CostBenefit Analysis Project

The Case for Implementing the LEED

2009 for Existing

Buildings Operation and Maintenance Rating System





























Fall 2013
URP 6429

P a g e |1
Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Background and Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Building Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Data Sources, Datasets, and Data Processing .......................................................................................................... 4
Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) Methodology ........................................................................................ 6
Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusions/Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

P a g e |2
Introduction
New construction is increasingly adopting greener building materials and labor processes that are
designed to maximize the new buildings ecological and economic health. A combination of technological
advancements and greater awareness over the impact that preconstruction design decisions have on the
buildings ultimate performance has revolutionized the construction industry in recent yearschanging
everything from where and how materials are sourced to introducing considerations of how the buildings
design might impact its occupants health.

While the payoff for making sustainable decisions at the predesign and design stages of
construction have been well documented for new buildings, it is often harder for an existing building to
justify changing its status quo in order to also operate more sustainably. Yet new construction is only one
part of the equation. The built environment of both commercial and residential buildings consumes over 41%
of energy in the U.S., is among the heaviest consumers of natural resources, and produces an estimated 52%
of all CO
2
emissions
i
largely due to the existing buildings constructed years ago, which suffer from
deteriorating and drafty conditions. With little concern paid to questions of energy or water efficiency or
occupant comfort at the time of construction, many of these buildings now suffer from mold, dark or damp
conditions, wasted utilities and high operating costs, and temperature extremes that can be difficult for
tenants to manage.

The question is then, is it reasonable for an existing building to pursue a green certification? Are the
costs of applying for and obtaining the certification offset by a savings on operating costs or increased profit
potential going forward? Beyond the financial metrics, can an existing building increase its sustainable
performance beyond what it currently achieves, as a result of the process of pursuing a green certification?
What types of benefits could both the perception and the action of becoming more ecofriendly, and becoming
a healthier place to be, offer to current building owners/tenants?

The costbenefit analysis on the accompanying pages looks at the case of a 54,000square foot
commercial property in Boynton Beach, Florida. The property is a corporate office building built in the year
2000 that has not previously sought any type of green certification under any program or rating system. For
the purposes of this CBA demonstration, the LEED

2009 Rating System for Existing Buildings: Operation and

Maintenance will be applied, noting that there are a variety of local, state, national, and international green
rating systems and strategies that could have been used.

P a g e |3
Background and Process
Building Overview
This analysis considers the costs and
benefits of pursuing a LEED

2009 certification for

the Quantum Office Park at 2500 Quantum Lakes
Drive, Boynton Beach, FL 33426. A picture of the
building is included below. As the building is
already built and occupied and is owned by one
owner (2500 QUANTUM LLC) with no major
renovations or modifications in process, it is most
suited to the Existing Buildings: Operation and
Maintenance rating system from LEED.
ii
An
important note to this LEED

rating system is that

existing buildings must recertify at least once
every five years in order to keep their certification.

There are several elements to this property that will be relevant to a costbenefit for pursuing a
LEED

certification, including the following items:

It is a singlestory, 54,000 sq. ft. building currently rented out to a number of tenants;
It was built in 2000;
It is used for small business office space;
Average commercial rents in the vicinity are
roughly $14.35 per square foot per year but have
a considerable range based on the quality of the
rentable space and building; and
It has an estimated total buildings value of
$4,963,564.
iii


3497 3.497 $13 $3.72
2,380 2.38 $14 $5.88
3000 3 $18 $6.00
1250 1.25 $10 $8.00
2210 2.21 $19 $8.60
1,200 1.2 $13 $10.83
1203 1.203 $18 $14.96
1520 1.52 $24 $15.79
1713 1.713 $28 $16.35
1141 1.141 $20 $17.53
1000 1 $24 $24.00
1043 1.043 $28 $26.85
1000 1 $28 $28.00
$14.35 AverageAnnual$/sq.ft.:
CommercialRealEstateforRentinBoyntonBeach,
FL,NearGatewayBlvd.andCongressAve.
Avr.PricePer
1,000sqft
Pricepersq.
ft.(annual)
Normalizedto
1000
Rentable
Square
ImageSource:LoopNet
P a g e |4
Data Sources, Datasets, and Data Processing
Data regarding the current building specifications for 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive was obtained from
LoopNet

and CityData.com, which sources its information from public records, as well as my personal
knowledge (as a tenant) of the building layout and design. Data on costs of pursuing a LEED

2009
certification was obtained from publications of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), primarily the
organizations LEED Certification Fees PDF available at http://www.usgbc.org/certguide/fees. The source
for average hard and soft costs per square foot of implementing a LEED Existing Buildings program was a
2009 White Paper from the Leonardo Academy Inc., a nonprofit sustainability consultancy, which produced
the paper based on a survey sponsored by building efficiency company Johnson Controls Inc. (JCINYSE). Soft
cost data sourced from this White Paper included labor costs and the costs of building improvements
required to meet prerequisites and credits.

Data regarding the benefits of achieving a LEED

2009 certification were obtained from a variety of

public documents, including the 2009 White Paper from the Leonardo Academy, which compared the
operating performance of LEED

Existing Buildingscertified buildings to a benchmark of uncertified

buildings. This survey found that, after achieving a LEED

designation, operating costs of these buildings

were on average $0.17 per square foot less than the benchmark group: $6.68 compared to $6.85 per square
foot. Included in the operating cost reduction was a roughly $0.33 per square foot reduction in utilities cost in
the LEED

certified structures: $1.76 versus $2.09 per square foot.

iv
A literature review was undertaken to
identify other benefits, which included a 2011 article from Fuerst and McAllister in Real Estate Economics that
found LEED

certified buildings command an average rent premium of 4%5%

v
, which continued their
earlier research finding an 8%
vi
increase in occupancy rates for certified buildings. Other similar research has
identified values for rent premiums of between 2% and 17%, and occupancy rate increases of between 3%
and 18% in some cases.
vii


The national average occupant satisfaction rate is 50%,
viii
though LEED

certified buildings report a

27% higher average occupant satisfaction rate. Both increased occupant satisfaction and increased tenant
productivity are listed as noncash benefits of pursuing a green certification on page 7, but are not monetized
on the CBA due to a lack of specificity. It can reasonably be assumed that these benefits leading to happier
tenants are contributing factors to the ability of sustainable buildings to generate higher rents and have fewer
vacancies.

P a g e |5
Compared to national averages, LEED

buildings have approximately 34% lower emissions of

greenhouse gases (GHG), according to the U.S. Goods and Services Administration (GSA).
ix
I used the EPAs
Target Finder calculator to determine the average GHG emissions for a building of comparable size and age as
2500 Quantum Lakes Drive. According to Target Finder, the total GHG emissions are likely to be around 596.5
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). A 34% decrease would be equivalent to a
reduction of GHG emissions (postcertification) of 202.81 MtCO2e.

To conduct the costbenefit analysis, each of the costs and benefits outlined on pages 67 were taken
into account. Where outside data was available in units per square foot, I multiplied it by 54,000 (the square
footage of 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive), and performed the opposite operation in order to find the x/sf value
when the outside data was given as a flat cost, as for the USGBC registration fee. In addition, the methodology
included on page 6 does not break out the individual costs for pursuing each prerequisite and credit in the
LEED

for Existing Buildings rating system, due to the sheer size of that task and the intimate knowledge of
2500 Quantum Lakes Drives blueprints that would be required. Instead, an average cost of $0.73 per square
foot is used to quantify the capital improvements that would likely be necessary for a building of this size and
age to achieve LEED

certification. This average cost is based on reported actual costs of similar buildings
that recently pursued the same certification.
x


P a g e |6
Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) Methodology
The type of costbenefit analysis selected for this project is a Sustainable Return on Investment
(SROI). This will allow us to take into account the financial impact of pursuing a LEED

certification, as well
as consider the projects sustainable return, which in this case includes environmental and occupant health
benefits in addition to longterm cost savings. This methodology is believed to give the most comprehensive
look at the longterm benefits of 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive achieving a green rating because it takes into
account more than just cash impacts., such as quantifying the avoidance of GHG emissions.

Step 1: Classifying Costs and Benefits
The first step in this process was to identify each of the relevant costs and benefits and classify these
according to investment costs (or initial capital and operating expenditures) or recurring costs, or cash
benefits and noncash benefits. This breakdown is listed below.

Costs
Investment Costs
Registration with the USGBC for NonMembers: $1,200
xi
, which is $0.02/sf
Initial Review for a Project over 50,000 Square Feet: $0.04/sf
xii
, which totals $2,160
Miscellaneous Costs, which could include appeals for Complex Credits of $800 per credit, appeals for All
Other Credits of $500 per credit, or an Expedited Review of $500 per credit
xiii
, for a total of $0.01/sf
xiv

Labor Costs (Staff): $0.59/sf
xv
, which totals $31,860
Labor Costs (Consultants): $0.24/sf
xvi
, which totals $12,960
Costs of Building Improvements Required to meet Prerequisites and Credits: $0.73/sf
xvii
, which totals
$39,420

Recurring Costs
Recertification Costs Every Five Years: $0.04/sf, which totals $2,160
xviii

Labor Costs (Staff): 40% of the work of the initial certification, which would be 40% of $31,860 for a total
of $12,744

Total Investment Costs: $1.63/sf or $88,020 ($1.63*54,000)
Total Recurring Costs Every 5 Years: $14,904
P a g e |7
Benefits
Cash Benefits
Annual Reduction in Operating Costs: $0.17/sf
xix
, which totals $9,180
Higher Rents: 4%5% annual premium
xx
, which would equal rents of $14.99/sf versus $14.35/sf without
certification or an annual rent increase of $27,648 (based on 80% occupancy)
Fewer Vacancies: 8% higher occupancy rates
xxi
, which translates to an additional 4,320 sq. ft. of space
rented annually at a cost of $14.99/sf = $64,756 (based on a precertification occupancy rate of 80%)
Annual Cost Savings from Recycling: $0.01/sf
xxii
or $540

NonCash Benefits
Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Avoids 202.81 MtCO2e (at a spot price of ~$6.81/t CO2, according
to the January 16, 2014, EU Emissions Allowances price on the European Energy Exchange
xxiii
)
Increased Tenant Productivity
Increased Occupant Satisfaction

Total Cash Benefits: $102,124
Total NonCash Benefits: $1,381.14

Step 2: Determine the Discount Rate
This analysis uses a discount rate of 2.6%. Lacking a better way to identify the appropriate discount
rate, I went with opportunity cost. Money not invested by 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive in a LEED

program
could be invested in the stock market, which, as of September 5, 2013, was predicted to generate a 2.6%
xxiv

return in the coming yearsindicating that the building owners funds could potentially earn 2.6% a year if
not invested in a LEED

project.

Step 3: Calculate the Net Present Value (NPV)
The CBA, using a SROI methodology, is calculated for a 20year period on page 8.

P a g e |8





Y
e
a
r

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

C
o
s
t
s
R
e
c
u
r
r
i
n
g

C
o
s
t
s
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
C
a
s
h

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
N
o
n
-
C
a
s
h

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
N
e
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
2
.
6
%
)
P
e
r
i
o
d
N
P
V
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

N
P
V
2
0
1
4
4
4
,
0
1
0
0
4
4
,
0
1
0
(
1
0
%
)

1
0
2
1
2
(
1
0
%
)

1
3
8
.
1
1
1
0
,
3
5
0
.
1
1
-
3
3
,
6
5
9
.
8
9
0
.
9
7
4
6
5
8
9
1
-
3
2
,
8
0
6
.
9
1
-
3
2
,
8
0
6
.
9
1
2
0
1
5
4
4
,
0
1
0
0
4
4
,
0
1
0
(
5
0
%
)

5
1
0
6
2
(
5
0
%
)

6
9
0
.
5
7
5
1
,
7
5
2
.
5
7
7
,
7
4
2
.
5
7
0
.
9
4
9
9
5
9
9
2
7
,
3
5
5
.
1
3
-
2
5
,
4
5
1
.
7
8
0
.
0
2
6
2
0
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
9
2
5
8
8
6
9
3
9
5
,
8
3
4
.
0
5
7
0
,
3
8
2
.
2
7
2
0
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
9
0
2
4
2
3
8
4
9
3
,
4
0
5
.
5
1
1
6
3
,
7
8
7
.
7
7
2
0
1
8
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
8
7
9
5
5
5
4
5
9
1
,
0
3
8
.
5
0
2
5
4
,
8
2
6
.
2
8
2
0
1
9
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
8
5
7
2
6
6
5
6
8
8
,
7
3
1
.
4
9
3
4
3
,
5
5
7
.
7
6
2
0
2
0
0
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
8
8
,
6
0
1
.
1
4
0
.
8
3
5
5
4
2
4
7
7
4
,
0
3
0
.
0
1
4
1
7
,
5
8
7
.
7
7
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
8
1
4
3
6
8
8
8
8
4
,
2
9
1
.
3
5
5
0
1
,
8
7
9
.
1
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
7
9
3
7
3
1
8
9
8
2
,
1
5
5
.
3
2
5
8
4
,
0
3
4
.
4
4
2
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
7
7
3
6
1
7
7
1
0
8
0
,
0
7
3
.
4
1
6
6
4
,
1
0
7
.
8
5
2
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
7
5
4
0
1
3
3
1
1
7
8
,
0
4
4
.
2
6
7
4
2
,
1
5
2
.
1
0
2
0
2
5
0
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
8
8
,
6
0
1
.
1
4
0
.
7
3
4
9
0
5
8
1
2
6
5
,
1
1
3
.
4
9
8
0
7
,
2
6
5
.
6
0
2
0
2
6
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
7
1
6
2
8
2
4
1
3
7
4
,
1
3
8
.
9
2
8
8
1
,
4
0
4
.
5
1
2
0
2
7
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
6
9
8
1
3
1
1
4
7
2
,
2
6
0
.
1
5
9
5
3
,
6
6
4
.
6
6
2
0
2
8
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
6
8
0
4
3
9
6
1
5
7
0
,
4
2
9
.
0
0
1
,
0
2
4
,
0
9
3
.
6
6
2
0
2
9
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
6
6
3
1
9
6
5
1
6
6
8
,
6
4
4
.
2
5
1
,
0
9
2
,
7
3
7
.
9
1
2
0
3
0
0
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
8
8
,
6
0
1
.
1
4
0
.
6
4
6
3
9
0
4
1
7
5
7
,
2
7
0
.
9
2
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
8
.
8
3
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
6
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
8
6
5
,
2
0
9
.
2
8
1
,
2
1
5
,
2
1
8
.
1
1
2
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
6
1
4
0
4
4
9
1
9
6
3
,
5
5
6
.
8
1
1
,
2
7
8
,
7
7
4
.
9
2
2
0
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
5
9
8
4
8
4
3
2
0
6
1
,
9
4
6
.
2
0
1
,
3
4
0
,
7
2
1
.
1
2
2
0
3
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
0
.
5
8
3
3
1
8
1
2
1
6
0
,
3
7
6
.
4
2
1
,
4
0
1
,
0
9
7
.
5
4
2
0
3
5
0
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
4
,
9
0
4
1
0
2
,
1
2
4
1
,
3
8
1
.
1
4
1
0
3
,
5
0
5
.
1
4
8
8
,
6
0
1
.
1
4
0
.
5
6
8
5
3
6
1
2
2
5
0
,
3
7
2
.
9
5
1
,
4
5
1
,
4
7
0
.
4
9
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t

R
a
t
e
P a g e |9
Findings
The CBA on page 8 assumes an approximate twoyear timeframe required from initial registration
with the USGBC to the time the building completes its submission of credit paperwork and documentations
for review. This twoyear timeframe is subject to change based on the desired level of certification sought
(and the corresponding workload), but is considered typical based on many of the credits requiring at least
12 months of continuous monitoring and documentation to demonstrate compliance. However, the project
could start to see benefits accrue as a result of seeking LEED

certification even before certification is

awarded, because making building improvements in order to achieve certain credits can start to deliver
immediate sustainability increases for that aspect of the structureand thus deliver environmental or tenant
benefits right awayeven before certification is concluded. In addition, the perception that 2500 Quantum
Lakes Drive is becoming greener or a more comfortable, healthier place for employees to work could start
to increase rents in the building and increase occupancy before the certification process is complete. This is
why benefits begin in the CBA tables before the investment costs end, and why the periods start with 2014 as
Year 1 rather than 2016 as Year 1.

If the LEED

for Existing Buildings certification process is started in 2014, assuming a certification

during 2015, the project would become profitable starting in 2016 with a cumulative NPV of $70,382. By
2035, the building owners could have realized over $1,451,470 in NPV. Additionally, the environmental
impacts are noteworthy, as avoiding 202.81 MtCO2e is equivalent to offsetting the annual GHG emissions
from 42 passenger cars.
xxv





P a g e |10
Conclusions/Recommendations
Based on the findings of a positive NPV very early on in the projects life and continuing thereon, the
recommendation is that 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive consider pursuing a LEED

Existing Buildings Operation

and Maintenance rating.

It is important to note that the costbenefit analysis conducted herein does not assume a certain level
of LEED

certification, such as Gold or Platinum. The cost and benefit data used in this report are based on
consensus averages from a range of buildings with varying certification levels. To pursue a higherlevel
LEED

designation, costs would naturally increase, both with regard to the costs of capital improvements
necessary to achieve the harder credits or to earn a greater number of points for a larger increase in
performance under a particular credit, and with regard to the staff and consultant hours that would need to
be allocated to the project. The registration and review costs stay the same regardless of the level of
certification sought.

In addition, much of the benefit of pursuing a green certification is based on the assumption that,
once completed, the building owners can generate more rental income from tenants. Efforts were made to use
median values for expected increases based on consensus research; however, these cannot be assured, as
they are subject to more than just a buildings sustainable reputation (e.g., market forces) and have not
proven true in 100% of case studies.

There could also be additional benefits not listed in this report. For instance, the scenario of the sale
of 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive is not included in this analysis as there is nothing to support that action at this
time, but if the owner wanted to sell, the building could command a considerable price premium of
approximately 26%
xxvi
(based on literature) as a result of holding a LEED

certification. Moreover, LEED

and
Energy Star

buildings have been found to be more recessionproof

xxvii
than other commercial structures,
maintaining lower vacancies and thus better resiliency during hard times.

P a g e |11
Endnotes

i
Crystal Research Associates, LLC. Nanotechnology and the Built Environment: Investing in Green
Infrastructure. Second Edition, published December 13, 2012. Available from
http://www.crystalra.com/researchlibrary/investingingreeninfrastructure.
ii
U.S. Green Building Council. LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operation and Maintenance (Updated July
2013). http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20RS_EBOM_07.01.2013_current.pdf
iii
Property Valuation of Quantum Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, FL: 2500. CityData.com, (2014)
http://www.citydata.com/palmbeachcounty/Q/QuantumLakesDrive1.html
iv
Leonardo Academy Inc. The Economics of LEED for Existing Buildings: for Individual Buildings, 2008 Edition
(Revised February 2, 2009). http://www.leonardoacademy.org/download/Economics%20of%20LEED
EB%2020090222.pdf
v
Fuerst F. and P. McAllister, Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Effects of Environmental
Certification on Office Values, Real Estate Economics, 2011, 39: 1, 4569.
vi
Fuerst, F. and P. McAllister, An Investigation of the Effect of EcoLabeling on Office Occupancy Rates,
Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2009, 1:1, 4964.
vii
Dermisi, Sofia, Ph.D. (January 29, 2012) Performance of LEEDExisting Buildings before and after their
certification. Real Estate Research Institute Research. http://pacenow.org/wp
content/uploads/2012/08/PerformanceofLEEDRERI2012.pdf
viii
GSA Public Buildings Service. (August 2011). Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of
22 GSA Buildings. http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Green_Building_Performance.pdf
ix
U.S. Green Building Council. Green Building Facts. (2012)
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs18693.pdf
x
Leonardo Academy Inc. The Economics of LEED for Existing Buildings: for Individual Buildings, 2008 Edition
(Revised February 2, 2009). www.leonardoacademy.org/download/Economics%20of%20LEED
EB%2020090222.pdf
xi
U.S. Green Building Council. Building Operations and Maintenance Fees, LEED Certification Fees. (2014)
http://www.usgbc.org/certguide/fees
xii
Ibid.
xiii
Ibid.
xiv
Leonardo Academy Inc. The Economics of LEED for Existing Buildings: for Individual Buildings, 2008 Edition
(Revised February 2, 2009). http://www.leonardoacademy.org/download/Economics%20of%20LEED
EB%2020090222.pdf
xv
Ibid.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
Ibid.
xviii
U.S. Green Building Council. Building Operations and Maintenance Fees, LEED Certification Fees. (2014)
http://www.usgbc.org/certguide/fees
P a g e |12

xix
Arny, Michael and Barb McCabe. (April 2009). LEEDEB Lowers Operating Costs, Report Finds.
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/article/LEEDEBLowersOperatingCostsReportFinds10724#
xx
Fuerst F. and P. McAllister, Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Effects of Environmental
Certification on Office Values, Real Estate Economics, 2011, 39: 1, 4569.
xxi
Fuerst, F. and P. McAllister, An Investigation of the Effect of EcoLabeling on Office Occupancy Rates,
Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2009, 1:1, 4964.
xxii
Dermisi, Sofia, Ph.D. (January 29, 2012) Performance of LEEDExisting Buildings before and after their
certification. Real Estate Research Institute Research. http://pacenow.org/wp
content/uploads/2012/08/PerformanceofLEEDRERI2012.pdf
xxiii
European Energy Exchanges EU Emissions Allowance (January 16, 2014).
http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Emission%20Rights
xxiv
Market Valuations and Expected Returns. (September 5, 2013). http://www.nasdaq.com/article/market
valuationsandexpectedreturnssept42013cm272931#ixzz2quHwhRzs
xxv
Environmental Protection Agencys Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energyresources/calculator.html#results
xxvi
Fuerst F. and P. McAllister, Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Effects of Environmental
Certification on Office Values, Real Estate Economics, 2011, 39: 1, 4569.
xxvii
Dermisi, Sofia, Ph.D. (January 29, 2012) Performance of LEEDExisting Buildings before and after their
certification. Real Estate Research Institute Research. http://pacenow.org/wp
content/uploads/2012/08/PerformanceofLEEDRERI2012.pdf