1. business and industrial
2. construction

Muistio
Sivu 1 / 4
Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset –työryhmä
23.4.2012
Läsnäolijat
Jakelu
1
Kokousmuis o
Tiina Huovinen, Sponda
Pertti Kalsson, NCC
Markku Lappalainen, Rakennustieto
Tuomo Lindstedt, HTJ
Ken Dooley, Granlund
Timo Rintala (siht.), Green Building Partners
Läsnäolijat
Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset -työryhmän jäsenet
Antti Lippo
Pasi Tolppanen
JÄRJESTÄYTYMINEN
Todettiin läsnäolijat ja suoritettiin esittäytyminen. Todettiin, että uskottavan päätöksenteon
pohjaksi vaadittaisiin osallistujia kaikista sidosryhmistä mukaan lukien omistajat, urakoitsijat,
rakennuttajat, kiinteistökehitys, suunnittelijat ja konsultit.
FiGBC:n taholta hankkeeseen nimetty kaksoisjohtajuus, Timo Rintala ja Ken Dooley.
Läsnä ja peruslähtökohdat ja tavoitteet työryhmään.
Huovinen, Sponda ympäristöpäällikkö.
Spondalla periaatepäätös kansainvälisen
ympäristöluokituksen käytöstä kaikissa hankkeissa, perusteena kansainvälinen markkinat.
Tehty useita olemassa olevien ja rakennusvaiheen hankkeita.
Lappalainen, Rakennustieto, päätehtävän RT-kortiston päätoimittajan tehtävät. Toimii pääosin
rakennusmääräysten maailmassa, kiinnostus alan kehitykseen.
Lindstedt, rakennuttajakonsultti ja konsultti. Vastaa yrityksessä
energiatehokkuudesta. Kiinnostus menettelyjen ja mallien kehittämiseen.
luokituksista
ja
Karlsson, NCC kiinteistökehitys. NCC:lle tullut Ruotsista BREEAM velvoite kaikkiin hankkeisiin.
Pääosin omaperustaista tuotantoa. Kiinnostus Suomalaisten menettelyjen ja sovellusten
kehittämiseen.
Dooley, ympäristöpäällikkö Granlundilla. Vastuuna sustainability + energy sekä erityistuotteet.
Kiinnostus erityisesti BREEAM mallien kehitykseen sekä tarjous- ja sopimusmallien
yhtenäistämiseen.
Rintala, Omistaja Green Building Partners Oy:ssä. Elinkaarikonsultointi. Kiinnostus kansallisten
menettelyjen kehitykseen molemmissa työkaluissa. Ollut mukana LEED round table
työskentelyssä.
Muistio
Sivu 2 / 4
2
KAUPALLISET YMPÄRISTÖLUOKITUKSEN WORKPLAN
Käytiin läpi ”kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset” workplan. Rintala esitteli sisällön ja keskusteltiin
tehtävien sisällöistä.
Tehtyyn työsuunnitelmaan tai sen tavoitteisiin ei tehty korjauksia. Workplan liitteenä.
3
BREEAM TILANNE
Ken Dooley esittely BREEAM tilanteen (kalvot liitteenä)
BREEAM muuttanut kantaansa kansallisten menettelyjen kehittämiseen. Enää ei vaadita täyttä
kansallista lokalisointia tyyliin Ruotsi/norja, vaan BREEAM tarjoaa No/low-Cost BREEAM
lokalisoinnin. Perusteena kevyelle lokalisoinnille ovat:
Country specific reference sheets
 Mahdollisuus pieniin arviointiperusteiden korjauksiin
 Mahdollisuus yksittäisten pisteiden muutoksiin tai poistamiseen Suomen arvioinneista
Mahdollisuus A10 helpompaan kehitykseen
 Todistustaakka kevyempi, kun A10 päivitykset tulevat yleiseltä organisaatiolta, ei
yksittäisiltä konsulteilta
BREEAM Finland tilanne
 FiGBC ei halua tehdä omaa organisaatiota, jonka vastuulla olisi kansallisen järjestelmän
ylläpito
 FiGBC ei halua rahoittaa kehitystä kotimaisen mallin kehittämiseksi
 Syynä korkea alkukustannus sekä nykyisiin markkinoihin suhteitettuna suuri vuotuinen
peruskustannus
 Suomelle annettu mahdollisuus käyttää Ruotsi/Norja versiota
 Mahdollisuus tehdä hiukan muutettu FIN versio, jossa huomioitaisiin kotimaisia kohtia
 Suomessa mahdollisuus käyttää NOR / SWE versioita kriteeriperusteina BRE suuntaan eli
hakea pistettä perustuen muiden pohjoismaiden
 Ruotsi ja Norja eivät erityisen innostuneita toimimaan myös Suomalaisten luokitusten
arvioivana tahona
Kehysorganisaation merkitys suuri BRE:n suuntaan, vaaditaan kattavaa ja edustavaa työryhmää
ja päättäjää.
Muita BREEAM järjestelmään liittyviä esille tulleita asioita
Tarkennukset kriteerien Brittiläisten standardien ja vaatimusten eroista Suomalaisiin
menettelyihin, tulkintaohjeet tiettyihin kriteereihin kansalliseen käytäntöön tarvittaisiin
Hakemusta tehtäessä olisi hyvä tiedostaa, mitkä Suomalaiset osana normaalia
suunnitteluprosessia tulevat dokumentit suoraan täyttävät hakemuksen vaatimukset
BREEAM 2012 International julkaistaan noin 3-4 kuukaudessa.
BREEAM kehitysryhmän lyhyen aikavälin tähtäimet
-
Country specific reference sheets
Checklist A10 kehitystyö
Muistio
Sivu 3 / 4
Vaaditaan käytännössä yksi tekninen palaveri, jossa voitaisiin määrittää pisteet, joihin
Suomessa haluttaisiin muutoksia ja päivityksiä. Sovitaan erikseen.
4
LEED TILANNE
Ajanpuutteen vuoksi LEED asiat käsiteltiin kevyesti.
LEED Regional Priority Credits lähetetty eteenpäin USGBC:lle. Ei palautetta kriteereistä. Pitäisi
alustavan aikataulun mukaan tulla voimaan toukokuussa 2012. Aineisto liitteenä.
LEED kehitysryhmän lyhyen aikavälin tähtäimet
-
Alternative Compliance Path eli ACP:t Suomalaisille menettelyille, perustuen LEED 2012
luonnoksen pisteisiin
Mahdolliset Suomalaiset pilot credit –pisteet (esim. kaukokylmä)
Tulisi pitää yksi tekninen palaveri, jossa voitaisiin määrittää pisteet, joihin Suomessa
haluttaisiin muutoksia ja päivityksiä. Mahdollisuus myös etsiä Suomalaiset ACp:t.
5
YLEISDOKUMENTAATION TILANNE
Yleisten dokumentaatioiden tarpeellisuudesta oltiin yksimielisiä. Käytännön keskustelua käytiin
tarvittavista resursseista dokumenttien laatimiselle. Käytännön mahdollisuutena on
keskusteltu yliopistomaailman mukaan tuomista, jolloin laajempaa yleisdokumentaatiota
voitaisiin toteuttaa esimerkiksi diplomitöiden yhteydessä.
Keskusteltiin luokitusten perusteluista. Käytännössä luokitusten perusteet usein brändiarvo tai
laadullisen ohjauksen varmennus. Suomessa ei aineistoa, jolla voitaisiin suoraan osoittaa
rahallisia säästöjä, kuten energiatehokkuuden parantamisessa. Käytännön hyvät ja tiiviit
esimerkit vaatisivat kuitenkin osoittamisen Business casen kautta: prosessi, hyödyt,
kaupallinen realiteetti, muut saavutettavat höydyt.
Suunnitellun mukainen standardisoitu työsisältö tarjouspyyntöjen pohjaksi nähtiin erittäin
tarpeellisena ja kannatettavana.
Yleisdokumentaation lähiajan toimenpiteet:
 Yhteyksien avaaminen yliopistomaailmaan, esim. rakentamistalous
 Standardisoidun työsisällön kehitystyön aloittaminen
6
MUUT ASIAT
Promise kehitys. Lappalainen esitti omana käsityksenään, ettei Promise kehitykselle ole tällä
hetkellä olemassa suunnitelmia. vaikuttaa siltä, ettei kehitykselle ole suoraan olemassa mitään
tilausta tai painetta käyttäjäkunnasta.
Asiaan liittyvinä lähiaikoina tulevat uudet energiatodistukset (luonnokset ja kommenttipyynnöt
julkaistu). Määräyksistä lähivuosina tulossa korjausrakentamisen ohjeet ja vaatimukset
(ympäristöministeriö).
7
JATKOTOIMENPITEET
Seuraava kokous 6.6.2012 klo 14:00 Granlundin tiloissa Malmilla.
Muistio
Sivu 4 / 4
Timo Rintala
Green Building Partners Oy
FiGBC ”Kaupalliset ympäristöluokitukset” -ryhmä
WORKGROUP PLAN
KDo
1(6)
8.3.2012
KAUPALLISET YMPÄRISTÖLUOKITUS WORKGROUP
Date
9.2.2012
Present
Timo Rintala
Ken Dooley
Green Building Partners
Insinööritoimisto Olof Granlund
1 Primary purpose
The primary purpose of the workgroup shall be to:
 Increase the general understanding of environmental assessment methods
 Provide neutral information regarding the use, benefits and potential of the systems
 Coordinate localisation of global environmental classification in Finland
 Provide support and material to ease and harmonise consultation in Finland
 Provide a workgroup to communicate and cooperate on global scale on commercial
classification issues
2 Workgroup
It was decided that the work required to be done in 2012 and onwards would be included
within the following 3 categories:
 Assessment system development and localization (technical)
 Guidance documents creation (technical)
 General knowledge gathering (non-technical)
Members shall be chosen from the people who have requested to join the work group. The
work group chairs shall also suggest additional people to join the work group.
3 Workgroup tasks
A large number of tasks have been defined as required to assist the growth of these
commercial assessment (kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus) systems in Finland.
3.1.1 Assessment system development and localization
The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 1.
3.1.2 Guidance documents creation
The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 2.
2(6)
3.1.3 General knowledge gathering
The tasks that have been included in this value group may be seen in appendix 3.
4 Workgroup tasks in detail
Of the tasks shown in the appendices, 3 have been selected as most urgent to assist growth
in this sector. Once these workgroups have been completed other tasks shall be developed
in the future.
4.1 Workgroup task 1: BREEAM new buildings development workgroup
The first task for the work group shall be to assist the development of BREEAM new
buildings. It is important that this work is done first as in March to May 2012 there will be an
opportunity to comment on BREEAM 2012 which will be launched in the summer.
Number of members: approximately 10 people
Breakdown of members: 5 BREEAM experts and 5 general construction sector
Workgroup task aims:
 The BRE have suggested that the following tasks are the simplest method to enable
easier certification of BREEAM projects in Finland. These tasks shall be done unless
FiGBC decides to develop BREEAM Finland:
o Comment on new version of BREEAM Europe 2012 by developing the Country
Specific Reference Sheet for Finland . Work with BREEAM to adapt the credits
for Finnish climate and culture – BRE have suggested this
o Development of BREEAM checklist A10. Work with the BRE for the approval of
local Finnish standards – BRE have suggested this
4.2 Work group task 2: LEED new buildings development workgroup
Potential chairman: Timo Rintala or Ken Dooley
Number of members: approximately 10 people
Breakdown of members: 5 LEED experts and 5 general construction sector
Workgroup task aims:
 Develop LEED alternative compliance paths for specific credits
 Begin and upkeep an ACP database
 ACPs should focus on poorly functional credits (Cooling towers, Water etc.)
 ACPs should also focus on European Union standards, guidelines and laws
4.3 Workgroup task 3: General tasks
As the BREEAM and LEED tasks are being completed the work group will continuously work
on general tasks
Number of members: approximately 10 people
Breakdown of members: general construction sector people
Workgroup task aims:
 To write the scope, review and comment on the report written by an independent body
that shall increase general understanding of the commercial assessment systems
3(6)



To define commercial assessment systems training requirements for the FiGBC
training committee to organize
o It is assumed that all LEED and BREEAM training shall be outsourced to certified
USGBC and BRE training companies
Define the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders for commercial
assessment system projects. Tasks may include:
o Standardise classification service & task
o Who is responsible for project management of the LEED credits?
o Who is responsible for translation?
o Should the consultant provide template reports for all credits?
o Who should fill out the online forms?
o Who is responsible for contractors credits?
o A typical tarjouspyyntö responsibilities list for each type of project
Investigate co-operation of the “kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus” workgroup with Värkki
project where possible
5 Increase general understanding brochure
An important aim for 2012 shall be to write a report that shall increase general understanding
of the commercial assessment (kaupalliset ympäristöluokitus) systems. The document shall
be aimed at all construction stakeholders and shall simply explain the relevant systems such
as LEED, BREEAM and Promise. The document should be written by an independent group
of people and should not be the opinion of invested stakeholders such as consultants or
contractors. It should also echo the sentiment of the FiGBC which is that all systems are
supported. It should be evaluated who is best suited to write this document and if an
organization outside the FiGBC is required. A key aspect of this work is the funding which
may be required to pay for the completion of this task. Orgainsations such as the Aalto Real
Estate Business unit may already have this material. The final document shall be to review
and commented on by one of the “General Tasks” workgroup.
6 Further Steps
Other items mentioned in the meeting that shall occur in 2012 but require further planning
are:
 the organisation of a general meeting(s) where all FiGBC members are invited to hear
about progress made and to provide feedback
 gain feedback from Antti Lippo regarding the members questionnaire
Kenneth Dooley
4(6)
Appendix 1: Assessment system development and localization

Co-operation with Värkki project where possible

LEED new buildings development workgroup
o ACP database
o ACPs should focus on poorly functional credits (Cooling towers, Water etc.)
o ACPs should also focus on European Union standards, guidelines and laws

LEED EBOM
o ACP database
o Alternative standards for credits (cleaning detergents etc.)



LEED USGBC round table co-operation

BREEAM co-operation among Nordic countries

BREEAM In-use Europe co-operation & co-ordination
o In particular benchmarking for BREEAM in use energy credits so that credits
awarded are similar to the UK level

BREEAM for residential development

Promise rebirth
o Development of simple classification system for non-commercial projects
o Is there interest & demand ?
o Easy way, promise redevelopment & systematic documentation
o Residential, schools etc.
o 3rd party certification should be implemented
BREEAM new buildings development workgroup
o Comment on new version of BREEAM Europe 2012 for Finland / Nordic
countries
o Development of BREEAM checklist A10
5(6)
Appendix 2: Guidance documents creation

List of guidance documents to be added as required such as:
o VOC paints and materials for LEED compliance
o Contractors credits guidance for commercial assessment system projects
o etc
6(6)
Appendix 3: General knowledge gathering

Sales and marketing material to promote commercial assessment system projects
o Brochures for projects in Finland
o The business case behind these systems
 As mentioned by Ilari it would be good to have some financial figures
such as LEED gold costs an extra €x/m2 and increase sales value by
€x/m2 and rental value by €x/m2 etc

To write the scope, review and comment on the report written by an independent body
that shall increase general understanding of the commercial assessment systems

To define commercial assessment systems training requirements for the FiGBC
training committee to organize
o It is assumed that all LEED and BREEAM training shall be outsourced to certified
USGBC and BRE training companies

Define the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders for commercial
assessment system projects. Tasks may include:
MEMO
1(2)
FiGBC Commercial classification Workgroup
The Finnish Regional Priority Credits
Date
6.4.2012
Author
Timo Rintala, Green Building Partners Oy
On behalf of Finnish Green Building Counsil
1 Background
The original possibility to prepare the national Regional Priority credits ( RP’s) came in January 2012.
However, while the FiGBC workgroups were at January still very much under development, the
Finnish group actually begun working only two weeks before the deadline.
The Finnish group got also a good model from the Swedish GBC credit paper and, while Norway will
be using Swedish credits, it was considered to be used as Finnish RP’s. Based on preliminary voting, it
was however quite clear that a dedicated Finnish credits should be used instead of Nordic.
The Finnish credits are developed based on internet voting for the most suitable credits for the
Finnish climate and practices. Two basic principles were recognized for suitable credits identification:
- Highlighting credits that recognized to be most important in the Finnish environment
- Highlighting credits that are not well recognized in typical Finnish construction and should be
given more importance to drive the industry forward
Based on voting among the Finnish task force included all members. Voting time was quite short,
about one week.
2 The Finnish RP’s
Based on task group opinion and voting, the following is suggested for the Finnish RP’s:
- SS 5.1
Protect & restore habitat
- SS 6.1
Stormwater Design, Quantity control
- EA 1
Energy efficiency, 20 % savings
- EA 1
Energy efficiency, 28 % savings
- EA 2
On-site renewable energy, 1 % of renewables
- IEQ 8.1
Daylight & views, Daylight
Selected credits are mostly based to present issues, that are not normally considered in Finland and
the selection would like to give them a bigger weight in decision making.
Short reasoning for the selected credits is as follows:
2(2)
SS 5.1
Protect & restore habitat
While in Finland the construction is more and more urban and urban area is built more
and more densely, the amount of open space is diminishing. In general the inbuilt
natural area is protected in zoning, but the urban area is more and more built without
vegetation. Also the Finnish construction practice is giving low value to protecting
existing vegetation, while this could be saved in considerably higher amounts then
today. So the amount of even small vegetated area in urban texture is with growing in
value and should be encouraged.
SS 6.1
Stormwater Design, Quantity control
The importance of stormwater management is growing and is by normal practice
considered in Finnish zoning. However, the amount of non-pervious surfaces is growing
fast and the amount of stormwater in municipal networks is higher than before. Also
climate change has and will have effect on peak water amounts and more and more
consideration should be given to the issue. While stormwater quantity control is not
typically considered in construction projects, this will have a cost effect in the project
and should be awarded.
EA 1
Energy efficiency, 20 % savings & Energy efficiency, 28 % savings
Energy efficiency has a major role in governmental regulations and in green buildings in
Finland. Up to day the Finnish regulations have been heat load and heating consumption
focused based on the cold climate. In meantime, considerations with electricity use have
been considerably lower. The importance of electricity use is raised in forthcoming
regulations. LEED & ASHRAE energy calculation systematic, however, is based on costs.
Cost also raises the importance of electricity use. The Finnish basic heat source in
commercial buildings is energy efficient co-operation based district heating. Therefore
using typical energy sources, district heat, more efficiently should be the basic solutions
in new buildings. The current best practice commercial solutions in district heat
connected buildings) in Finland lead to 20-25 % savings compared to ASHRAE minimum
level, the first credit should be above this award improvements in controls and design.
EA 2
On-site renewable energy, 1 % of renewables
The price of district heating and electricity is still lower then Europe average in Finland.
Based on low electricity price the financial profitability of on-site energy solutions is low.
Based on financial payback calculations, on-site solar power payback time is above 50
years and solar heat above 20 years. Currently the solar systems have had more brand
value then real financial benefits. Thus the built up for on-site renewable of 1 % should
be awarded more the one credit.
IEQ 8.1
Daylight & views, Daylight
The typical commercial solutions in Finland have been to optimize the total amount of
outer walls and this lead to deep frame solutions. The amount of daylight has also
positive effect on electricity use based on lighting controls. Thus, the importance of
daylight design should be highlighted.
Määrä
1
2
3
4
5
6
LEED 2009 for New Construction & Major Renovations (example)
Credit category
Credit number
Credit name
Materials & Resources
1,1
Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
Energy and Atmosphere
2
On-Site Renewable Energy
Water Efficiency
2
Innovative Wastewater Technologies
Sustainable Sites
2
Development Desity &Community Connectivity
Sustainable Sites
6,1
Stormwater Design-Quality Control
Sustainable Sites
7,1
Heat Island Effect- Non-Roof
Votes
5
5
4
4
4
4
LEED 2009 for New Construction & Major Renovations
Credit category
Credit number
Credit name
Energy and atmosphere
EA 1
Energy efficiency, 26 % savings
Indoor environmental quality IEQ 8.1
Daylight
Energy and atmosphere
EA 1
Energy efficiency , 48 % savings
Energy and atmosphere
EA 2
1 % of renewables
Sustainable sites
SS 6.1
Stormwater Design-Quantity Control
Sustainable sites
SS 5.1
Protect & restore habitat
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Materials & resources
Water efficiency
Materials & resources
Sustainable sites
Materials & resources
Materials & resources
Indoor environmental quality
MR3
WE 3
MR5
SS 4.4
MR7
MR1.1
IEQ 7.1
Material reuse 5 %
Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction
Regional materials
Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity
Certified wood
Building reuse, 75 %
Thermal comfort, design