“Use materials that have been extracted, harvested, recovered or manufactured within 500 miles of the site.”
My first response is . . .what is so special about 500 miles? Why not 400 miles, or 450 miles, or maybe three hundred, eighty-nine point two four five miles? The distance requirement appears to be pre-conceived. Unless anyone can provide credible documentation and backup for this number, the default assumption is that this number was simply generated as a ‘warm and fuzzy’ that sounded nice.
This requirement ignores the realities and complexities of the manufacture of building materials and technologies. It is, at best, just a point of reference. One manufacturer may be within the radius, but dependent upon many energy intensive deliveries from a long distance. Another may be well out of the 500 mile range but dependent on fewer deliveries at shorter distances. The practical effect may be to balance one another out.
This does not take into account manufacturing relative efficiencies as well. Two manufacturers may be equidistant form the site, but one may be more efficient with respect to transportation because of manufacturing processes and warehousing capabilities.
Also, there is more than one way to ship goods and materials. Barge and rail certainly is more efficient than via truck. This requirement does not address modality of transport. A manufacturer blessed with rail access is going to be more efficient than one that must rely solely on trucks. Of course on a project where the scale and scope merit, barging materials up (or down) the Mississippi, or the Ohio, or the Arkansas (etc.) . . . will be infinitely more efficient than bringing in the same materials to a site from a closer plant on trucks.
There is also the matter of topography. Draw a circle around Denver, Colorado. You will find Salt Lake City to the west and Topeka to the east both fit neatly in that circle. Specifying a product or material from either locality would comply with this requirement. But there is not an inconsequential difference, that being the matter of a low range of hills between Denver and Salt Lake City that go by the name of “The Rocky Mountains”. Trucks certainly have to work so much harder and expend so much more energy to struggle through these ‘hills’ than they do blasting across the plains and prairies of Kansas and eastern Colorado. Lash-ups of two or three trailers are common on the prairies but unheard of in the mountains . . .
For that matter, gas vs diesel . . . over the road rigs are all diesel, but locally one may find a mix of gas and diesel. If one is fortunate enough to find complying materials close in, then a delivery may come on a gas rig or a diesel rig. A diesel rig carrying a load is so much more efficient than gas rig . . .
And another thought, capacity of trucks as related to projects size and delivery schedule. One vender inside the 500 mile limit has access too/owns smaller trucks. Vender outside the 500 limit has access too/owns larger trucks. Vender inside 500 mile limit gets job. Large project, small trucks, many inefficient trips. If the vendor just outside the radius got the project there would be, fewer and more efficient trips.
And so it goes.
There is also market dynamics. This 500 mile requirement messes with the dynamics of a free market. What is better, to force a contractor to furnish an overpriced (due to an up and very active local economy) good or material available locally, or allow him to furnish an equivalent good or material at a much lower cost from an distant, but depressed market that could use a boost?
Also, manufacturers are not interested in being shut out of a market. They will attempt to create an address that serves as a complying point of reference for this requirement. Given the need to make profit, this will be done in such a way as to minimize any real impact/change to their operations. The effect will be a shell game, making a mockery of this requirement.
This also creates an ‘unnatural’ twist to the process of specifying goods or materials. An inferior or less appropriate item may be specified simply to get a coveted LEED point.
Silliness . . .
After I posted this another aspect of this ‘silliness’ came to mind. A rather obvious one at that. The 500 mile requirement is, “as the crow flies”. Transportation routes tend to be rather squiggly affairs. Two facilities could be straight line equidistant from the job site but one site may be considerably further away when actual travel distance is considered. Such minor barrier such as major mountain ranges or major rivers that one has to go far out of one’s way to go around or cross will dramatically skew distances. For that matter, just the way transportation routes have developed over time dictate that equal “as the crow flies” distances do not translate into equal travel distances.
With the dawn of computer technology and advances in mapping, drawing a circle on a map with a compass seems to be terribly primitive. It would be best to not even have this ‘500 mile’ requirement, but if one must . . . then why did the creators of this ‘regulation’ base it upon real world travel distances/routes as calculated by mapping software or an online entity such as Mapquest?
Even then, mapquest will suggest multiple routes. Oftimes, the fastest is not always the shortest. Which is more efficient? The shorter route most likely follows a route that may be more direct, but with slower speed limits and plenty of stop signs and stop lights . . . not very efficient . . . on the other hand, longer route with fewer stops, one will get up and cruise at more efficient freeway speeds.
Thinking about mapquest and route efficiencies points towards another problem with this 500 ‘as the crow flies’ requirement. A manufacturing facility just outside this limit may lose out to a facility just inside this limit , even though the ‘outside facility’ accesses the site entirely through a rural interstate route while the ‘inside facility’ must negotiate a mix of congested two and four lane urban/suburban routes.
This is all profoundly BANAL! Simply specifying what works best for the project and keeping a specification as open as possible will address this issue. The free market (Adam Smith’s invisible hand) will work this issue out. To state the obvious, it costs money to transport a good. The most efficient method of shipping is normally the cheapest method. A contractor will select the lowest priced good in an effort to win a bid, and in doing so will generally select a good that represents the highest level of transportation energy efficiency.
Again silliness, solutions in search of problems . . .
Just one more reason to avoid LEED as a time waster and a distraction. With respect to energy efficiency, best to work within the area of expertise where an architect has the understanding and control . . . designing a building envelope and HVAC systems that are the most efficient possible, given the client’s budget.