Sustainability Rating Systems for Infrastructure Projects

Transcription

1 Sustainability Rating Systems for Infrastructure Projects Inter-American Development Bank Brown Bag Presentation July 31, 2012 TerraLogic Transnational Associates, Inc.

2

3 Today s Presentation Sustainability Definition Infrastructure Rating System Overview Rating System Functions Envision Overview CEEQUAL Overview Rating Program Considerations Rating System Advantages Conceptual Implementation Actions

4 Sustainability Sustainability at the IDB means maximizing the positive environmental and social impacts of our work while minimizing the negative risks and impacts. IDB Sustainability Report, 2011

5

6 Infrastructure Rating Systems Chronology LEED (1998) Green Globes (2000) CEEQUAL (2003) GreenLITES (2008) Sustainable SITES (2009) GreenRoads (2010) ILAST (2010) STARS (2010) BE2ST(2010) FHWA-INVEST ( ) Envision (2012) Greenway (2012) VicRoads-INVEST (2012) 895 Sustainable programs and systems worldwide International Institute for Sustainable Development

7 Sustainability Rating Systems Programmatic level Consistency with organization s sustainability vision and philosophy Internal implementation and accountability Responsibilities and expectation Monitoring and verification Project level Identification of sustainable best practices Filling out rating checklist Establishing and meeting sustainable performance measures Monitoring and verification

8 Sustainability Rating System Functions Mechanism to integrate sustainability goals and actions into projects Identification of short and long term cost effective actions Tool for staff and management sustainability understanding and awareness Reference tool from planning through operation and maintenance Management tool to assess program accountability Public relations tool on sustainable practices

9 Envision 2.0 Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure

10 Envision 2.0 Purpose Initiate a systematic change to transform the way infrastructure is designed, built and operated Foster a necessary improvement in infrastructure performance and resiliency across full economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability Need to design infrastructure now to be operationally efficient for the next 50 years

11 Envision 2.0 Structure Stage 1- Self Assessment (future) conceptual/pre-planning phase Stage 2- Assessment, Verification and Recognition Phase 1 Planning and Design (current) Phase 2 Construction (future) Phase 3 Operation and Maintenance (future) Phase 4- Deconstruction/Decommissioning (future) Stage 3- Tool for Complex or Multi-Stage Projects (future) Stage 4- Optimization Support Tool (future)

12 Envision 2.0 Credit List

13 Envision 2.0 Credit Components

14 Envision 2.0 Credit Components

15 Envision 2.0 Credit Components

16 Envision 2.0 Assessment Summary

17 Envision 2.0 Certification Process Step 1- Initial project assessment (Owner & Team) Stage 1 Yes/No Checklist Step 2- Register project with ISI Step 3- Stage 2 assessment by ISI Accredited Professional Assessor with Team Step 4- Submit information to ISI for review Step 5- Third party verification by ISI Step 6- Internal authentication Step 7- Recognition by ISI

18 Envision 2.0 Recognition Levels Recognition Level Total Applicable Points (%) *Minimum in Each Category (%) Acknowledgement of Merit 25 5 Silver Award 50 8 Gold Award Platinum Award *Meet a minimum amount of the applicable points in each of the following Envision categories: Quality of Life Leadership Resource Allocation Natural World Climate and Risk

19 Colorado Pilot Studies (Post Construction) Transportation- Academy/Woodmen Road Interchange (Colorado Springs-URS) Stormwater Drainage- Little s Creek (City of Littleton-Muller Engineering) Geotechnical- Gold Camp Tunnel (Teller County-Shannon & Wilson) Recycling Facility- Aspen Rio Grande Recycling Project (City of Aspen)

20 What Makes Envision 2.0 Unique? Provides holistic systems approach to sustainability; Doing the right project instead of doing the project right Can be used on most types of infrastructure projects Provides community quality of life emphasis Includes project life cycle emphasis (cost, GHG)

21 What Makes Envision 2.0 Unique? (cont d) Addresses climate change and risk to infrastructure Provides a collaborative approach between team and stakeholders Is a reference tool throughout the project Promotes enhancement and restoration of resources

22 Envision 2.0 Added Value Promotes and complements an owners pro-active sustainability program and philosophy Emphasizes long term cost savings Life cycle costs analysis Resiliency and flexibility for long term operations Socio-economic emphasis Long term system operational monitoring Future economic assessment tool for alternatives Promotes cost effective conservation of finite resources Guides and measures project sustainability

23 Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure

24 Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL) CEEQUAL, LTD.

25 CEEQUAL 5.0 Overview Nine criteria categories: Project Strategy Project Management Peoples and Communities Land Use (above and below water) and Landscape Historic Environment Ecology and Biodiversity Water Environment (fresh and marine), Physical Resources Use and Management Transport

26 CEEQUAL 5.0 Overview (cont d) Performance measures 208 criteria ratings Certified assessors and verifiers Minimum fee is $5,600 for projects up to $1.55M and rise non-linearly up to projects of $773M

27 CEEQUAL 5.0 Overview (cont d) Assessment, verification and certification awards Pass >25%/ Good >40% Very good >60%/ Excellent >75% Separate awards for whole project, design and construction Competitive awards

28 NSO- No Scope Out

29 NSO- No Scope Out

30 CEEQUAL Advantages Strong performance measures More prescriptive criteria Yes/No type format Applicable to all types of infrastructure projects Addresses design and construction Well established system in UK

31 Institution of Civil Engineering Research and Development Enabling Fund

32 Things To Consider When Selecting or Developing a Rating System Will the sustainability rating system and program have upper management commitment, support and participation? Does the rating system criteria and scoring reflect the goals and objectives of an established sustainability program? Is there an incentive for the borrowers and project team to follow the rating system?

33 Art Hirsch-TerraLogic Howard Schirmer, Jr.-Transnational Associates, Inc.