Declining investments on Indian Energy Sector

Harish Chandanam
NICMAR/PGP ACM, Hyderabad, India
Email: chandanam.harish@gmail.com

M. Rajasekhar, Asst. Prof

NICMAR-CISC, Hyderabad, India

Email: mrajasekhar@nicmar.ac.in

I. Abstract
Construction sector is one of the largest end users of
environmental resources and one of the largest polluters
of manmade and natural environments around the
globe. Green buildings have experienced rapid growth
in the past several years. Rating systems have been
developed to measure the sustainability level of green
buildings. The purpose of rating systems is to certify the
different aspects of sustainable development during the
planning and construction stages and to incorporate
best-practice experience for achieving higher
certification level. The study reported in this paper is
part of a broader study where the objective is to
compare rating systems of GRIHA (India) &LEED
(US),In the context of India it is found that the rating
systems do not consider economic and climatic
conditions.
II. Keywords
Energy sector, investments
III. Introduction
India is the seventh largest country in the world. It has a
leading economy and it is home to over one billion people
living in various climatic zones. Construction plays a very
important role in the countrys economy contributing 8.1
percent of the GDP. Commercial and residential sectors are
major markets for the construction industry. These sectors
consume a lot of energy throughout the life cycle of
buildings, thus becoming a major contributor to greenhouse
gas emissions. As a first step towards green development,
Government of India mandated several corporate
organisations and institutions to use green practices in their
new construction.As we chart our developmental path, it is
important for us to keep our eyes on the environmental
damage that we create. It is extremely important to pause
for a while and carry out necessary course correction for
benefit of the Mother Earth and our future generations. It is
a well established fact that green buildings offer immense

potential to reduce consumption and regenerate

resources from waste and renewable sources and offer winwin solution for user, owner and the environment.
The green building is a building that has high-efficiency
in the use and consumption of natural resources, water,
energy, and materials that are used throughout buildings
life- cycle i.e. design, construction, operation, maintenance,
renovation, and demolition. Green building practices can
substantially reduce negative environmental impacts. Green
building reduces operating costs, enhances building
marketability, and helps in increasing workers productivity
and health benefits. The environmental benefits include
conservation of natural resources, waste reduction,
improvement of air and water quality, and protection of the
ecosystem.
Green building rating systems are designed to assess and
evaluate the performance of buildings from planning,
designing, constructing, and operations. Rating system
guidelines and standards can be categorized into two
groups, those which concentrate on specific building
components or areas, and those which identify the buildings
as a whole evaluation entity. As the concentrations of
different rating systems vary, the same building can be
green credited by one while failed to be credited by another
at the same time. India has a varying range of geographic
features from north to south and from east to west. Climatic
conditions also vary in these regions thus it is felt prudent
to consider climatic condition of the region in a green
building rating system.
In this study green building rating systems of GRIHA
(India) &LEED (US) have been compared. These systems
are subsequently compared on certain important issues such
as life cycle assessment, renewability, forest certification,
locally produced materials, health and safety of
construction worker, project management, and climatic
conditions. Subsequently, the results are discussed briefly
and conclusions presented.
IV. Green Building
Buildings have major environmental impacts during their
life. Resources such as ground cover, forests, water, and

energy arewindling to give way to buildings. Resourceintensive materials provide structure to a building and
landscaping ads beauty to it, in turn using up water and
pesticides to maintain it. Energy-consuming systems for
lighting, air conditioning, and water heating provide
comfort to its occupants. Hi-tech controls add intelligence
to inanimate buildings so that they can respond to
varying conditions, and intelligently monitor and
control resource use, security, and usage of fire fighting
systems and other such systems in the building. Water,
another vital resource for the occupants, gets consumed
continuously during building construction and operation.
Several building processes and occupant functions generate
large amounts of waste, which can be recycled for use or
can be reused directly. Buildings are thus one of the major
pollutants that affect urban air quality and contribute to
climate change .Hence, the need to design a green building,
the essence of which is to address all these issues in an
integrated and scientific manner. It is a known fact that it
costs more to design and construct a green building
compared to other buildings. However, it isalso a proven
fact that it costs less to maintain a green building that has
tremendous environmentalbenefits and provides a better
place for the occupants to live and work in. Thus, the
challenge of a green building is to achieve all its benefits at
an affordable cost. A green building depletes the natural
resources to a minimum during its construction and
operation. The aim of a green building design is to
minimize the demand on non-renewable resources,
maximize the utilization efficiency of these resources
when in use, and maximize the reuse, recycling, and
utilization of renewable resources. It maximizes the use of
efficient building materials and construction practices;
optimizes the use of on-site sources and sinks by
bioclimatic architectural practices; uses minimum energy to
power itself; uses efficient equipment to meet itslighting,
air conditioning, and other needs; maximizes the use of
renewable sources of energy; uses efficient waste and water
management practices; and provides comfortable and
hygienic indoor working conditions. It is evolved through a
design process that requires input from all concerned the
architect; landscape designer; and the air conditioning,
electrical, plumbing, and energy consultants to work as
a team to address all aspects of building and system
planning, designing, construction, and operation. They
critically evaluate the impacts of each design decision and
arrive at viable design solutions to minimize the negative
impacts and enhance the positive impacts onthe
environment. In sum, the following aspects of a green
building design are looked into in an integrated way.
Site planning
Building envelope design
Building system design (HVAC [heating
ventilation and air conditioning], lighting,
electrical, andwater heating)

Integration of renewable energy sources to

generate energy on-site
Water and waste management
Selection of ecologically sustainable materials
(with
high
recycled
content,
rapidly
renewableresources with low emission potential,
and so on)
Indoor environmental quality (maintain indoor
thermal and visual comfort and air quality)

V. Green Building Rating System

A green building rating system is an evaluation tool that
measures environmental performance of a building through
its life cycle. It usually comprises of a set of criteria
covering various parameters related to design, construction
and operation of a green building. Each criterion has preassigned points and sets performance benchmarks and goals
that are largely quantifiable.

A project is awarded points once it fulfills the rating

criteria. The points are added up and the final rating of a
project is decided. Rating systems call for independent
third party evaluation of a project and different
processes are put in place to ensure a fair evaluation.
Globally, green building rating systems are largely
voluntary in nature and have been instrumental in raising
awareness and popularizing green building designs.
Globally, this is emerging as a popular tool to drive the
building construction sector toadopt sustainable practices.
This
complements
the
command
and
control
measuresincluding regulatory mandates and standards.
Ratings are largely voluntary schemes thatare expected to
stimulate market and consumer interest in green buildings.
In fact, in mostregions voluntary building rating schemes
have often preceded regulatory mandates andhave also
helped in defining standards.One of the reasons for interest
in voluntary rating schemes is that the green
buildingsrequire a complex set of sustainability criteria
related to a wide range of resource andmaterial use which is
often difficult to package as a single regulatory instrument
upfrontfor enforcement. The advantage of the rating system
is that it helps to disseminate greenbuilding practices
outside the realm of regulations that are often impeded by
structuraland institutional barriers. This is a quicker way of

increasing market outreach and buildconsumer support and

awareness at the societal level. Green building rating is a
practicethat has the potential to become the standard. But it
needs to be widely understood bybuilding owners,
architects, building managers, and occupiers to make an
effective impact. The developers see `reputation` advantage
in marketing improved environmentalperformance of
buildings and capitalize on their investments in green
buildings. Awareconsumer clientele can also influence the
property market by pitching demand for greencredentials of
the buildings. Ratings help the consumer to compare
buildings and makethe appropriate choice. This creates
incentives for resource efficient buildings that areurgently
needed in our cities to reduce the resource impacts. Rating
is a legitimate way ofchanging practice and influencing
change. It can also be a powerful tool in mainstreaminga
large number of green measures that can collectively make
the impact. Globally, large numbers of rating tools have
evolved in a number of regions that areinfluencing property
markets towards more sustainable practices. Particularly,
multinational corporate offices, and large retails have
begun to demand sustainable spaces tomeet their global
environmental policies and also national policy obligations.
They arelooking for rating systems that are easily
understood and fairly simple to implement. Awide range of
rating systems have evolved in different regions of the
world based on localclimates and geographical conditions.

VI. GRIHA Rating System

Most of the internationally devised rating systems have
been tailored to suit the building industry of the country
where they were developed. The rating shall evaluate the
environmental performance of a building holistically over
its entire life cycle, thereby providing a definitive standard
for what constitutes a green building. The rating system,
based on accepted energy and environmental principles,
seeks to strike a balance between the established practices
and emerging concepts, both national and international. The
guidelines/criteria appraisalmay be revised every three
years to take into account the latest scientific
developments during this period. On a broader scale, this
system, along with the activities and processes that lead up
to it, will benefit the community at large with the
improvement in the environment by reducingGHG
(greenhouse gas) emissions, improving energy security,
and reducing the stress on naturalresources.The rating
applies to new building stock commercial,
institutional, and residential of varied functions.
Endorsed by the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy, Government of India as of November 1 2007,
GRIHA is a five star rating system for green buildings
which emphasises on passive solar techniques for
optimizing indoor visual and thermal comfort. In order to
address energy efficiency, GRIHA encourages optimization

of building design to reduce conventional energy demand

and further optimize energy performance of the building
within specified comfort limits. A building is assessed on
its predicted performance over its entire life cycle from
inception through operation. GRIHA was developed as
an indigenous building rating system, particularly to
address and assess non-airconditioned or partially air
conditioned buildings. GRIHA has been developed to rate
commercial, institutional and residential buildings in
India emphasizing national environmental concerns,
regional
climatic
conditions,
and
indigenous
solutions.GRIHA stresses passive solar techniques for
optimizing visual and thermal comfort indoors, and
encourages the use of refrigeration-based and energydemanding air conditioning systems only in cases of
extreme thermal discomfort.GRIHA
integrates
all
relevant Indian codes and standards for buildings and
acts as a tool tofacilitate implementation of the same.
VII. Development of GRIHA - The National Rating
System
GRIHA, the national green building rating system, was
developed by TERI after a thorough study and
understanding of the current internationally accepted green
building rating systems and the prevailing building
practices in India. The rating system was developed by the
Centre for Research on Sustainable Building Science
(CRSBS), TERI. CRSBS has been set up in TERI to
facilitate development and mainstreaming of sustainable
buildings, to improve performance levels of existing
buildings, and raise awareness on sustainable buildings.
CRSBS comprising architects, planners, engineers, and
environmental
specialists
has
been
offering
environmental design solutions for habitat and buildings
of various complexities and functions for nearly two
decades. With extensive experience in the field of
sustainable and green building design and operation, the
team came up with the GRIHA framework in 2005. Prior to
coming up with the indigenous rating system for India, the
team has extensively researched on several international
rating systems. The team has effectively utilized the
several multidisciplinary strengths and experiences of
their colleagues at TERI to arrive at the tool that
addresses
crosscutting
issues
in
the
design,
development, and operation of a green building. The
primary objective of the rating system is to help design
green buildings and, in turn, help evaluate the greenness
of buildings. The rating system follows best practices along
with national/international codes that are applicable to the
green design of buildings. The green building rating system
devised by TERI is a voluntary scheme. It has derived
useful inputs from the building codes/guidelines being
developed by the BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency), the
MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy), MoEF
(Ministry of Environment and Forests), and the BIS

(Bureau of Indian Standards). The rating system aims to

achieve efficient resource utilization and to enhance
resource efficiency and quality of life in buildings. GRIHA
has been adopted as a NRS (national rating system)
under the MNRE, Government of India, as of 1
November 2007. The MNRE has set up a technical
advisory committee comprising of eminent professionals.
VIII. Operationalization of GRIHA - The National
Rating System
A NAC (National Advisory Council) has been
constituted by the MNRE and is convened by the
Advisor of the Ministry. It comprises eminent
architects, senior government officials from the Central
Ministry, the BEE, the Central Public Works
Department,
and
select
state
nodal
agencies;
representatives from the IT sector, real estate sector
and developers; and representatives from Adarsh
(GRIHA secretariat) and TERI. The NAC is chaired by the
Secretary, MNRE, and co-chaired by the Dr. R K Pachauri,
Director-General, TERI. The NAC provides advice and
direction to the NRS and is the interface between the
MNRE and Adarsh (GRIHA secretariat). Its broad
functions are as listed below:

Guide the administrative structure for GRIHA

Decide a fee structure

Endorse the rating

Recommend incentives and awards by the

Government of India/state governments

Endorse modifications/upgrades periodically

IX. Modifications to GRIHA
Over the process of rating various projects registered for
GRIHA rating, Adarsh (GRIHA secretariat) carried out a
realistic assessment of applicability of GRIHA criteria to
various projects. After carrying out this exercise it was
recognized that some criteria in the current GRIHA
framework may not apply to a particular project due to
technical constraints that are specific to the particular
project (for example the criteria related to tree preservation
and compensatory forestation may not apply to a site that is
devoid of trees). It was also recognized that relative
weightage of points within the current framework needs to
be reassessed so that green interventions in a project are
given points based on its relative advantage to a project.
This resulted in modifications to the GRIHA document
which have been mentioned below. Criteria have been
classified as Applicable/Selectively-Applicable. Certain
mandatory clauses have been modified/removed based on
the applicability /selective-applicability of the criterion.

X. GRIHA Evaluation Process

The buildings shall be evaluated and rated in a three-tier
process. The GRIHA team shall first review the
mandatory criteria and reject a project in the event of
non-compliance with such criteria. The team shall then
check the documentation submitted for the optional criteria.
The checking is done by the GRIHA team to ensure that all
templates and drawings are filled-in and to ensure that the
documentation is complete in all respects (for the attempted
criteria). All documents shall be checked and vetted
through the appraisal process as outlined by GRIHA. The
GRIHA team compiles the first evaluation report and sends
to the client. The client is then required to resubmit details
as requested for by the Secretariat in the first evaluation
report. The documentation shall now be sent to the GRIHA
evaluators comprising of renowned sector experts from
landscape architecture, lighting and HVAC design,
renewable energy, water and waste management, and
building
materials.
The evaluators shall vet the
documentation and independently review the documents for
the award of points. The evaluator shall award provisional
points (if documentation is in order as per his/her
evaluation) and also comment on specific criteria, if need
be. The evaluation report shall be sent to the project
proponent to review the same and, if desired, take steps to
increase the score. The report shall elaborate on the results
of the evaluation committee along with its comments. The
report shall also list the criteria for which the
documentation
is
incomplete/inadequate/inconsistent,
detailing all the required information. The client shall then
be given one month to resubmit the document with
necessary modifications. The resubmitted report should
comprise only of additional documents/information desired
in the evaluation report, which shall again be put through
the vetting process as described above. The evaluation
committee shall then award the final score, which shall be
presented to an advisory committee comprising of eminent
personalities and renowned professionals in the field
for approval and award of rating. Provisional rating is
awarded that is converted to final confirmed rated on
meeting compliance as per Criterion 32. The rating shall be
valid for a period of five years from the date of
commissioning of the building. GRIHA reserves the right
to undertake a random audit of any criteria for which points
have been awarded.
A. Scoring method and award of rating
The registration form shall request details of top
soil, tree cover, hot water requirement, waste
water generation, organic solid waste generated.
The selectively applicable criteria cannot be
attempted by projects that do not meet the
threshold values for the selectively applicable
criteria.
The project shall be rated on applicable criteria
only and shall be given percentage scoring for

example, a project scoring 81% out of applicable

points shall qualify for a 4 star rating.
The information will be provided to Adarsh
(GRIHA secretariat) by the applicant and the
Secretariat will decide the points which are
applicable or inapplicable for the particular
project.
B. Scoring points under GRIHA
GRIHA is a guiding and performance-oriented system
where points are earned for meeting the design and
performance intent of the criteria. Each criterion has points
assigned to it. It means that a project intending to qualify
have to meet with each criterion and earn points.
Compliances, as specified in the relevant criterion, have
to be submitted in the prescribed format. While the
intent of some of the criteria is self-validating in
nature, there are others (for example energy
consumption, thermal and visual comfort, noise control
criteria, and indoor pollution levels) which need to be
validated on-site through performance monitoring. The
points related to these criteria (specified under the relevant
sections) are awarded provisionally while certifying and are
converted to firm points through monitoring, validation,
and documents/photographs to support the award of point.
The set of 34 criteria of GRIHA shall be broadly classified
into two categories applicable and selectively applicable.
The applicable criteria has two further sub categories
mandatory and optional/non mandatory.
C. Evaluation system of GRIHA
GRIHA has a 100-point system consisting of some
core points, which are mandatory to be met while the
rest are non mandatory or optional points, which can be
earned by complying with the commitment of the criterion
for which the point is allocated. Different levels of
certification (one star to five stars) are awarded based on
percentage of points earned. The minimum percentage
required for certification is 50. Buildings scoring 5060
percentage points, 6170 percentage points, 7180
percentage points, and 8190 percentage points will get one
star, two stars, three stars, and four stars, respectively. A
building scoring 91100 percentage points will receive the
maximum rating, which is five stars.

% Points
scored
5060

Rating
One star

6170

Two stars

7180

Three stars

8190

Four stars

91100

Five stars

XI. Evaluation System of GRIHA Criteria

S.no

Description

Poin
ts
1

Criterion
1

Site Selection

Criterion
2

Preserve and protect

landscape
during
construction/compensa
torydepository
forestation.

Criterion
3
Criterion
4
Criterion
5

Soil conservation (post

construction)
Design to include
existing site features
Reduce hard paving on
site

Criterion
6

Enhance
outdoor
lighting
system
efficiency
Plan
utilities
efficiently
and
optimize
on-site
circulation efficiency
Provide,
at
least,
minimum level of
sanitation/safetyfaciliti
es
forconstruction
workers

Mandato
ry

Criterion
9

Reduce air pollution

during construction

Mandato
ry

Criterion
10
Criterion
11
Criterion
12

Reduce
landscape
water requirement
Reduce building water
use
Efficient water use
during construction

Criterion
13

Optimize
building
design
to
reduce
conventional energy
demand
Optimize
energy
performance
of
building
within
specified
comfort
limits
Utilization of fly-ash
in building structure

Mandato
ry

16

Partly
mandator
y

Criterion
7

Criterion
8

Criterion
14

Criterion
15

Partly
mandator
y

4
2

Partly
mandator
y

2
1

Criterion
16

Criterion
17
Criterion
18

Reduce
volume,
weight, and time of
construction
by
adoptingefficient
technologyfor
example,
pre-cast
systems,
ready-mix
concrete, and so on)
Use
low-energy
material in interiors
Renewable
energy
utilization

XII. Overview of GRIHA

4
5

Criterion
19

Renewable
based
hotsystem

energy
water

Criterion
20

Waste water treatment

Criterion
21

Water recycle and

reuse
(including
rainwater)
Reduction in waste
during construction
Efficient
waste
segregation
Storage and disposal
of wastes
Resource
recovery
from waste
Use of low VOC
paints/adhesives/seala
nts
Minimize
ozone
depleting substances
Ensure water quality

Criterion
29
Criterion
30

Acceptable
outdoor
and indoor noise levels
Tobacco and smoke
control

Criterion
31
Criterion
32
Criterion
33

Universalaccessibility

Criterion
34

Innovation
100)

Criterion
22
Criterion
23
Criterion
24
Criterion
25
Criterion2
6
Criterion
27
Criterion
28

Energy audit and

validation
Operations
and
maintenance protocol
for
electrical
and
mechanicalequipment
(beyond

Partly
mandator
y

1
1
1
2
3

1
2

Mandato
ry
Mandato
ry

Mandato
ry

Mandato
ry
Mandato
ry

GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat

Assessment) is the Indian national green building rating
system. It was developed by TERI (The Energy and
Resources Institute) in 2007. This rating system is divided
into:
Sustainable site planning-21.2%,
Health and wellbeing- 9.6%,
Building planning and construction-7.7%,
Energy end use-36.5%,
Energy renewable- 7.7%,
Recycle, recharge and reuse of water-6.7%,
Waste management-4.8%,
Building operation and maintenance-1.9%,
Innovation points-3.9%.
The GRIHA rates the buildings from 50-60 one star, 6170 two stars, 71-80 three stars, 81-90 four stars, and above
90 % five stars. A building is assessed based on its
predicted performance over its entire life cycle from
inception to operation. The stages of the life cycle that have
been identified for evaluation are: pre-construction,
building design, and construction, and building O & M
(operation and maintenance). The issues that are addressed
in these stages are as follows.
Pre-construction stage (intra- and inter-site issues)
Building planning and construction stages (issues
of resource conservation and reduction in resource
demand resource utilization efficiency, resource
recovery and reuse, and provisions for occupant
health and well-being). The prime resources that
are considered in this section are land, water,
energy, air, and green cover.
Building O&M stage (issues of O&M of building
systems and processes, monitoring and recording
of consumption, and occupant health and wellbeing, and also issues that affect the global and
local environment).

XIII. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED)
The LEED Green building rating system is a program
that provides third-party verification of green buildings.
The LEED rating systems address both a wide variety of
buildings types, including commercial buildings, homes,
neighborhoods, retail, healthcare and schools; as well as
every phase of the building lifecycle; including design,
construction, operations and maintenance. Projects may
earn one of four levels of LEED certification (Certified,
Silver, Gold or Platinum) by achieving a given number of
point-based credits within the rating system.

A. FEATURES OF LEED
The LEED Green Building Rating Systems are
voluntary, consensus-based, and market-driven. Based on
existing and proven technology, they evaluate
environmental performance from a whole building
perspective over a buildings life cycle, providing a
definitive standard for what constitutes a green building in
design, construction, and operation. The LEED rating
systems are designed for rating new and existing
commercial, institutional, and residential buildings. They
are based on accepted energy and environmental principles
and strike a balance between known, established practices
and emerging concepts. Each rating system is organized
into 5 environmental categories: Sustainable Sites, Water
Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and
Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. An
additional category, Innovation in Design, addresses
sustainable building expertise as well as designmeasures
not covered under the 5 environmental categories. Regional
bonus points are another feature of LEED and acknowledge
the importance of local conditions in determining best
environmental design and construction practices.
B. THE LEED CREDIT WEIGHTINGS
In LEED 2009, the allocation of points between credits
is based on the potential environmental impacts and human
benefits of each credit with respect to a set of impact
categories. The impacts are defined as the environmental or
human effect of the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the building, such as greenhouse gas
emissions, fossil fuel use, toxins and carcinogens, air and
water pollutants, indoor environmental conditions. A
combination of approaches, including energy modeling,
life-cycle assessment, and transportation analysis, is used to
quantify each type of impact. The resulting allocation of
points among credits is called credit weighting.
LEED 2009 uses the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agencys TRACI1environmental impact categories as the
basis for weighting each credit. TRACI was developed to
assist with impact evaluation for life-cycle assessment,
industrial ecology, process design, and pollution
prevention.LEED 2009 also takes into consideration the

weightings developed by the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST); these compare impact categories
with one another and assign a relative weight to each.
Together, the 2 approaches provide a solid foundation for
determining the point value of each credit in LEED 2009.
The LEED 2009 credit weightings process is based on the
following parameters, which maintain consistency and
usability across rating systems:
All LEED credits are worth a minimum of 1 point.
All LEED credits are positive, whole numbers;
there are no fractions or negative values.
All LEED credits receive a single, static weight in
each rating system; there are no individualized
scorecards based on project location.
All LEED rating systems have 100 base points;
Innovation in Design (or Operations) and Regional
Priority
Credits provide opportunities for up to 10 bonus
points.
Given the above criteria, the LEED 2009 credit
weightings process involves 3 steps:
1. A reference building is used to estimate the
environmental impacts in 13 categories associated with a
typical building pursuing LEED certification.
2. The relative importance of building impacts in each
category are set to reflect values based on the NIST
weightings
3. Data that quantify building impacts on environmental
and human health are used to assign points to individual
credits.
Each credit is allocated points based on the relative
importance of the building-related impacts that it addresses.
The result is a weighted average that combines building
impacts and the relative value of the impact categories.
Credits that most directly address the most important
impacts are given the greatest weight, subject to the system
design parameters described above. Credit weights also
reflect a decision by LEED to recognize the market
implications of point allocation. The result is a significant
change in allocation of points compared with previous
LEED rating systems. Overall, the changes increase the
relative emphasis on the reduction of energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions associated with building
systems, transportation, the embodied energy of water, the
embodied energy of materials, and where applicable, solid
waste. The details of the weightings process vary slightly
among individual rating systems. For example, LEED for
Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance includes
credits related to solid waste management but LEED for
New Construction does not. This results in a difference in
the portion of the environmental footprint addressed by
each rating system and the relative allocation of points. The
weightings process for each rating system is fully
documented in a weightings workbook.The credit
weightings process will be reevaluated over time to
incorporate changes in values ascribed to different building

impacts and building types, based on both market reality

and evolving scientific knowledge related to buildings. A
complete explanation of the LEED credit weightings
system is available on the USGBC website, at
www.usgbc.org.

neighborhood development, school, and retail. This system

awards rating of buildings as certified, silver, gold, and
platinum. It uses simple checklist format to rate building
performance.
The rating system contains one element, indoor air
quality (IAQ) management during construction that
explicitly addresses construction worker safety and health.
The intent of this element is to protect the construction
workers and building occupants from potential air quality
problems during the construction or renovation process. On
successful implementation of an IAQ management plan, the
project receives one LEED-NC credit, which is almost
negligible and thus underscores the minimal consideration
that the rating system gives to construction worker safety
and health. It should be noted, however, that other elements
within the rating system which are aimed to improve the
safety and health of the end-user, such as the use of lowemitting materials, may benefit the safety and health of
construction workers as well.

XIV. LEED-2011 for India NC Rating System

The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) rating system has been developed by the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) in 2000. The LEED
India green building rating system was developed by IGBC
(Indian Green Building Council) in October 2006. The
LEED-2011 for India NC rating system is categorized into
sustainable sites-23.63%, water efficiency- 9.1%, energy
and atmosphere-31.82%, materials and resources-12.73%,
indoor environmental quality-13.63%, innovation in design
-5.45% and regional priority -3.64 %. The LEED
assessment tool is developed for new construction, existing
buildings, commercial interiors, core and shell, homes,
XV. Overview and Process
The LEED 2009 Green Building Rating System for New
Construction and Major Renovations is a set of
performance standards for certifying the design and
construction of commercial or institutional buildings and
high-rise residential buildings of all sizes, both public and
private. The intent is to promote healthful, durable,
affordable, and environmentally sound practices in building
design and construction.
7. Regional Priority (RP)
LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major
Renovations certifications are awarded according to the
following:

Scale
Certified
silver
Gold
Platinum

Points
4049 points
5059 points
6079 points
80 points and
above

GBCI will recognize buildings that achieve 1 of these

rating levels with a formal letter of certification.
XVI. Advantages of LEED Green Building Rating
System

USGBC delivered high-priority standards that gave

green modeling acknowledgement: Calling a building
green without setting prior standards would be a big
mistake. Therefore, USGBC has delivered high priority
standards that gave green modeling acknowledgement.
LEED gave a universal approach to being
green: LEED was born to evaluate building throughout
its lifecycle. LEED contained a point system that was

Prerequisites and credits in the LEED 2009 for New

Construction and Major Renovations addresses 7 topics:
1. Sustainable Sites (SS)
2. Water Efficiency (WE)
3. Energy and Atmosphere (EA)
4. Materials and Resources (MR)
5. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
6. Innovation in Design (ID)

based on the idea to earn points throughout the key areas

of the building. This gave a universal approach for
buildings across the globe to go green.
LEED gave an opportunity to businessmen to make
green design as a systematic investment: Earlier;
environmental friendly materials were not regarded as
legalized building. But after LEED this investment was
made legalized. It was a long term investment with long
term cost savings.
LEED is a process that will produce buildings that
conserve resources, reduce operating costs and pollution,
help address global warming, improve marketability,
protect occupant health, and improve occupant
productivity.
The LEED process has been enormously successful at
publicizing the need for, and benefits of, greener
buildings.
LEED helps to provide independent verification that an
owner is getting a sustainable building, not just an
architect or builders claim of green.
LEED documentation requires design teams to measure
building performance and those requirements for
measurement and documentation help architects,
consultants and clients understand the consequences of
their design decisions.

XVII. Disadvantages of LEED Green Building Rating

System

LEED
does
not
recognize
innovation
of
building: LEED has become a status symbol rather than
a means to create environmental friendly building. With
the point system; architectures are more concerned about
earning more points than creating environmental friendly
buildings. Along with this fact; LEED provides 4 bonus
points for innovative designs. But there is no parameter to
gauge the innovativeness of a building. Hence; you are
bound to lose even if you have created the most
innovative green building. This is a big minus point of
LEED.
LEED is a time consuming affair: It takes time to
understand LEED and it is such a time consuming affair
that you can spend weeks familiarizing with it. The other
option is to spend money to hire a consultant. The other
potential drawback is the high fees for registration and
certification along with commissioning fees. This makes
it very difficult preposition for the architects to invest in
LEED itself.
LEED does not take into consideration context and
performance of the building: LEED itself is a very
laughable concept because no matter how unsustainable
the building is, or unsustainable building can even
get LEED certification. LEED is a design tool and not a
performance evaluation tool for buildings. Although
LEED certified buildings can resort to energy
perseverance and water use there is no guarantee that it is
being followed.
First Cost: Designing and constructing a project in a
holistic and integrative way takes more time and brainpower and can cost from 1-10% more than a
conventional building. However, owners will benefit in
the long term due to lower life-cycle costs and improved
worker productivity. This issue is not related to LEEDor not they add environmental value. There is prestige in
getting a high LEED rating and the potential PR benefits
of certification begin driving the design process. A
simplistic attitude by the owner or design team is an
impediment to quality design. To avoid this approach,
we encourage clients to evaluate and set overall
sustainability goals with their design teams before filling
out a LEED score-sheet.
In conclusion, we can probably agree that LEED
certification is extremely important if you need
public recognition that your building is green, or
if it is a requirement of the institution. For all other
projects, there is enough evidence to suggest that
the LEED process is beneficial to your
organization, and to our communities by helping
to set meaningful goals, providing third party
verification, and announcing to your peers and

certification in particular but has more to do with

whether or not one feels sustainable design is worth the
potential up-front costs (a topic worth its own column).
LEED Certification administrative costs dont appear to
make the building greener: Project registration costs
$2250 at a minimum, and paying a design team and
contractor to manage the process may add anywhere
between $10,000 and $50,000 (depending on project
size and consultant experience). While these
administrative costs may not add any direct value to the
building, they do provide independent review and
verification to insure an owner that they are getting the
green building they paid for. Without LEED requirements
for independent review and documentation, there is a
tremendous tendency to compromise design intent due
to cost or schedule. The other part of this justification for
not doing LEED is the assumption that the money saved
from administrative costs will be used towards other
green measures. Unfortunately, of all the times Ive
heard this justification used I have not seen the money
reinvested towards greater sustainability.
LEED certification doesnt make a building significantly
more energy efficient, as a building can get LEED
certified with a mere 14% improvement in energy
efficiency. Unless the owner and design team set
appropriate energy goals from the start of the project, a
14-20% reduction in future energy costs is about what to
expect. However, a project pursuing LEED will have
access to energy modeling information that typical
projects dont have and will be more likely to make
decisions which will reduce future energy use beyond
the minimum requirements.
LEED-Brain Mentality: This is what happens when the
design team becomes obsessively focused on getting
credits,
regardless
of
whether
neighbors that you care enough about the process
and results to pursue LEED certification.
XVIII. Comparison of GRIHA & LEED Green
Building Rating Systems
Table shows the comparison GRIHA & LEED green
building rating system. The symbol indicates
presence or consideration of the issue in question in the
given rating system. The symbol x indicates absence.
For
example,
life
cycle
assessment
is
present/considered in the rating systems LEED and
GRIHA. The results are discussed in the following
section.

Table 1: Comparison of Green Building Rating System

Issue

LEE

Weig

GRIH

Weigh

D
Life
Cycle
Assessment
(LCA)
Life Cycle cost
Renewability
Certification
of
materials used
Locally Produced
Materials
Health and safety
of
construction
worker
Project
Management1
Climatic
condition7

ht

which rating system is more likely provide with the

desired press coverage.

8%

1%

2%
X

2%

4%

XX. Conclusion

1%
14
%

Green building is not a simple fusion of green design,

techniques, and materials, it is a holistic solution to
achieve the concept of sustainable development in the
project life cycle including project planning, designing,
constructing, operating and demolishing. in this paper
rating systems of GRIHA and LEED that are used in
India and USA are compared and it is observed that, in
the context of developing countries, economy is more
important so it is necessary to consider life cycle cost
of green building which is not taken into account in
both the GRIHA, and the LEED.As timber is the most
important material in building construction and cutting
of wood is harmful to environment, points should be
given to wood that comes from a sustainable source
and is certified through any credible program. Forest
certification is not considered in the GRIHA. Similar
to end-user safety and health, construction workers
safety and health must be considered in green building.
Project management is important to achieve economy
and reduce construction waste on site in the GRIHA,
project management aspect is considered. In India,
topography and climate changes from north to south
and from east to west. For such varied conditions, a
rating system should also consider topographical and
climatic factor.

1%

2%

4%
X

XIX. LEED Vs GRIHA

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

is well established and internationally renowned. It is
also the most favored rating system among the private
sector.
On the other hand, critics call it "too American" as the
United States Green Building Council (USGBC) has not
allowed it to be indigenized enough for it to work well in
the local context.
For example, water is a critical resource in India but
LEED offers far fewer points for water conservation in
comparison to GRIHA. Also, building commissioning is
a mandatory requirement in LEED, but this is not a
common practice in India, and is usually considered an
unnecessary expense. These are only some of the issues
that one might find frustrating when working with LEED
in India.
GRIHA on the other hand is made in India, for India and
thus has many criteria that make total sense in the Indian
context. Compliance criteria for worker safety and wellbeing is one such example.
But at the same time, since the rating is fairly new it
needs further improvement. Specifically, the material and
resource sustainability criteria are poorly defined and the
energy criteria can be too stringent for some projects to
comply.
The bottom line is, both LEED India and GRIHA are
applicable to a project. Both have their advantages and
disadvantages. It is up to the project team to choose
which rating system suits initial design and
specifications. Additionally, we may consider which
rating system is likely to provide with a higher rating and

Acknowledgements
I take this opportunity to express sincere thanks one
and all who helped directly or indirectly to bring this
paper successfully in full form.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Adler, A., Armstrong, J. E., Fuller, S. K., Kalin, M.,

Karolides, A., Macaluso, J., and Walker, H. A. (2006)
Green building: Project planning and cost
estimating 2nd Ed., R.S. Means, Kingston, Mass.
Bauer Michael, Mosle Peter, Schwarz Michael (2010)
Green Building Guidebook for Sustainable
Architecture Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (1e)
pp 15-19
Cassidy, R. (2003) White paper on sustainability: A
report on the green building movement Reed Business
Information, Building Design & Construction,
Clearwater
Ding K.C. (2008) Sustainable construction- The role
of environmental assessment tools Journal of
Environmental Management vol. 86 pp 451-464.
DNGB Rating Standard (2007)

Gambatese, J. A., Rajendran, S., and Behm, M. G.

(2006) Building toward sustainable safety and
health. Proc. ASSE Professional Development Conf.,
American Society of Safety Engineers Seattle.
[7] Introduction to National Rating System (2010)
GRIHA, An evaluation tool to help design, build,
operate, and maintain a resource-efficient built
environment Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
Government of India and The Energy and Resources
Institute New GRIHA Manual, Vol. 1 pp 1-42
[8] John A, (1992) The sourcebook for sustainable
design: A guide to environmentally responsible
[6]

building materials and processes Architects for Social

Responsibility, Boston.
[9] LEED-NC (2011) India Green Building Manual from
Indian Green Building Council
[10] Rees, W. E. (1989) Planning for sustainable
development: A resource book, UBC Centre for
Human Settlements, B.C., Canada.
[11] Sathyanarayanan RajendranGambatese J. A., and
Behm M. G., (2009) Impact of Green Building Design
and Construction on Worker Safety and Health
Journal
of
Construction
Engineering
and
Management.ASCE 135, pp 1058-1066 Vol. 10 (1058)