DO GREEN BUILDINGS COST MORE TO BUILD?

摘要

Do green buildings cost more to build than conventional buildings? And do they produce benefits beyond the norm ― improved productivity of occupant workers, better health, higher job satisfaction, or other factors that create value for their owners? These two questions frame the discussion surrounding the "business case" for sustainable development. For simplicity's sake, they will be reviewed separately here, but it should be recognized that these two questions, taken together, define the value proposition for sustainability. One of the earliest cost studies was published by the Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colo. RMI examined several buildings that had made various energy retrofits. A post office in Reno, Nev., in 1986 did a lighting retrofit that paid for itself in six years; a Pennsylvania power company's lighting upgrade reduced energy consumption from lighting by 69%. Newly constructed buildings showed promising results, too: Lockheed Building 157, completed in 1983, produced energy savings of $500,000 a year with a four-year payback; the design of the West Bend Mutual Insurance Company's headquarters (1992) produced a 40% savings per square foot in electricity costs; the ING Bank headquarters in Amsterdam (1987) achieved annual energy savings of $2.6 million at a cost of $700,000, an amazing three-month payback. The RMI study demonstrated that basic retrofitting of existing buildings could produce remarkably quick paybacks for owners and that sustainable design could have significant payoffs in energy savings for new construction as well.