Building Operations

Archived Posts from this Category

March 30, 2010

Ensuring High Performance Buildings Meet Expectations, Part II

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Risk Transfer, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

As discussed in Part I of this post, LEED version 3.0, first implemented in June 2009 includes enhancements that place greater emphasis on closing the gap between performance expectations and actual performance.  These measures were likely included partially in response to studies focusing on performance of LEED buildings that illustrated a potential for large fluctuations in meeting projected performance levels. Performance is primarily based on energy and systems modeling, and one study of existing LEED buildings found that although LEED buildings are higher performing than regular buildings, the actual performance measurements deviate as much as 25% from projected levels.

Version 3.0 introduces several new elements which will work to close the gap between expected and actual performance. Buildings can now gain more points under both the LEED energy efficiency credits and measurement and verification credits, which include greater emphasis on commissioning, post occupancy monitoring and validation of energy use.

One key component to performance monitoring is that the USGBC now mandates that buildings provide post occupancy data on all LEED-certified structures. Buildings must provide the USGBC with post-occupancy water and energy bills, even if the building changes owners. The USGBC plans to collect and analyze this data to determine areas which need the most improvement and in turn to address these areas in subsequent LEED versions. Data collection is taken seriously, the USGBC has posted the following statement on its website:

“CERTIFICATION MAY BE REVOKED FROM ANY LEED PROJECT UPON GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE MPR.  IF SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE OCCURS, REGISTRATION AND/OR CERTIFICATION FEES WILL NOT BE REFUNDED.”

MPRs, minimum project requirements, were newly introduced with version 3.0 and require each project to meet certain specified criteria including compliance with environmental laws and providing the energy and water use data referenced above.  If a building’s owner fails to provide this data to the USGBC, the building’s LEED certification MAY be revoked.

The USGBC has not stated that once the building’s data is received and analyzed, if it is not meeting performance criteria, its certification will be revoked. As written, it seems that certification can only be revoked by failing to provide the data itself. We will need to wait to see how this new element plays out upon completion of more 3.0 projects. Maybe in the future the USGBC will take the more drastic step of de-certification for failure to meet projected performance if confirmed by data collection.

Obviously, green building will never be as prolific as it seems destined to be if buildings fail to perform.  The USGBC’s recent changes, along with the actions taken by the BSC and ASHRAE (discussed in Part I of this article) are huge steps in the right direction. This nascent emphasis on actual building performance is a trend that will increase significantly as green building continues to gain traction and a larger percentage of LEED buildings’ post-occupancy performance can be tracked and analyzed.

Stay tuned to the California Green Building Blog for new information on this topic.

 

March 22, 2010

Ensuring High Performance Buildings Meet Expectations – Part I

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Government, Innovators, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

It seems that green building made it to primetime in 2009. Not only are individual projects embracing third party rating systems, the past few years has also seen a meteoric rise in popularity of codifying green as hundreds of cities and towns across the country adopted green elements into their building codes. And, just this January, California became the first state to mandate a state wide green building code.

Despite the hype about the use of sustainable building methods, actual systems performance of green buildings is sometimes neglected and often overlooked. This is because much of the energy and building systems post-occupancy performance evaluations are based on pre and mid construction modeling and calculations. People have finally seriously begun to ask the question: are green buildings meeting their performance expectations?

If a building does not perform as promised, it not only fails to deliver, it could lose its marketing edge, lose its tax or government incentives, and could even be faced with a lawsuit over these failed expectations. Thankfully, this was also the year that these concerns began to be concretely addressed. California’s Building Standards Commission (BSC), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineer’s (ASHRAE), and the US Green Building Counsel (USGBC) all placed greater emphasis on building performance by including heightened commissioning and mandatory post-occupancy performance evaluations in their rating systems or mandates.

California’s new “CALGreen” building codes place emphasis on the typical areas such as site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, air pollution, and materials and resources, but also include the often under emphasized requirement of commissioning. Commissioning is added assurance that all the building’s subsystems for HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire/life safety, and building security are operating as intended by the owner and as intended by the building architects and engineers. It is a key element in achieving reduced energy levels and ensuring a high performance green building. The BSC recognized this and included in the CALGreen building codes a requirement for a pre-construction commissioning plan as well as the mandatory preparation of a commissioning report recommending post occupancy commissioning and systems operation training.

Another major recent development is ASHRAE’s newly released Standard 189.1, published in conjunction with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and the USGBC. The ASHRAE standard was developed with the intention that it will be adopted and incorporated into building codes. Standard 189.1 increases energy savings over the prior commonly used Standard 90.1. It requires that measurement devices with remote communication capability be installed to collect energy consumption data. Energy subsystems like the building’s HVAC system, or elevators are also required to collect and store data if the subsystems collective load exceeds specified thresholds.  Data must be collected daily with hourly energy use profiles and must be retained for at least 3 years. This will assist building owners and operators as well as local jurisdictions meet their sustainability targets and is intended to complement LEED and other existing green building rating standards.

Finally, the leading market based rating system developed by the USGBC, LEED, released a new version 3.0 last June which includes enhanced commissioning requirements placing further emphasis on building performance… Stay tuned for part II of this post for more information.

 

March 17, 2010

Efficiency Efforts Insulate Windows In Empire State Building

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Green Economy, Innovators, Make Money, Materials and Manufacturing, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Serious Materials, a California-based company, just announced an agreement with Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI) to “super-insulate” over 6,500 windows as part of a $13.2 million energy efficiency retrofit program for the nearly 80 year-old Empire State Building.

Note, I wrote they will “insulate” the glass, not replace it.  According to Sustainable Materials, here’s how it works:

“The existing glass of the building’s 6,514 double-hung windows will be removed from the window frames, separated, and cleaned in the processing space. New super-insulating IGUs [Insulating Glass Units] will be produced using the old glass panes, new spacers, suspended coated film, and special gas fill [argon-krypton gas mixture]. The IGUs will be re-installed into the existing window frames.”

These efforts alone will directly reduce energy costs by over $400,000 per year, and the remarkable fact is Serious Materials is using the old glass!

The Empire State Building project is a model of what needs to happen across the nation.  Old buildings are highly inefficient, and provide the greatest opportunity to gain real energy savings.  The Empire State Building plan calls for eight separate measures in lighting, insulation, electricity controls, HVAC, and tenant training and incentives.  Once all measures are complete, the Empire State Building retrofit team predicts a 33% reduction in cooling load, and a reduction of peak energy load by 3.5 megawatts (yes that’s just the reduction).  The retrofit team also predicts a 38%reduction in total energy use and an eventual energy cost savings of $4.4 million / year.  How about that for ROI?

Click here to find out more regarding the Empire State Building’s eight measures

Click here for the press release from Serious Materials

Editor’s note: Don’t miss tonight’s Clean Tech Event at McCormick and Kuleto’s. Click here for more information

 

March 4, 2010

AB 510 Signed By Governor Schwarzenegger! (Part 2)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 510 on February 26, 2010 (Click here for full text of AB 510) (Click here for press release and video). We covered the basic elements of the new law in Part 1 of our coverage last week (click here for that post). Now, we turn to some other elements of the law… some of the fine print, if you will…

The law balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. (This balance, and the fact that there is no discernable impact to the General Fund, are likely the reasons the bill passed the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote.)    In addition to lowering the proposed cap from 10% to 5%, an example of concessions to utilities is found in Section (3)(l).  That section requires that customer-generators pay the Department of Water Resources for all charges that would otherwise be imposed on the customer had they not entered the net-metering arrangement.

Another significant concession is found in Section (5)(B).  Under that section, the utilities can use the energy provided through net-metering arrangements toward the Renewable Portfolio Requirements (outlined in Public Utilities Code Section 399.15 and 387).  Under previous net-metering law, utilities were not permitted to count net-metering toward these obligations.  Now, utilities have a chance to meet the aggressive target of generating 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020.  (The utilities are far from reaching the Renewable Portfolio Requirements of 20% of energy from renewables by 2010).  If California residents and businesses continue to install solar and wind power generation, the utilities have a chance to meet the portfolio requirements, but the current 5% cap will have to rise again.

On the consumer side, there are very reasonable concerns that net-metering raises the energy bill for non-metering customers.  To assuage those concerns, the bill establishes a rate-setting commission that will set net-metering compensation rates and provide a report detailing 1) the market effects of net-metering and co-energy metering, and 2) how the authority’s rate schedule ensures consumers who don’t enter net metering arrangements pay the same for power that customer-generators pay.

AB 510 reflects a state leading the way in establishing energy independence.  It is great legislation now because it doesn’t tap into the General Fund, and it encourages private businesses (e.g. Solar City or Renewable Funding, LLC).  The law is another step forward that keeps California as a leader in United States renewable energy generation.

 

February 23, 2010

AB 510 On The Way To Governor’s Signature! (Part 1)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

AB 510 (full text here) passed both the Senate and Assembly, and Governor Schwarzenegger says he will sign the bill into law.  The bill raises the cap set on the number of homes and businesses that can take advantage of net energy metering.  Yes, there’s a cap!  The utilities don’t want “customer-generators” producing power without limit, and the government appears concerned the customers will somehow tip the “balance of power” between customer-generators and utilities (yes, that’s an energy pun).

At its core, the bill states utilities are not required to issue permits and enter agreements with “customer-generators” (residential and commercial solar and wind power producers) beyond 5% of the utilities’ aggregate customer peak power demand.  The previous cap was 2.5%.

The legislation also addresses co-energy metering.  Co-energy metering is an arrangement between publicly owned utilities and customer-generators who produce between 10kw (50kw for wind) and 1MW.  These generators are compensated based on the time of energy use and generation.

On the other hand, standard net-metering arrangements are for customer-generators who produce 3 -10kw.  The rate at which net-metering customers are compensated is either a “time of use” model such as that with the co-energy metering producers, or a “baseline” model.

A ratemaking authority (also described in the bill) sets the rates for compensating customer-generators who have an energy surplus at the end of the year and follow the baseline model. The primary goal for the rate-making authority is to set a price that ensures non-participating customers pay the same for energy they would have otherwise paid had no net-metering been used.

To its credit, the bill allows the ratemaking authority to compensate net energy producers for the value of the electricity itself, AND the value of the renewable attributes of the electricity.  This little nod allows net energy producers to receive a bonus if the renewable attributes of the energy production add indefinite or unforeseen benefits (Cap and Trade anyone?)

Congratulations (I hope not premature) to AB 510 sponsor, Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (14th District).  The bill was proposed last year as AB 560 (click here for more of that story), but it died in committee.  We’re glad to see it is on its way to the finish line this time!

Editor’s Note: Stay tuned for Part 2 of this post that will discuss other requirements and considerations in the bill. UPDATE: Click Here For Part 2

 

February 9, 2010

The Grass Is Green And So Is The Stadium

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Finance, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Stadiums.  They’re large, and they’re empty for large amounts of time.  Because of this strange dichotomy, stadiums are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain.  They are also expensive to build.  Construction of the new Yankee stadium cost $1.5 billion.  All that money and a dearth of environmental considerations. Why?!

A few new stadiums are showing better judgment.  The Washington Nationals started the trend a few years ago with the first LEED Silver professional stadium, (more info here).  The Florida Marlins are joining that club with a LEED Silver stadium of their own.  Other venues are showing a commitment to the environment.   The Phoenix Suns, NY Giants and Jets (VIDEO!), NY Mets, San Francisco Giants, and New England Patriots either have or plan environmental efforts or LEED qualifying measures for their stadiums.  The EPA is even helping some of the projects (More info here)

Let’s not forget these efforts are not always smooth.  Remember the labor controversy around the green roof at the Target Center in Minneapolis? (I’m still looking to see how that was resolved – stay tuned).

But, more to the point, public money is regularly required to build these new structures, so implementing green measures should be a required part of the package.  Generally, states are moving to require green municipal buildings, and the federal government already requires it.  How did the new Yankee stadium get city dollars and federal tax breaks and still end up a relic of inefficiency?  It’s disappointing and short-sighted.  The Federal government and many states have long required that large structures for the public must include sustainable measures.  It’s time all publicly financed stadiums get included.  I’m not saying every stadium needs to meet LEED standards, but at 1.5 billion, I’m guessing they could have found some room in the budget for waterless urinals or solar panels. C’mon Yankees, you lead in everything else!

Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints!!  Pitchers and catchers, report in seven days…

 

July 15, 2009

California To Get $183 Million to Weatherize Homes

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

California will get $183 million in federal funds just to weatherize homes. Now, this is a tremendous improvement from the $6.3 million originally budgeted, but I’m speculating there’s a dark side to this story…

The reason there is a push of money into the weatherization program is because money in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) that is set aside for construction is underutilized. Remember, projects need to be “shovel ready” to receive money under ARRA.  With state budgets in the tank before ARRA, there are not a lot of projects that fit the criteria. Now, money is still on the table, and the clock ticking. The federal government is looking for ways to spend and get the construction industry back on its feet.  

Weatherization is a good start.  It addresses remodeling, which is an area of construction that is woefully overlooked by the green building sector.

Check back here later to find out more about ARRA funds and green building.  In the meantime, click here  to read an article from the AP on the weatherization windfall.

 

June 22, 2009

Green Hospitals

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Building and Design, Building Operations, Conferences / Conventions / Events, Law, Legislation, and Policy, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

A key objective of green building is improving the health of building inhabitants.  The US EPA has reported that Americans spend 90% of their time on average indoors, making healthy indoor environments seem like an obvious choice. And building a healthy environment for healing seems like an even more obvious choice.  Centuries ago, didn’t doctor’s instruct the sick to recuperate  in the countryside partially because something about clean air and a non-toxic environment led to healing? Well, it seems that modern medicine has begun to recall this basic remedy, and the push for greening healthcare environments has finally begun to make some inroads.

In San Francisco last month a partner at our firm, Eric Phillips, spoke at the Greening Hospitals Breakfast Form event organized and sponsored by Turner Construction, HDR Architects, Mazzetti & Associates and Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes. The forum was a chance for hospital employees, contractors and design professionals in the healthcare trade to obtain an inside scoop on the newest offerings from organizations  working to facilitate green hospital construction. Green hospital construction faces specific challenges such as 24 hour energy loads, excessive amounts of chemicals and contaminated wastes, and fragile inhabitants. Healthcare facility owners, designers and contractors also have the additional  legal challenges of complying with strict regulations that ensure the safety of their buildings. In California, OSHPD is the agency overseeing all hospital construction, adding yet another hurdle to building healthcare facilities.

Other speakers at the forum included members from The Green Guide for Healthcare (GGHC)  the USGBC, and the The Global Health and Safety Initiative (GHSI). Each of the speakers  explained how their organizations products and services will assist in creating healthy and green healthcare facilities. GGHC is a voluntary self-certifying system that has been available free on-line since its inception in 2003. GGHC launched a comprehensive certifying system, version 2.2 in January 2007, and the operations section of the toolkit was recently updated in 2008. The GGHC is similar to the LEED products and is based on a point based system where each credit includes an intent, referenced standard, suggested documentation, and potential technologies and strategies. It also includes a section with input by a doctor identifying the health impact of each credit.

The GGHC and the USGBC have had an amicable relationship, and currently, they have been collaborating to create LEED for healthcare, a new LEED product specifically aimed at green health care facility design and construction.  LEED for Healthcare is undergoing a second public comment period, but will likely be released in late fall 2009. 

Lastly, a representative from the GHSI spoke about their organization which is a collaboration of groups and hospitals who’s goal is to promote healthy environments for healthcare facilities. Launched in California in October, 2007, the GHSI seeks to bring together everyone working within the healthcare sector and provide a resource for these organizations and groups. By working in collaboration they aim to transform and green the way that healthcare designs, builds and operates its facilities and products within those facilities by education, outreach and it even providing concrete assistance such as listing product choices on its website.

These organizations are optimistic that their resources will  make it an easier choice for healthcare designers and builders to build healthy facilities. And judging from the strongly positive audience response at the breakfast forum, this is just the beginning of this emerging field. Stay tuned to the California Green Building Blog for further reporting on this exciting topic.

 

May 8, 2009

Green Leases Part 1

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Lease | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

One argument for green construction is that reduced energy and maintenance costs for landlords allow them to offer lower rent/square foot with the same amount of profit/square foot.  That is likely true, and shows green buildings can quickly pay dividends.  But without a lease that requires tenants follow strict guidelines, any savings will float away like heat through an uninsulated roof.  

Whether you’re a landlord or a tenant, you should think about asking for green clauses in your lease.  This will help everyone maximize savings.  For example, you may want a clause that requires testing of the HVAC systems on a periodic basis (perhaps recommended by the manufacturer) to ensure they operate at maximum efficiency.  Many green office buildings have separate metering per floor, or even per tenant, but tenants may want to ask how often the HVAC is tested in common areas.  Putting something in writing is always a good idea to reassure both sides that a common goal is reached.

Traditional leases won’t do if you own or rent green space.  Stay tuned for other thoughts on green leases.  You can always click the “Lease” Category or “Green Lease” Tag on the right column.  (And yes, for those of you keeping track at home this is our first post without a link.)

 

April 30, 2009

Not All Solar Panels Are The Same

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Materials and Manufacturing | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Here’s a great article on solar panel ratings. Published first on the Calfinder Solar Blog, and then on Solar Feeds (publishers of the Green Tool Bar for web browsers) the article provides some basic pointers on shopping for solar panels.  The article is a nice short read, and it’s a great place to start for someone who has never shopped for solar panels before.  

The article suggests one look at the following criteria:  

  1. Minimum Warranted Power
  2. STC v. PTC Ratings
  3. Efficiency Ratings
  4. An Underwriters Laboratories Listing (UL Listing)
  5. SRCC Rating

Those are the main points.  To get the full article and some quick tips on solar materials, visit the Calfinder Solar Blog or Solar Feeds.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers