification?
I am researching this very topic at present as a student, however I have to say that from almost two decades working within the construction field, I have also experienced what CMin WPA is alluding to. Perhaps it is because I hail form this area as well. “Green” has become like “organic” in many respects. Suppliers know we all want efficiency and so the prices are invariably higher.
Also with regard to the above conversation pertaining to HVAC “oversizing”...perhaps CM in WPA could have used a better choice of words here. But the reality is that often what looks good on paper does not work in the field. This is why Architects and Engineers with hands on field experience should be considered more valuable. If a piece of equiptment were to function well on paper, but not in the field of course this leads to unhappy clients at best. “Proper sizing” is what we all are looking for, and maximum “bang for the buck” I am not yet convinced that the initial cost of indulging in these amenities is within the percentages quoted within your post, but I am open to being convinced. Green is wonderful and our responsibility to employ as stewards of the planets resources. Still, I am with CMinWPA. I believe the actual cost increase is much higher than is being cited by USGBC.

In their report, “the net present value analysis uses the annual energy consumption in addition to the construction cost of the building, and projected energy prices to determine the lifetime cost of operating the building.”

You are correct in that is not just simply the construction costs, but those costs were still included.