Whole-Building LCA Workflow Guide (2026): EC3, OneClick LCA, Tally, and the Schematic-to-CD Integration Sequence That Actually Works
Whole-Building LCA Workflow Guide (2026): EC3, OneClick LCA, Tally, and the Schematic-to-CD Integration Sequence That Actually Works
Embodied carbon is the line item nobody owns until somebody asks for it. Then everyone wants the workflow. This is the SD-to-construction sequence that actually moves the kg CO2e/m2 number — which tool to run at which phase, the EPD data hierarchy that survives Buy Clean and LEED v5 audit, and the procurement-spec discipline that turns a sustainability checkbox into a closeout document.
Whole-building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) measures the cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-gate environmental impact of a building's materials and systems, reported in kg CO2e/m2. The standard runs ISO 14040/14044 + ISO 21930/21931 + EN 15804 + ASTM D7972, computed in EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator), OneClick LCA, Tally (Revit plugin), or Athena Impact Estimator. The workflow integrates at four phases: Schematic Design (target setting), Design Development (early option screening), Construction Documents (procurement-spec embedded EPDs), and Construction (compliance verification). LEED v4.1 / v5 awards 2-5 points for the credit; CALGreen, Buy Clean California, GSA P100, Marin County, NYC LL97, Boston Net Zero, and Toronto Green Standard now mandate WBLCA reporting on commercial work above stated thresholds. Skipping LCA at SD costs 3-5x more to retrofit at CD because the structural and enclosure decisions that drive 70 percent of embodied carbon are locked in by DD.
A Mountain West data center owner ran a $240M hyperscale colo project through whole-building LCA at schematic design for the first time in late 2025. The owner's prior six projects had treated embodied carbon as a closeout reporting requirement — checked off at CD by a consultant, never actually integrated into structural or enclosure decisions. This time the LCA consultant came in at SD with a Tally model running against three concrete-mix scenarios, three slab-thickness scenarios, and two structural-steel-vs-cast-in-place foundation scenarios. The output was a 47-page comparison report flagging a 38 percent cement-substitution opportunity in the slab-on-grade and structural slab packages — moving from a 100 percent OPC reference mix to a 50 percent slag / 30 percent fly-ash blend that the local concrete supplier already had pre-qualified for the regional ready-mix market. The carbon savings were 9,200 metric tons CO2e across the structural concrete package. The cost savings, because the substituted SCMs ran cheaper than OPC at the regional spot price, were $1.4M on cement substitution alone. Total LCA consultant fee: $0.32M. The ROI moved from theoretical to line-item the moment the procurement spec hit Division 03.
Six months earlier on the East Coast, a biotech tenant fit-out at a $58M build-to-suit lab project ran the opposite playbook. The owner skipped LCA at design development on the rationale that NYC Local Law 97 reporting was an operational issue, not an embodied issue. The lender's ESG review at construction documents disagreed — LL97's amended embodied carbon disclosure language for buildings over 25,000 SF triggered, and the lender required a full WBLCA submittal as a financing condition. The consultant scramble at CD ran $87,000 over three weeks. The structural-spec rework — switching the long-span floor system from a wide-flange-plus-composite-deck assembly to a hybrid that hit the LL97 threshold — added $340,000 of design revisions and procurement re-bid. Total preventable cost: $427,000 plus six weeks of schedule. The same scope at SD, with proper option screening, would have cost the original $0.18M LCA fee. The owner's project executive characterized it later as the most expensive sustainability lesson of his career.
Those two stories are the entire argument. The owners and design teams who treat WBLCA as an integration discipline starting at SD deliver 30 to 50 percent reduction against typology baselines and frequently save more on procurement than the LCA work costs. The owners who treat WBLCA as a closeout report end up paying twice — once for the late-stage scramble, and again for the structural and enclosure rework that gets locked in well before the LCA team arrives. This article walks the framework, the four-tool stack, the four-phase integration sequence, the EPD data hierarchy, the regulatory mandates pushing WBLCA from voluntary to required, and the six failure patterns that show up on most non-integrated projects. For the underlying carbon-reduction strategies and material-by-material reduction levers, see our companion article on embodied carbon in commercial buildings.
What WBLCA Actually Measures
Whole-building life cycle assessment is the application of ISO 14040 / 14044 LCA principles to a complete building envelope, structure, and (in some scopes) interior systems and operational energy. The output is a quantified inventory of environmental impacts — global warming potential expressed in kg CO2e/m2 of gross floor area, plus acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, photochemical smog, and primary energy demand — across a defined life cycle. ISO 21930 and ISO 21931 layer building-specific methodology on top of the ISO 14040 framework. EN 15804 (the European Construction Product EPD standard, now also widely adopted in North America) defines the modular reporting structure. ASTM D7972 and ASTM E2921 cover building-specific LCA in the US.
The modular structure under EN 15804 is the part that trips up most owners and design teams the first time. The standard divides the building life cycle into stages: A1-A3 covers the product stage (raw material extraction, transport to factory, manufacturing); A4-A5 covers construction-stage transport and on-site installation; B1-B7 covers the use stage (operational energy, water, maintenance, and replacement over the reference study period, typically 60 years); C1-C4 covers end-of-life deconstruction, transport, processing, and disposal; and Module D captures benefits and loads beyond the system boundary, including recycling and reuse credits.
"Cradle-to-gate" reporting covers Modules A1-A3 only and is what most product-level EPDs disclose. "Cradle-to-grave" covers A1 through C4 and is the standard for full WBLCA. Most LEED, Buy Clean, and municipal mandates focus on A1-A5 — product manufacture plus on-site construction — because that captures the embodied carbon that the design and procurement decisions actually control. Including Module D (recycling and reuse credits) is technically allowed under EN 15804+A2 but requires careful documentation to avoid double-counting biogenic carbon, end-of-life credits, and recycled-content allocations across modules.
Reporting embodied carbon as kg CO2e/m2 of gross floor area normalizes the comparison across building sizes and typologies. A 200,000 SF distribution center with 220 kg CO2e/m2 (Modules A1-A5) carries lower embodied carbon than a 40,000 SF Class A office building at 480 kg CO2e/m2 — the office's structural and enclosure intensity per unit of floor area is roughly twice the warehouse's. Typology-specific median benchmarks published by the Carbon Leadership Forum, RMI, and CIBSE allow design teams to set targets relative to peer buildings rather than as absolute numbers. The 2026 CLF benchmark for North American Class A office is approximately 350-450 kg CO2e/m2 (A1-A5); for industrial / warehouse, 150-280 kg CO2e/m2; for higher-education, 400-550 kg CO2e/m2.
The Tool Stack — EC3 vs OneClick LCA vs Tally vs Athena
Four tools dominate North American commercial LCA work in 2026. Each was built for a different point in the design and procurement process, and the fluent design teams use two or three of them in sequence rather than picking one. Software pricing, EPD library size, BIM integration depth, and compliance template coverage drive the selection — but the more important variable is which phase of the project the tool is being asked to inform.
EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator)
Building Transparency / Carbon Leadership Forum tool. Focuses on procurement-stage product comparison using third-party verified Type III EPDs. Strongest for Buy Clean compliance, federal Buy Clean (IRA §60506), and CD-phase product-specific spec writing. Weak on BIM integration and full life cycle modeling. Sweet spot: Division 03 / 05 / 07 / 09 procurement.
OneClick LCA
Bionova (Helsinki). Largest verified EPD library globally (200,000+ products), full BIM integration via Revit and IFC, LEED v4.1 / v5 reporting templates, jurisdiction-specific compliance templates for NYC LL97, Boston, GSA P100, Toronto Green Standard. Strongest single platform for full-workflow commercial LCA. Sweet spot: full LEED documentation and multi-jurisdiction compliance.
Tally (Revit Plugin)
KT Innovations and GBI. Native Revit plugin that pulls model material quantities directly into LCA calculation. Strongest BIM integration of the four. EPD library smaller than OneClick but covers most North American structural and enclosure products. Sweet spot: SD and DD-phase option screening inside Revit while the BIM model is still being shaped.
Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (Ottawa). Oldest of the four and the most established for North American structural systems comparison. Free, but workflow is manual and EPD library is curated rather than searchable. Sweet spot: SD-phase whole-building option screening on standard structural typologies (steel frame, concrete frame, mass timber, light-frame wood).
The typical 2026 commercial workflow on a project pursuing LEED v5 and Buy Clean compliance uses Tally during DD inside the architect's Revit model to screen structural and enclosure options, hands the bill of quantities to OneClick LCA at late DD / early CD for the LEED documentation package, and uses EC3 at CD to write the procurement-spec EPD ceilings. Athena Impact Estimator shows up on smaller projects, mass-timber projects, and any project where the LCA work is being driven by the structural engineer rather than a dedicated sustainability consultant. The exact tool selection matters less than the data hierarchy and the integration sequence — but the combination of Tally + OneClick + EC3 has emerged as the dominant North American commercial stack for projects above $10M in construction value.
The Four-Phase Integration Sequence
The single most important variable in WBLCA effectiveness is when the workflow starts. The reduction levers — structural system selection, enclosure assembly selection, foundation type, slab thickness, glazing-to-wall ratio, mechanical-system embodied content — are sequentially locked in across schematic design and design development. By the time construction documents are issued, roughly 70 percent of embodied carbon is fixed by decisions made in the first 30 percent of design. LCA work that starts at CD can verify and report; it cannot reduce. The four-phase sequence below is what actually moves the number.
Schematic Design — Target Setting
Set the building-level kg CO2e/m2 target with the architect, structural engineer, and LCA consultant. Benchmark against Carbon Leadership Forum typology medians. Establish the reference study period (60 years standard), the modular scope (A1-A5 minimum), and the impact categories tracked. Document the target in the OPR / BoD.
Design Development — Option Screening
Run option screening on structural system (steel vs concrete vs mass timber vs hybrid), enclosure (curtain wall vs IMP vs precast vs masonry), foundation (mat vs spread vs deep), and slab strategy in Tally or OneClick LCA. Use industry-average Type III EPDs at this stage. Lock the structural and enclosure system selection against the SD target.
Construction Documents — Procurement Spec
Embed product-specific EPD ceilings directly into Division 03 (concrete kg CO2e/m3), Division 05 (structural steel kg CO2e/tonne), Division 07 (insulated metal panels and roofing kg CO2e/m2), and Division 09 specs. Write spec language requiring submittal-stage product-specific Type III EPDs, not industry averages. Tie compliance to substantial completion.
Construction — Verification
Verify submittal-stage EPDs against spec ceilings before product release. Run as-built quantity reconciliation in EC3 or OneClick at substantial completion. Generate the closeout WBLCA report against the SD target. File the LEED v5 / Buy Clean / LL97 documentation package. Address product substitutions through formal LCA re-run, not silent CO approval.
The phase that gets the least attention and produces the largest cost overruns when missed is Phase 03 — the procurement-spec language at CD. Most LCA reports are written as standalone documents that sit alongside the spec rather than inside it. That structure fails on every audit because the GC has no contractual basis to reject a non-compliant submittal. The fix is mechanical: the LCA consultant works directly with the architect and structural engineer to draft spec language that ties product-specific EPD requirements to the procurement section, with named ceilings (e.g., "Concrete supplied for Division 03 32 13 mat foundation pour shall not exceed 280 kg CO2e/m3 GWP per product-specific Type III EPD verified to ISO 21930"). When the spec carries the ceiling, the GC enforces it through normal submittal review. When the spec does not carry the ceiling, the LCA report is non-binding paper.
Phase 04 verification is the second-most-missed phase. Submittal-stage product substitution is a routine reality on commercial work — the specified concrete supplier is tied up, the IMP manufacturer's lead time slipped, the rebar mill changed. Each substitution requires an LCA re-run against the spec ceiling, not a silent change-order approval. Owners who require formal LCA re-run on every substitution close out their projects with a defensible WBLCA report. Owners who don't end up with a closeout report that looks compliant on paper and falls apart on audit when a third-party reviewer pulls EPDs against as-built procurement records.
Get an LCA-Aware Cost Estimate Before You Permit
TCG runs WBLCA-aligned procurement scoping into commercial preconstruction estimates — schematic-phase target setting, DD option screening, and CD product-specific EPD spec language for projects under LEED v5, Buy Clean, NYC LL97, Boston Net Zero, and federal Buy Clean. Upload your plans for an instant budget that prices the LCA workflow correctly the first time, or talk to our team about the integrated sequence on a cold storage, life-sciences, food processing, or data center project.
Try the TCG.ai Estimator IMP Install Estimator Book a CallData Hierarchy — Generic, Industry-Average, Product-Specific EPDs
The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is the unit of LCA data that sits underneath every building-level report. EPDs come in three tiers, and the tier mismatch problem is the single biggest reason commercial projects fail Buy Clean and LEED v5 audit. The hierarchy is documented in EN 15804+A2, the Carbon Leadership Forum's LCA Practice Guide, and ISO 14025 (which defines the Type III EPD format). Each tier has a defined acceptable use case, and using a lower tier where a higher tier is required is the most common workflow failure pattern.
Generic / Industry-Default Data
Average regional or national values pulled from databases like ICE, GaBi, ecoinvent, or the EC3 default library. Used as placeholders before products are selected. Acceptable for SD-phase target setting and early option screening only. Will fail every Buy Clean, GSA P100, and LEED v5 procurement audit if carried into CD specifications.
Industry-Average Type III EPD
Verified Type III EPD representing an industry segment — e.g., the NRMCA national concrete industry-wide EPD, the AISC structural steel industry-wide EPD. Acceptable for DD-phase option screening and some LEED v4.1 calculations. Insufficient for Buy Clean California product-specific compliance and federal Buy Clean (IRA §60506) procurement requirements.
Product-Specific Type III EPD
Verified Type III declaration for a single manufacturer's specific product line — e.g., a regional ready-mix supplier's specific 4000 psi mix, a specific IMP manufacturer's specific panel SKU. The only tier that survives Buy Clean California, GSA P100, federal Buy Clean, and LEED v5 procurement audit. Required at submittal stage on every mandated project.
The mechanical rule is straightforward: SD work can use generic data, DD work can use industry-average EPDs, but CD specifications and submittal compliance require product-specific Type III EPDs. The number of commercial materials with product-specific EPDs has grown roughly tenfold since 2020 — concrete, structural steel, rebar, glass, gypsum board, insulation (including mineral wool and IMPs), roofing membranes, and most flooring categories now have multiple product-specific EPDs available. The exception categories that still struggle for product-specific coverage in 2026 are MEP equipment, fire protection systems, and specialty millwork — all of which are typically handled in WBLCA scope through industry-average data with a documented gap-analysis caveat.
Regulatory Mandates by Jurisdiction
WBLCA has moved from voluntary to required across multiple US and international jurisdictions on commercial work above stated thresholds. The 2026 mandate landscape is fragmented — the rules differ on threshold, scope, modular coverage, EPD requirement, and reporting deadline — but the directional trend is clear: WBLCA is becoming a permitting and procurement requirement, not a sustainability optional. The mandates below are the ones that actively gate commercial commercial procurement and permitting in 2026.
Buy Clean California (AB 262)
Product-specific EPDs required on state-funded projects for structural steel, flat glass, mineral wool insulation, and concrete. Maximum acceptable global warming potential (GWP) ceilings published by DGS. Compliance verified at submittal stage by the procuring agency. Failure to comply results in product rejection and requires substitution with compliant product.
Marin County Low Carbon Concrete Code
First US jurisdiction (2019) to set kg CO2e/m3 ceilings on concrete mixes by strength class. Applies to all permitted commercial work. Compliance verified through product-specific EPD at concrete pour scheduling. Has driven regional ready-mix supplier capability development across Northern California.
NYC Local Law 97
Operational and embodied carbon caps on buildings over 25,000 SF, tightening through 2030 and 2050 emissions thresholds. Embodied carbon disclosure provisions in 2026 amendments require WBLCA reporting on most new commercial work and major renovations. Penalties for non-compliance scale with building size.
Boston Net Zero Carbon Zoning
Embodied carbon disclosure required on most new commercial work above stated thresholds. Targets aligned with Boston's 2050 net zero commitment. WBLCA reporting integrated into Article 80 large-project review process. Compliance verified at building-permit issuance and certificate-of-occupancy stages.
Toronto Green Standard Tier 3-4
WBLCA required with documented reduction targets at Tier 3 and Tier 4. Tier requirements escalate against typology baselines. Compliance reviewed by City of Toronto Green Standard team as part of site plan approval. Increasingly used by Toronto-area institutional developers as a procurement standard.
GSA P100 Facilities Standards
Federal General Services Administration P100 standard mandates WBLCA for new construction and major renovations of federal buildings. Aligned with federal Buy Clean Initiative. EPD requirements harmonized with IRA §60506 thresholds. Compliance documentation reviewed by GSA project-management team.
Federal Buy Clean (IRA §60506)
Inflation Reduction Act §60506 requires product-specific EPDs on federally-funded structural steel, concrete, asphalt, and flat glass that hit the lower 20-40 percent of GWP for the product category. Implementation administered by EPA, GSA, FHWA, and DOT. Compliance ceilings published per category and refreshed periodically.
Washington State Buy Clean Buy Fair
Washington State Buy Clean Buy Fair Act (HB 1103) requires GWP disclosure on state-funded structural materials. Aligned with federal Buy Clean and California AB 262 frameworks. Compliance verified through product-specific Type III EPDs at submittal. Increasingly cited as a model by other Pacific Northwest state legislatures.
California Title 24 References
California Title 24 building energy code increasingly references embodied carbon in update cycles. CALGreen Tier 1 / Tier 2 mandatory measures cover certain low-carbon concrete and material requirements. Compliance reviewed by local jurisdictions during plan check. Tightening on each three-year code cycle.
The mandate trend in 2026 is convergence — federal Buy Clean is creating de facto national EPD ceilings on structural steel, concrete, asphalt, and flat glass, and states from Washington to New York to Colorado are adopting frameworks aligned with the federal program. For multi-state commercial portfolios, the practical implication is that a single product-specific EPD requirement at procurement spec satisfies most jurisdictions simultaneously. The harder problem is the building-level WBLCA reporting requirement, where NYC LL97, Boston Net Zero, and Toronto Green Standard each have distinct templates, modular scope requirements, and reporting deadlines. Owners with portfolios in two or more of these jurisdictions should standardize on OneClick LCA or a comparable platform that carries multi-jurisdiction compliance templates rather than re-platforming on each project.
Six Common LCA Workflow Failure Patterns
Most failed WBLCA outcomes — failed Buy Clean audits, failed LEED v5 documentation, failed LL97 disclosure, schedule slips at building permit issuance — trace to one of six recurring patterns. None of these are technical complexity problems. They are workflow integration problems. The fix in every case is procedural, not analytical.
Late-Stage SD Skip
The team starts LCA at DD or CD when the structural system, foundation type, slab thickness, and enclosure assembly are already locked. The largest reduction levers are gone. The LCA report becomes a verification document rather than a decision tool, and the project cannot meet the typology-baseline reduction targets because the high-impact decisions are already fixed.
Data Hierarchy Mismatch
Generic data or industry-average EPDs carried from SD into the CD procurement spec. The spec passes drawing review and fails Buy Clean / GSA P100 / federal Buy Clean audit at submittal stage when product-specific Type III EPDs are required. Resolution requires re-spec, re-bid, and procurement schedule slip — typically 4-8 weeks on a major commercial project.
Scope Boundary Errors
Module A1-A3 reported as if it were A1-A5 or A1-D. Cradle-to-gate numbers compared against cradle-to-grave benchmarks. The baseline-vs-design comparison becomes invalid because the scopes don't match. LEED v5 reviewers reject the credit. Fix requires re-running the LCA against the correct modular scope and re-issuing the documentation package.
EPD Product-Substitution Gap
Submittal-stage product substitution approved through the standard CO process without re-running LCA against the spec ceiling. The closeout WBLCA report references specified products that were not actually installed. Audit-stage reconciliation against as-built procurement records exposes the gap and triggers re-documentation or credit denial.
Double-Counting Modules
Biogenic carbon credited in Module A1 and again in Module D without proper EN 15804+A2 modeling. End-of-life recycling credits applied in Module D against a Module A1 baseline that already included recycled content. The LCA report shows aggressive reduction numbers that don't survive third-party review. Common in mass-timber and steel-heavy projects.
Software Handoff Loss
Tally output handed to OneClick LCA (or vice versa) with assumption changes — reference study period, modular scope, regional grid mix, transport distances — not carried forward consistently. Two LCA reports against the same project don't reconcile. Resolution requires re-running both tools against a documented set of harmonized assumptions, typically a 2-3 week consultant scope addition.
The first three patterns — late-stage SD skip, data hierarchy mismatch, and scope boundary errors — account for roughly 70 percent of audit failures on Buy Clean and LEED v5 projects per Carbon Leadership Forum practice notes. The good news is that all three are mechanical to prevent: integrate LCA at SD, write the procurement spec with product-specific EPD ceilings, and document the modular scope explicitly in the OPR/BoD. Owners who require those three procedural moves at preconstruction kickoff prevent the bulk of WBLCA workflow failure modes before they have a chance to compound.
Coordination With Design-Build Delivery
Design-build delivery offers the same structural advantage on WBLCA workflow that it offers on ADA scope, MEP coordination, and constructability review — the GC, architect, structural engineer, MEP engineers, and procurement team are working under one contract from preconstruction forward. The four-phase LCA integration sequence requires continuous coordination across all five disciplines: SD target setting needs the architect and structural engineer aligned with the LCA consultant, DD option screening needs procurement input on regional product availability and lead time, CD spec writing needs architect-led specification language tied to procurement category structure, and construction verification needs the GC's submittal-review process to enforce the ceilings.
Under design-bid-build delivery, those handoffs span two or three contracts — owner-architect for design, owner-GC for construction, sometimes a separate LCA consultant on a third agreement — and the integration breaks at every contract boundary. The most common DBB failure mode is the LCA consultant producing a CD-phase report against assumed-final products that don't match the products the GC ultimately procures. The closeout report is invalidated, the credit is at risk, and the rework happens at substantial completion. Under design-build, the LCA workflow sits inside the integrated team's preconstruction sequence and the GMP carries the LCA-driven product cost premium transparently rather than absorbing it through change orders. Design-build delivery reduces WBLCA-related cost variance from the typical 8-15 percent under DBB to roughly 1-3 percent under integrated delivery on commercial projects above $10M in construction value.
The supplier and product side of the workflow is where the integrated GC adds the most direct value. TCG's IMP installation network — over 1M SF installed across 38 states with nine manufacturer partners including Kingspan, Metl-Span, CENTRIA, and AWIP, several of which publish product-specific Type III EPDs — turns the Division 07 enclosure spec from a generic specification into a pre-vetted product list with EPD-aligned procurement. The same dynamic applies on Division 03 concrete (regional ready-mix suppliers with product-specific EPDs), Division 05 structural steel (mills with EAF / DRI EPDs), and Division 09 finishes (flooring, drywall, and insulation with verified EPDs). The integrated GC's job is to map the spec ceiling against the actual regional product market at preconstruction, not to discover the gap at submittal stage.
Treat WBLCA as a Procurement Discipline, Not a Sustainability Report
The owners who run clean on WBLCA in 2026 are the ones who treat it as a procurement-spec discipline that gets integrated into Division 03 / 05 / 07 / 09 specification language at construction documents — with named product-specific EPD ceilings, submittal-stage verification, and substitution-protocol re-runs. The owners who get hit with $400,000 mid-CD scrambles, failed Buy Clean audits, and lender-required structural rework are the ones who treated WBLCA as a sustainability report sitting alongside the spec rather than inside it.
Run the SD target setting, run the DD option screening, write the CD spec language, verify the submittals. The compliance budget is real money — typically $1 to $8 per square foot on commercial work — but the rework budget is bigger, the schedule cost of late integration is bigger still, and the procurement savings from cement substitution and steel-mill EPD selection often exceed the LCA fee outright. The cheapest dollar in WBLCA is the one spent at schematic design. The most expensive is the one spent at construction documents trying to retrofit a workflow that should have started 14 months earlier.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a whole-building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) actually measure?
What is the difference between EC3, OneClick LCA, Tally, and Athena Impact Estimator?
When in the design process should LCA be integrated to actually move the carbon number?
What is the EPD data hierarchy and why does it matter?
How many LEED v4.1 BD+C and v5 points does whole-building LCA earn?
Which jurisdictions now mandate WBLCA reporting on commercial work?
What does an LCA consultant typically charge on a commercial project?
What are the most common WBLCA workflow failure patterns?
What is the difference between cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave, and modules A1-A5 vs A1-D?
How does TCG integrate WBLCA into design-build delivery on commercial projects?
- ISO 14040:2006 / ISO 14044:2006 — Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework / Requirements and Guidelines: iso.org ISO 14040 / 14044
- ISO 21930:2017 / ISO 21931 — Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works — Core Rules for Environmental Product Declarations of Construction Products and Services: iso.org ISO 21930 / 21931
- EN 15804+A2:2019 — Sustainability of Construction Works — Environmental Product Declarations — Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products: cencenelec.eu EN 15804
- ASTM D7972 / ASTM E2921 — Standard Practice for Building LCA: astm.org D7972 / E2921
- Carbon Leadership Forum — EC3 Tool and LCA Practice Guide: carbonleadershipforum.org
- Building Transparency — EC3 Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator: buildingtransparency.org / EC3
- One Click LCA (Bionova) — Building LCA Software Platform: oneclicklca.com
- Tally — Revit LCA Plugin (KT Innovations / Building Transparency / GBI): choosetally.com
- Athena Sustainable Materials Institute — Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings: athenasmi.org Impact Estimator
- USGBC — LEED v4.1 BD+C and v5 Reference Guides, Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction / Reduce Embodied Carbon credit: usgbc.org/leed
- California Department of Housing and Community Development — CALGreen Tier 1 / Tier 2 Mandatory Measures: hcd.ca.gov CALGreen
- California DGS — Buy Clean California Act (AB 262) Implementation: dgs.ca.gov Buy Clean California
- NYC — Local Law 97 (Climate Mobilization Act) and Embodied Carbon Amendments: nyc.gov Local Law 97
- City of Boston — Net Zero Carbon Zoning and Article 80 Large-Project Review: boston.gov Net Zero Carbon Zoning
- Marin County, CA — Low Carbon Concrete Code: marincounty.org Low Carbon Concrete
- City of Toronto — Toronto Green Standard (Tier 3 / Tier 4): toronto.ca Toronto Green Standard
- U.S. General Services Administration — P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service: gsa.gov P100
- EPA / GSA / FHWA — Federal Buy Clean Initiative under Inflation Reduction Act §60506: whitehouse.gov Federal Buy Clean
- Washington State Department of Commerce — Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Act (HB 1103): commerce.wa.gov Buy Clean Buy Fair
- ASHRAE Standard 209 / 211 — Energy Modeling and Building Energy Audits Aligned With LCA: ashrae.org Standards
- MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub — Smart Concrete Material Mix and Embodied Carbon Research: cshub.mit.edu
