Green Star Design & As Built. Scoping Paper

Transcription

1 Green Star Design & As Built Scoping Paper

2 Introduction This scoping paper seeks views from our membership on some important improvements that we intend to make to the Green Star suite of rating tools over the coming months. Specifically, NZGBC intend to adopt the Green Star Design & As-Built tool from Australia. The paper is split into two parts: Part 1: Green Star Design & As-Built: The next step in green buildings This section provides a general overview of New Zealand s adoption of the current Australian Design & As-Built tool and sets out some far-reaching changes that are proposed for Green Star over the coming 18 months. Part 2: Green Star Design & As-Built: In-depth This section provides a more in-depth review of the ways in which the current Design & As-Built improves on our current tools and gives the more technically-minded an opportunity to respond in detail to the changes.

3 Part 1: Green Star Design & As-Built: The next step in green buildings In 2007 NZGBC adapted the Australian Green Star rating system for use in New Zealand. Since then we have administered the scheme with light touch input from Australia with the result that the GBCA tools have evolved separately from, and in some cases in advance of, New Zealand. GBCA made some large-scale changes to Green Star in 2014 with the launch of a single new holistic rating tool for all new buildings (and major refurbishments) called Design and As-Built. Similarly, a holistic rating tool for all new interior fit-outs was launched in the same year. The new tools are an improvement over previous versions of Green Star representing leading thinking on Green Building design and construction. Improvements include: Buildings or fit-outs of any typology can be rated. The NZGBC tools are currently limited to offices, education and industrial buildings and the interiors tool is limited to offices. Benchmarks have been lifted to account for increased business as usual standards. This is to ensure that Green Star remains the cutting edge green standard. New credits have been introduced reflecting latest thinking on how to design and construct green buildings. These include credits that reward design for adaptation to climate change, improved life cycle impacts and reduced heat island effect. Mandatory built ratings. This ensures that buildings are not just green on paper but are actually built according to the standard. More flexible and cost effective. The new tool includes easy-to-use templates, streamlined documentation and flexible ways to demonstrate sustainability, making certification simpler and more cost-effective. NZGBC interviewed key stakeholders in 2015 on their views of our rating tools as part of a Strategic Market Review (SMR). A strong theme of the SMR was that NZGBC should adopt rating tools that cover a wider range of building types including existing buildings and whole communities. Another theme was that our existing tools are not updated regularly enough to keep them relevant. Following on from the Strategic Market Review a preferred option was identified by an NZGBC working group and presented to the Board in February The preferred option is that New Zealand should align much more closely with the Australian suite of Green Star tools and that we should therefore adopt all of the current GBCA Green Star tools including: Design and As-Built Interiors Communities Performance Both Green Star Communities and Green Star - Performance have now been launched in versions that include New Zealand Pathways in a single combined Australia/New Zealand manual. V1.1 of Green Star Communities was launched in September 2016 and v1.2 of Green Star Performance was launched in November It is NZGBCs intention to fully replace the current Office, Education, Industrial and Office Interiors tools with the Australian Design and As-Built and Interiors tools over the next months. This will allow us to rate any type of new building and ensure that Green Star is fully up to date in New Zealand. It will also mean that resources are shared with the larger Australian market improving the quality of our offering.

4 Phased Implementation Phase 1 The introduction of the Australian Design and As-Built and Interiors tools will be phased. Under Phase 1, which we are implementing now, NZGBC will be accepting projects for Design & As-Built and Interiors under the current Australian versions (both v1.2). As with Communities and Performance Design & As-Built and Interiors will require New Zealand pathways where it has been identified that New Zealand has different needs or does things differently. To speed up the introduction of these tools an addendum will be published in April 2018 setting out New Zealand pathways for credits that require them. The Submission Guidelines for both tools can be found here. A side-by-side comparison of our current Green Star v3 with Green Star Design & As-Built can be found in Appendix A together with commentary on the likely contents of the New Zealand addendum. To note Office, Education and Industrial projects will continue to be accepted for registration under the current New Zealand v3.2. However, projects that sign up for Design & As-Built now will be able to influence the New Zealand pathways to be adopted in the full version launch in 2019 see phase 2 below. Phase 2 The formal launch of the combined Australia/New Zealand Design and As-Built and Interiors submission guidelines would be in the middle of 2019 when GBCA launch the next major update to these tools. There would then follow a transition period of around 1 year during which it would be possible to register projects under our current tools. After this period (around mid-2020) NZGBC would migrate fully to Design and As-Built and all new projects would be required to register under the new tool. GBCA have launched a concurrent scoping paper that sets out some large-scale changes that they intend to make to Green Star when they launch their next major update to the tools in mid Since Australia and New Zealand will at this point have combined submission guidelines the changes will affect New Zealand. This paper gives members the opportunity to comment on the proposed direction of travel for Green Star. It also gives New Zealand the opportunity to influence the Australian Green Star tools where New Zealand does things better, as an example with the recognition of seismic standards, consideration of cultural values or incorporation of pathways for small projects. Timeframes The following table sets out the proposed timeframes for implementing Green Star Design and As-Built and Interiors. Overall the intention is to launch in the middle of This scoping paper marks the beginning of this process. An additional consultation paper will go out in July this year that sets out in more detail what will be in the new tools. The first drafts of the new tools are intended to be released towards the end of this year.

5 Summary of improvements between the GBCA Design and As-Built and NZ tools The overall scope of NZGBC s existing new-build tools and GBCA s Design and As-Built tool is very similar. We estimate that around 60% of the credits are almost identical, around 25% have minor differences and a further 15% have major differences. The detail of these differences is provided in Part 2. Below is a summary of some of the major differences and improvements. New Credits The Design & As-Built tool has some credits that will be new to NZ based projects. Some of these have been available to NZ projects as Innovation Challenges, such as Adaptation and Resilience and Life Cycle Assessment. A Commitment to Performance credit is included which sets the building up to target environmental performance improvements in the operational phase. Criteria to support site workers health and educational outcomes is included in the tool, a new Structural Timber credit recognising the reduced embodied impacts of timber construction, along with a credit relating to Heat Island Effect are also included. Benchmarks Benchmarks are more stringent than those in New Zealand in some cases. This may mean having New Zealand pathways that set different benchmarks than in Australia. Compulsory As-Built Rating All projects registering under Green Star Design & As-Built must target a Built rating. A Design Review Rating is an additional, optional review at the design stage. NZGBC believe that this is an improvement to our current approach whereby projects can register for a design rating only, without subsequently pursuing a Built Rating (albeit the Design Rating expires 2 years following Practical Completion). Assessment Process In June 2015, the GBCA released a guide outlining changes to the assessment process. This new process was entitled the New Generation Assessment Process, and this document can be accessed here. In summary, this new process involves comprehensive assessment of a handful of key credits, and core assessment of the remaining credits, with further comprehensive assessment undertaken where shortcomings are found in the core assessment. Currently in New Zealand, all credits and all supporting documentation submitted for each project are assessed in their entirety by two Assessors. For the majority of projects in Australia the staged assessment is undertaken by only one Assessor. The GBCA has also allowed for some transparency (i.e. direct communication) between the project and the Certified Assessor(s), particularly for larger and more complex projects. Volume assessment In Australia, a streamlined approach has been developed for projects where there are many common features being implemented across projects on multiple sites (i.e. a Standard Design). Weightings The new Design and As-Built and Interiors tools no longer have category weightings applied. There are 100 points available across all the credits and categories in the tool (plus up to 10 Innovation points). The credits have been designed such that the criteria will be applicable to the vast majority of projects. Where a project may have one or two Not Applicable point(s), achievement of a particular star rating will be based on a percentage of the total available points being achieved (e.g. 45% for a 4 Star rating, 60% achieved for a 5 Star rating, 75% for a 6 Star rating). The number of points available in each category of the Design & As-Built is roughly equivalent to the weighted points value of the aligning credits within the current NZ version of the tool.

6 GBCA scoping paper on the Future of Green Star This scoping paper is issued concurrently with a GBCA scoping paper on the future of all their Green Star rating tools which is available here. We urge all NZGBC members to contribute to this GBCA paper (in addition to this NZGBC paper). The streamlining of New Zealand s tools with Australia as outlined above will mean that decisions taken over the next year by the GBCA will affect New Zealand. This section gives an overview of the key points from the GBCA scoping paper. Background to the GBCA scoping paper The premise of the GBCA scoping paper is that some far-reaching changes are required to Green Star to account for some important changes to the global environment for buildings. These include: The signing of the Paris Agreement (as has the New Zealand Government) which make the need for reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions more urgent. The release of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Other global mega trends such as urbanisation, technological innovation, focus on human health and well-being, focus on resilience (including climate change adaptation) and globalisation. GBCA then outline what changes they intend to make to the tools to reflect these global drivers. These include: Making mandatory energy and carbon benchmarks more stringent, Introducing mandatory benchmarks for specific ratings (i.e. minimum energy performance for 5 and 6 Star rated buildings) Focussing more on people (well-being, social sustainability), Being more outcomes focussed (perhaps by retiring a Built rating after 3 years unless projectssign up to a Performance rating) Consolidating rating tools into a single universal rating system Considering technological change such as smart cities, driverless vehicles, smart grids etc

7 GBCA set out their vision of a world leading building In the paper GBCA set out their vision of what attributes a building or community should have to be World Leading or Best Practice in GBCA propose that all buildings, fitouts, and communities aspiring to be world-leading should be: Healthy built and operated to reduce or eliminate non-toxic materials. Healthy buildings have spaces built with low or non-toxic materials and products. They are well ventilated and well lit. They have amenities that enhance a person's well-being, mimic or connect with nature, and provide a comfortable environment. Resilient ready to address the future impacts of climate change, and also ready to be resilient to other shocks. A world leading asset should be resilient to natural disasters and man-made impacts. It should be resilient to long-term risks to its value. It should minimise its exposure to risk from impacting people s health and human rights. It should continue working in the face of adversity. A world-leading asset should make the community and surrounds more resilient too. Positive focused on doing good. An asset that is positive is highly efficient with the use of our limited natural resources. It has low energy consumption thanks to a well-designed façade. Renewable energy powers the building (on-site or off-site). It is fossil-fuel free and is carbon neutral by offsetting all their emissions. For new assets, this also includes reducing and offsetting its embodied carbon. Places able to respond to the needs of people and our planet. They should be smart, welldesigned, managed and governed. They must be affordable. They provide electric charging spaces for all spaces, and are designed for easy pick-up of people by drivers of car sharing platforms, or even automated vehicles. They are safe, comfortable, inclusive, and beautiful. People able to show that all are welcome. They are designed for everyone, beyond accessibility compliance laws. They are also designed to respect our culture and our history. They help encourage reconciliation and help people connect with each other. Assets must be built with consideration of the rights of future occupants, the workers involved, those involved in the supply chain, and those in the surrounding community. Natural environment considerate to the current and historic impacts to our natural environment. They must reduce any impact on the site, and enhance it as much as possible. A world leading asset contributes to increasing the ecological value and biodiversity of not the site and beyond. They use their influence to connect green corridors in the city and work to enhance a city s biodiversity.

8 Increased focus on Carbon Emissions and Ecology In line with the Paris Agreement GBCA intend to introduce more stringent mandatory minimums in terms of carbon emissions. GBCA propose that World Leading new buildings would need to use low amounts of energy and be powered by renewables (on-site or off-site). These assets would be equipped with a small amount of both on-site solar and storage. In most cases these assets would not be able to use fossil fuels at all. Any use would need to be offset with the purchase of renewable energy certificates. World leading buildings would also need to offset all their reduced embodied carbon. All other emissions would be offset or eliminated. Best practice buildings would be required to consume low amounts of energy. They would need to have the infrastructure to install on-site solar and battery storage. Only a small amount of fossil fuel consumption would be allowed. Embodied carbon would be reduced from typical practice. With regards to ecology and biodiversity, all assets would need to protect sensitive land from development. GBCA intend to introduce requirements to increase a site s ecological value. This follows work they have carried out that shows the potential that the built environment has to improve the ecological value and biodiversity in our cities. It also shows the value that this improvement provides to the built environment. World-leading buildings would be required to enhance their site conditions and that of adjacent sites as well. For example, this could mean working with local authorities to help create green corridors. It could also mean contributing to a broader fund for enhancing ecology and biodiversity in the surrounding areas (e.g. Melbourne s Urban Forest Fund, or through the purchase of ecological offsets). Mandatory Minimums Green Star currently gives a lot of flexibility around which points can be targeted to achieve a rating. This flexibility is part of Green Star s success. It has allowed project teams to explore the best options for the constraints they face. It has also led to other issues. Because of the flexibility there is no guarantee that occupants will get outcomes that they value. A building could achieve most credits in every category except for Indoor Environment Quality and still achieve a high Green Star rating. As a result, GBCA propose to change how the system works. While the points system will still exist, it may be in addition to a set of minimum requirements that must be met for each star rating. Each set of minimum requirements will provide clear and guaranteed outcomes that are valuable to both people and the planet.

9 Mandatory Performance Ratings Green Star has been encouraging New Zealand s property sector to build green since Since August 2016 we have expired Design ratings 2 years after practical completion as an inducement to carry out a Built rating. This is in recognition that built ratings are more robust. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is not good enough to simply rate a building on completion. The operational phase has an important impact (sometimes the most important impact) on performance and Green Star should recognise this. To an extent this was recognised with the introduction of Green Star Performance, a tool that facilitates the assessment of existing buildings in use. GBCA propose that all new buildings and fitouts must progress to a holistic operational performance rating to maintain their As-built rating. There will continue to be a mandatory assessment at construction stage (As Built). The As Built rating will expire within three years unless the project signs up to Green Star Performance. There will still be an optional design review. GBCA would support this change by: Introducing a simpler rating scheme to assess the operational performance of fitouts. This would be available to any fitout to use, but mandatory to new ones. Aligning the requirements between the construction phase and the operations phase. Introducing performance mechanisms in the construction phase. New buildings would be able to comply with some requirements through operational performance. Part 2: Green Star Design & As-Built: In-depth This section sets out in more detail the current differences between New Zealand s version 3.2 and the current Australian Design & As-Built and Interiors tools. As noted above GBCA intend to make some far reaching changes to the tool over the coming 18 months which may include changes to items set out below. However, to inform our upcoming addendum to the tool and our thinking around the longer term changes the following seeks views from our more technically minded members on how the current tool might impact New Zealand. See Appendix below for detailed comparison of credits etc. Management The focus of the Design & As-Built tool has shifted towards performance based outcomes and credits within the Management category reflect this. In addition to commissioning, tuning, metering and monitoring criteria, the Management category rewards projects that plan for adaptation and resilience, set performance targets, look after construction workers on site, and are well set up for operational excellence in waste minimisation. Some of the notable differences between the current Design & As- Built and New Zealand tools are: Commissioning includes a requirement for Air Permeability Testing Water and Energy Metering are included in the Management category and become a minimum requirement before a point for a monitoring system can be achieved Setting up a building for Operational Waste activities is included as a credit in the Management category and offers both a prescriptive and performance-based approach Adaptation and Resilience is included as a credit, awarding two points where a Climate Adaptation Plan has been developed and solutions incorporated into the building s design. A new Commitment to Performance credit recognises projects committed to measuring the building s operational performance, and reducing end-of-life waste Responsible Construction Practices includes criteria related to Environmental Management Plans/ Systems, but expands upon this to include a point available for projects with high quality support staff to promote mental and physical health of site workers as well as opportunities for education.

10 Energy and Carbon Emissions The New Zealand Green Star Office rating tool rewards projects that demonstrate improvement upon a set baseline for energy performance and carbon emissions. For Education and Industrial projects, a two-model approach is employed, where the designed building is compared to a basic code-compliant building to demonstrate improvement. In the Design and As-Built tool, the two-model approach is used for all building typologies, and the Australian building code is used as a baseline standard. The current New Zealand building code is set to a lower standard that the Australian equivalent, and as such we are seeking feedback as to which should be used as the baseline upon which to demonstrate improvement for New Zealandbased projects. Additionally in the current New Zealand Office Interiors projects are not required to undertake energy modelling. In the Australian Interiors tool, energy modelling is one optional pathway which offers significantly more points than are available in the prescriptive pathway. Products and Materials Life Cycle Assessment, currently recognised as an Innovation Challenge for New Zealand projects, is incorporated within the main body of the Design and As-Built tool. As an alternative, a project may choose to pursue prescriptive pathways for Concrete, Steel, Timber and Building Reuse instead of the Life Cycle Assessment pathway. There are many similarities between the New Zealand and Australian criteria within the Materials credits, for example the requirement for responsibly sourced certified timber and steel from responsible manufacturers, and recognition of independently certified building products. However, there are some differences in how the credits are structured, and more subtle differences that will need to be investigated for their achievability and impact upon the New Zealand supply chain. Some of these differences are: An increase in the benchmark for cement replacement within concrete used on a project Reward for a 5% reduction in the volume of steel used on the project as compared to a reference building The introduction of criteria to reward the use of structural timber based on it s reduced embodied carbon Recognition of product environmental certification schemes across all materials within the project rather than for a few specific material types as in NZ Green Star tools A minimum benchmark of 90% diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfill to achieve one point and a requirement for waste processing facilities to comply with audited environmental standards Land Use & Ecology In addition to criteria relating to protection and enhancement of native ecology, the Design & As-Built tool contains a credit relating to the Heat Island Effect that is not currently contained within the New Zealand tools. The Design & As-Built tool does not contain the Topsoil & Fill Removal from Site credit included within the New Zealand tools, so it will need to be determined whether or not this credit should be retained. In addition to criteria related to remediating contaminated land, the Sustainable Sites credit includes criteria relating to hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead and PCBs that may be found in existing buildings undergoing a major refurbishment. Emissions The Emissions category contains criteria largely similar to what is included in the current NZ tools, including Storm water, Light Pollution, Microbial Control and Refrigerant Impacts. Small Projects We would like to streamline Green Star to enable smaller and simpler buildings to achieve certification more easily. Any Others We outline above some of the major changes that will be reviewed and potentially modified to bring Design and As-Built in line with New Zealand practice, but we accept there will be others. Appendix A: Side by side comparison of credits

11 Appendix A Green Star Design & As-Built for New Zealand Projects The Design & As-Built tool was developed by the Green Building Council of Australia. The current version 1.2 was released in mid There is strong interest in New Zealand for a universal tool that can certify all types of new build developments. The following guidance provides some commentary as to the differences between the current Design & As-Built v1.2 tool and the NZGBC's current version of Green Star for new builds and major refurbishments - version 3.2. This document will form the basis for an Addendum to the Design & As-Built tool, providing guidance and modified criteria for New Zealand based projects using the tool. Amendments proposed below have yet to be approved and are subject to change. The comparison in the number of points available in the Design & As-Built and NZ v3 tools does not represent a direct correlation, as the criteria and benchmarks are different between the tools. The comparison is intended to indicate the relative importance applied to each initiative. Mar-18 Key Criteria readily applicable in NZ. No changes proposed to the Design & As-Built criteria for NZ based projects other than wording and guidance. Minor adaptation required for NZ projects and/or industry consideration sought Significant change or adaptation to credit required, and/or industry consultation required that does not exist in the New Zealand v3 tool NZ credit or criteria that does not exist within the Design & As-Built tool General Sections Building Area Definition Assessable Areas Allocation Glossary, lists of areas, list of evidence D&AB tool relies on Australian Building Code (NCC) to determine building types and allows the rating of mixed use developments. The NZBC definitions are not as clear as NCC definitions which are consistent for all building code clauses. NZGBC to provide guidance on building and area definitions for New Zealand based projects. Areas within a building of any typology are classified as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary spaces, and the criteria within each credit is applied as relevant to these spaces. This approach should be readily applied to New Zealand-based projects. The Design & As-Built tool does not use weightings across each category to identify which sustainability aspects are more significant. NZGBC seeks feedback from industry as to whether allocation of points across initiatives should or should not be modified for New Zealand based projects. Some additions and alterations will be needed depending on application of NZ and AU Building Code and other relevant standards. Project stage definitions in D&AB are different to NZCIC guidelines and this will need to be clarified. Credit Management 1 Green Star Accredited Professional 1 MAN-1 Green Star Accredited Professional 2 points for Design team member 1 point on-site GSAP Commissioning and Tuning 2.0 Minimum requirement Services & Maintainability Review Building Commissioning 1 MAN-2 Commissioning Clauses Building Systems Tuning 1 MAN-3 Building Tuning Independent Commissioning Agent 1 MAN-4 Independent Commissioning Agent The D&AB credit is broadly similar to the NZ credit, with improved clarity in GSAP scope and delineation of responsibility in line with the Aim of the credit. The D&AB tool incorporates the NZ credits in one larger credit but the criteria and project requirements are broadly similar. Air permeability performance testing is a requirement of criteria 2.2 of the Design & As-Built tool. This is not currently a requirement in NZ, and NZGBC seeks feedback on the inclusion of this criteria.

12 3 Adaptation and Resilience 2 No equivalent credit in NZ tools. - There is no equivalent credit in NZ tools, however the Adaptation & Resilience Innovation Challenge has been available for use by NZ-based projects since References to climate information will require modification. 4 Building Information 1 MAN-6 Building Information The D&AB criteria is broadly similar to that found in the NZ credit, with some additional requirements around log books and alternative ways of defining systems. This credit is easily implementable within the tool but could be a significant change for the NZ Commitment to Performance No equivalent credit in NZ tools. industry which has not typically used performance leases. Additional issues may be apparent in Wellington where Gross leases (including energy consumption) are common. Make good 5 provisions and waste minimisation for end-of-life would also be significant industry changes. 5.1 Environmental Building Performance 1 NZGBC seeks industry feedback on this criteria. MAT-1 is not a direct correlation to criteria 5.2, however is effectively covered by Design & As- 5.2 End-of-life Waste Performance 1 MAT-1 Shell & Core or Integrated Fit-out Built Credit 5 which rewards tenancy end of life waste reductions. Metering and Monitoring The D&AB tool incorporates and expands on the metering and monitoring requirements currently located independently within the NZ Energy and Water categories. Metering is a Metering Minimum Requirement ENE-6 Energy Sub-Metering minimum requirement of the D&AB credit (rather than awarded a point as in NZ's v3 tool), which 6.1 Monitoring Systems 1 WAT-2 Water Meters is a step up in benchmark. Responsible Construction Practices The D&AB credit is broadly similar, with an improved definition of an EMP and and EMS which 7.0 Environmental Management Plan MAN-7 Environmental Management Plan can be directly adopted Environmental Management System 1 MAN-7 Environmental Management System High Quality Support Staff 1 No equivalent credit in NZ tools. No equivalent criteria in NZ tools. Contractor Education Innovation Challenge has been available 8 Operational Waste 8A Performance Pathway: Operational Waste Management Plan 1 8B Prescriptive Pathway: Facilities provision MAT-10 Recycling Waste Storage MAN-A Environmental Management Operations 0.63 for use on NZ projects since The D&AB tool brings the NZ tool waste storage credit (NZ-MAT-10) into the management section through a prescriptive pathway but also allows compliance through a performance pathway. The area requirements are removed in favour of a reference to third-party guidance which is applicable to NZ also. The D&AB tool considers operational environmental management in the "Commitment to Performance" credit however this does not extend to the tenant's own environmental performance. Green Star Performance, now available in NZ, covers the operational phase of a building. MAN-B Learning Resources CR The D&AB tool requires projects to describe environmental initiatives within the "Building Information" credit only. There is no requirement to implement any explicit initiatives that can be used as a learning resource. MAN-C Learning Resources Incorporated into the Curriculum 1.11 The D&AB tool excludes credits relating to the tenant's procedures and policies which is covered in Green Star Interiors and Green Star Performance. MAN-D Maintainability 0.56 Building services systems maintainability reviews are incorporated into the Design & As-Built Credit 2 but the other building elements such as architectural finishes and structure are not

13 Credit 9 10 Indoor Environment Quality Indoor Air Quality 9.1 Ventilation System Attributes Provision of Outdoor Air Exhaust or Elimination of Pollutants 1 Acoustic Comfort 10.1 Internal Noise Levels Reverberation Acoustic Separation 1 Lighting Comfort IEQ-2 Ventilation Rates IEQ-5 Exhaust Riser ENE-3 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control IEQ-14 Internal Noise Levels Minimum Lighting Comfort - IEQ-12 Electronic Ballasts General Illuminance and Glare Reduction 1 IEQ-11 Electric Lighting Levels Surface Illuminance Localised Lighting Control 1 ENE-5 Lighting Control Visual Comfort 12.0 Glare Reduction Minimum Requirement - IEQ-9 Daylight Glare Control Daylight 2 IEQ-8 Daylight Views 1 IEQ-10 External Views Indoor Pollutants Low Emitting Materials: Applied Coatings Paints, Adhesives, Sealants and Carpets 1 Adhesives & Sealants MAT-4 Flooring Ceilings Internal Wall Linings/ Partitions Engineered Wood Products 1 Engineered Wood Products Thermal Comfort A Thermal Comfort: Prescriptive Pathway 14.1B Thermal Comfort: Modelling Pathway 1 IEQ-6 Thermal Comfort Advanced Thermal Comfort 1 The D&AB tool wraps up all air quality issued addressed by the NZ tool in this credit. References to AS1668 to be retained. The D&AB tool significantly expands the NZ v3 acoustic requirements, incorporating reverberation times and acoustic separation of spaces. This is a logical extension and already represents best practice for NZ building design aligned with AS/NZS standards. The D&AB tool significantly expands the NZ v3 tool lighting requirements whilst also expanding the scope to account for luminaire glare, colour rendering and local control. These are all logical extensions and already represent best practice for NZ building design aligned with AS/NZS standards. The D&AB tool wraps up glare, daylight penetration and external views with improvements in methdology and options for compliance when compared to the NZ tool. All requirements are readily transferrable to the NZ context. The D&AB tool amalgamates the VOC sources (paints, adhesives, sealants, carpets) into a single point. The NZ credit separates different materials types and rewards points independently. The NZ credit addresses additional types of materials (e.g. all flooring types, wall linings and ceiling tiles). The D&AB thermal comfort section is readily applicable to NZ with translation of NCC references. IEQ-1 Base Ventilation Rates Minimum code requirements not stipulted in the D&AB tool (legal requirements supercede this) IEQ-4 Air Change Effectiveness Not covered under the D&AB tool. This NZ only credit is rarely claimed. IEQ-7 Thermal Comfort Control This is covered under the prescriptive methodology of the D&AB Credit 14 but is not covered if modelling is undertaken. IEQ-B Respite Space Space requirements for tenants are not considered within the AU tool. This NZ only credit only relates to industrial buildings and is likely covered through legislation. IEQ-D Furniture for Learning Spaces In general the AU tool does not cover the IEQ (ergonomic) impacts of furniture. Ergonomics criteria is included in the Interiors tool

14 Credit 16 Credit Credit Energy Peak Electricity Demand Reduction 16A Prescriptive Pathway: On-site Renewables 16B Modelled Pathway: Reference Building 15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transport Sustainable Transport Water ENE-1 Energy ENE-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENE-4 Lighting ENE-5 Lighting Control ENE-E Efficient External Lighting ENE-7 Peak Energy Demand Reduction Prescriptive Pathway: On-site Renewables Modelled Pathway: Reference Building Slight change in benchmark in that the Design & As-Built credit has only one point available for prescriptive pathway (i.e. on-site renewables) for 15% reduction in peak demand vs NZ 1 point for 10%, 2 points for 15%. ENE-D Carbon Monoxide Monitoring and Control 0.81 Industrial process impacts on internal environment are generally not considered by the D&AB tool. The use of AS1668 for Indoor Air Quality in D&AB Credit 9 enforces minimum requirements in line with Building Regulations. ENE-F Stairs 0.81 ENE-G HVAC Zoning and Control TRA-1 Car Park Minimisation TRA-2 Fuel Efficient Transport TRA-A Travel Plan Associated points for this criteria included above for credit 11 TRA-3 Cyclist Facilities TRA-4 Mass Commuting Transport The D&AB Credit 15, wraps up all energy end uses and controls for a building and utilises a 2 model system in line with the Australian BCA NCC Section J Compliance methodology. NZGBC will be consulting with industry to ensure that this credit is modified appropriately for New Zealand. The referenced "Building Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Guidelines" will be reviewed and revised for New Zealand-based projects. The Design & As-Built tool has multiple pathways available, some of which are not applicable in New Zealand. The D&AB tool provides standard occupancy profiles and makes adjustments for lighting controls within D&AB Credit 15 via standardised adjustment factors contained within AS1680. These adjustment factors are not provided for HVAC systems; set-back and unoccupied modes are not recognised in the D&AB tool. The D&AB tool wraps up all mode change, carparking, bike-parking, commute distance and associated GHG impacts into a single performance credit with a prescriptive pathway option available. It also includes low emissions vehicle infrastructure which is not yet in the NZ tool. Some changes will be required to reference New Zealand territorial authority parking requirements, and in the public transport calculation methodology. In the D&AB Credit where the performance pathway is chosen (likely for rural/ suburban developments) a Transport Plan is developed by a suitably qualified transport professional. Where the prescriptive pathway is used a Travel Plan is not required. This pathway is more likely to be targeted for more urban environments where transport planning is likely a requirement of the local council. 18 Potable Water 12 WAT-1 Potable Water While the D&AB tool has an almost identical methodology to the NZ tool (which adopted the this methodology for V3.1), the allocation and number of points is different, with the Design & As- Built tool, with the full 12 points being awarded based on 95% reduction in potable water use. NZGBC seeks industry feedback on whether the relative weighting of points to reducing potable water use is appropriate in the New Zealand context. 12

15 Credit Life Cycle Impacts Materials 19A Life Cycle Assessment 7 INN Life Cycle Assessment Innovation Challenge 19B.1 Concrete 3 MAT-7 Concrete & Aggregate Prescriptive concrete criteria is largely similar to NZ criteria. Benchmarks and wording differ slightly. Current criteria in the NZ tool's steel credit relates to Responsible sourcing (covered under D&AB NZ criteria is more similar to D&AB credit 20, and product certifications (covered under D&AB credit 21). D&AB criteria promotes 19B.2 Steel 1 MAT-8 Steel Credit 21 and so points are accounted the use of high-strength steel and reduction of use of steel when compared to a reference for there. building. This criteria requires industry consultation to ensure applicability in NZ's seismic context. 19B.3 Building Re-use 4 MAT-2 Building Re-use Building Reuse criteria is largely similar to NZ criteria and readily applicable. D&AB benchmarks vary slightly but not significantly from NZ benchmarks. 19B.4 Structural Timber 3 No equivalent NZ credit Responsible Building Materials 20.1 Structural and Reinforcing Steel Timber PVC 1 21 Sustainable Products 3 22 Construction and Demolition Waste 1 MAT-8 Steel Broadly similar criteria to NZ tool. MAT-6 Timber Broadly similar criteria to NZ tool. MAT-3 Sustainable Materials (PVC) Broadly similar criteria to NZ tool. MAT-3 Sustainable Materials MAT-6 Timber MAT-7 Concrete recognised above in Credit 19 MAT-8 Steel MAT-A Furniture 2.53 MAN-5 Waste Management The D&AB tool includes a performance LCA methodology for building materials based on a comparison between the actual building and an agreed reference. An LCA Innovation Challenge has been available for use in NZ since 2015 and BRANZ has been actively working to promote uptake of LCA. The D&AB credit also allows for an alternative prescriptive pathway which looks at concrete, steel, building reuse and structural timber. Structural timber is new criteria introduced to the Australian Design & As-Built tool with version 1.2. The criteria should be readily applied in NZ. The D&AB tool wraps up the supply chain elements of the NZ steel, timber and PVC credits in this responsible sourcing credit This could be readily adopted but would require adjustments to the recognised certification schemes / industry bodies that are specific to Australia (e.g. Australian Steel Institute). The D&AB tool wraps up re-use, recycled content, EPDs, stewadrship and formal certification into a single category across all building materials. It also introduces a cost factor which assists with ensuring significance of interventions. The New Zealand Materials credits have developed over time to be more like the current Credit 21 and transition should be relatively straightforward. With the exception of Environmental Choice NZ, New Zealand tools already recognise materials certification schemes that have been assessed and approved by GBCA's Assessment Framework. The AU tool is similar to the NZ tool yet introduces an alternative fixed benchmark approach which will reward projects that reduce waste streams via design (as opposed to diversion from landfill). With the exception of the requirement for Australian waste processing facilities to meet audited environmental standards (not yet a requirement in the New Zealand credit), the criteria should be readily applied to NZ projects. However, to note is that there is a benchmark increase (1 point for 90% diversion) which may not be readily achievable for NZ projects. NZGBC seeks feedback on this. The NZ tool includes criteria to minimise treatment levels and encourages the selection of timber MAT-6 Timber - Toxicity products or species that do not require treatment. The D&AB tool does not include equivalent criteria. MAT-H Landscaping Materials 0.63 Landscaping materials are not covered under the AU tool. Local sourcing of materials would be recognised through the Life Cycle Impacts pathway, if used

16 Credit 23 Ecological Value 23.0 Minimum Requirement - ECO-1 Ecological Value of Site Ecological Value 3 ECO-4 Change in Ecological Value Sustainable Sites 24.0 Conditional Requirement ECO-1 Ecological Value of Site Reuse of Land 1 ECO-2 Reuse of Land Contamination and Hazard Materials 1 ECO-3 Reclaimed Contaminated Land Credit 25 Heat Island Effect 1 No equivalent NZ credit ECO-5 Topsoil and Fill Removal from Site This credit would be simple to implement, however NZGBC seeks industry consultation as to it's applicability and relative importance in the NZ context. 26 Storm Water 2 EMI-4 Stormwater Management replacement and modelling methodologies for pollutants (as well as the pollutant types themselves) may need to be contextualised for NZ. NZGBC will seek industry consultation to The D&AB tool is broadly similar to the NZ tool. References to Australian agencies will need review the detail and subtleties of the credit for applicability in NZ. 27 Light Pollution 1 EMI-6 Light Pollution D&AB tool is broadly the same as the NZ tool but offers some alternative compliance paths readily applicable in NZ. 28 Microbial Control 1 29 Refrigerant Impacts 1 Credit Land Use & Ecology Emissions Innovation EMI-7 Purge Control This is not explicitly covered within the D&AB tool but is likely covered by the "Sustainable EMI-3 Insulant ODP Products" D&AB Credit 21 which requires all products which may have a sustainability of transparency initiative to be included Available Available 30 Innovation EMI-8 Legionella D&AB tool is same as NZ with all relevant standards referenced being AS/NZS standards. EMI-1 Refrigerant ODP The D&AB tool wraps up other refrigerant credits into this single credit and offers multiple EMI-2 Refrigerant GWP pathways for compliance. Some of these are reasonably complicated but the direct use of the D&AB credit in NZ should be relatively straightforward due to the use of common standards and generally aligned practices. Total available excl. Innovation 100 Total available excl. Innovation Available Minimum requirement within D&AB tool needs to be revised for NZ-based projects. The D&AB ecological value is calculated with reference to native growth and how established this is on the site, providing a higher weighting to established versus newly planted vegetation. This criteria should be readily applied in New Zealand. The D&AB tool includes a conditional requirement for areas of "High National Importance" and equivalent references and terms would need to be sourced for NZ. The tool also wraps up land re-use and decontamination. Recent updates to the NZ tool makes it effectively the same as the D&AB tool. Recently developed Innovation Challenges may need review for applicability in NZ.