High Performance Green Buildings: An Overview

1. High Performance Green Buildings: An Overview Belmont Vision 21 Implementation Committee and Sustainable Belmont June 14, 2006 Presented by Donald Fudge, Director of Training and Education High Performance Schools Exchange of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

2. The High Performance Schools Exchange • A regional information and education resource managed by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. (NEEP) • To support the promotion of and application of high performance design in K-12 schools.

3. The Mission of the Exchange: Market Transformation By 2010, the majority of new and renovated K-12 schools in the Northeast will be built using High Performance School principles of design and construction

4. My Unique Position • Under Contract to Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to provide educational outreach to Massachusetts communities • General education • School building committee support

5. A High Performance Building • Is designed, constructed and operated to: • use a minimum of 25% less energy than building energy code requires • provide superior indoor environmental quality

6. A High Performance Green (or Sustainable) Building • Is designed to include high performance characteristics plus address broader resource issues • Greenspace, Transportation, stormwater management • Water use reduction • Materials and recycling issues • To reduce the building’s impact on the environment

7. High Performance Design Strategies • An Inclusive process • Performance standards guide the design team • An integrated, whole-building approach • Systems, materials and equipment decisions based on life-cycle cost • Energy modeling used • Commissioning used

8. An Inclusive Design Process Multidisciplinary Teamwork • Communication • Team Meetings • Website • Community Participation • Partnerships • Funding sources: utilities, foundations, manufacturers • Users • Community organizations

9. Performance Standards: Rating Systems and Design Guides • US GBC: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-NC and EB) – the first green building Design Rating System • Advanced Buildings Benchmark • Based on Performance, not just design • Highly prescriptive • Energy and IAQ only • DOE EnergyStar Buildings: Rank buildings based on energy use…a score of 75% or above qualifies the building

10. Performance Standards: school buildings in Massachusetts • Regulations from Massachusetts School Building Authority (hearings began Monday) • Massachusetts High Performance Green Schools Guidelines (MA-CHPS) • Developed by Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Green Schools Initiative and Massachusetts Department of Education • Included a task force of stakeholders • Meeting the MA-CHPS Criteria can bring a 2% addition to school funding formula Caveat: regulations currently under review

11. MA-CHPS and LEED-NC • Based on best practices covering • Site Design • Water Efficiency • Energy & Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality • District Resolutions/Innovation in Design

12. A More Sustainable Site • Site selection and reduced site disturbance (renovation) • Urban or Brownfield Redevelopment (not schools) • Orientation Stormwater management • Plant selection for low water and pesticide needs • Retention of landscaping and natural features • Transportation • Heat Island/ Light pollution reduction

13. Water Efficiency – reduce usage by 30% • Advanced water conserving fixtures • using recycled water • Re-circulating systems for centralized hot water distribution • Rainwater recovery system

14. Energy and Atmosphere – reduce energy use by 20-50% • Energy performance • Building envelope • High efficiency lighting • Occupancy and dimming sensors • Use of Task lighting • High efficiency “right-sized” HVAC systems • Renewable technologies • Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

15. Ashland HS 30% Berkshire Hills 33.7% Centerville Elem 17.8% Blackstone Valley 41.1% N. Quincy Elem 44.5% Dedham MS 30.3% Turners Falls 31.2% Newton South 35.4% Carlton Elem 20.6% Michael Capuano 38.8% Stanley Elem 26.8% Whitman Hanson 38.6% Williamstown 35.8% Woburn 25.1% Designed Energy Use Reduction at Pilot Schools

16. Materials & Resources – reduce cost and energy to produce • Recyclables collection and Storage • construction waste management • Locally produced materials • Recycled content - materials • Rapidly renewable materials

17. Indoor Environmental Quality – improved health and productivity • Daylighting and Views • Ventilation effectiveness • Thermal comfort • Low-Emitting materials • Controllable systems • Indoor air quality monitors • CO2 monitors

18. Classrooms should face North/ South for maximum Daylighting possibilities Multiple stories may require toplighting Effects HVAC as well When Daylighting is a Priority: Building Orientation is critical N

19. Daylighting requires careful design

20. Skylights/Toplights Spread light throughout the space

21. Effective, Energy Efficient lighting is Indirect, Diffuse Lighting Bounces light off the ceiling reducing glare and shadows High illumination, low wattage

22. Integrated Design: Design Team Solutions B • The decision making process • Each design professional takes one action that requires other actions to resolve conflicts, issues or problems • The Design Team takes one action to resolve multiple issues, generating an integrated solution A C A C B

23. Example: Integrated Design If Daylighting a priority: Daylighting solutions must integrate structural, mechanical, energy, occupancy design criteria

24. Use Task Lighting Techniques Installation of Fewer Light Fixtures Reduced Cooling Load Smaller A/C Unit Reduced Energy Consumption Integrated, whole building approach Install High Efficiency Lighting • Much greater cost savings are realized when high performance design elements are considered from the beginning

25. Does a high performance green building “cost” more? Maybe… • First Cost of building green varies just as costs of non-green buildings vary • Major Differences in cost between buildings related to: • Program • Site costs • Location • Not sustainable objectives

26. Upfront Cost Long-Term Cost Life Cycle Cost + = Looking at “Cost” Using the life cycle cost method • Incorporate All Measurable Costs Over the funding cycle: • Initial Capital Expenditures (Design & Construction) • Projected Utility Costs • Maintenance Costs • Measurable Health & Productivity Costs • Cost of money

27. Incremental Costs • Up-front design costs (usually associated with energy and/or Daylighting modeling) • Building elements • Building envelope • Glazing/structure associated with Daylighting • Efficient lighting and controls • Efficient motors, fans and heating systems • Water fixtures • Some materials • Commissioning • LEED certification fees

28. Life Cycle Cost Benefit can be eight times the first cost! • MTC Incremental Cost-benefit study results from eight pilot project schools: • Incremental costs ranged from 1.83% to 5.06% with an average of 3.19% • After incentives/rebates: range from (-.05%)to 1.7% - an average of .77% • Benefits eight (8) times cost over 20 years • Ashland, Whitman Hanson and Williamstown Elementary were under budget

29. Conventional Building Cumulative Cost High Performance Building Long-Term Savings: 8 times cost Potential Incremental Cost: 1-3% 20 10 Time (Years) Incremental cost-benefit model

30. Energy modeling • Determines a base case • Compares base with efficient case • Individual measures vs. combined effects • Tools: Spreadsheets • Manufacturer’s software used to size equipment • Trane Trace • CarrierwareInteractive software • DOE-2, PowerDOE

31. Energy Efficiency Measures Chart

32. Commissioning • A quality assurance process to see that the building “works as designed” – saves the money and energy predicted • A commissioning agent hired at start of process – an owners’ rep • Saves money due to fewer “change orders” • Saves money due to maintenance planning and training

33. Commissioning savings

34. Incremental Design Fees from HMFH/VEIC Study • Typically $130,000 due to MTC Green School program subsidy • Non-MTC projects paid less - $76,000 & $50,000 • Teams actually spent an average of $170,000 up to $300,000

35. Characteristics of a high performance green school/building … • An Enhanced Learning and working Environment • Reduced Operating Expenses • Reduced Impact on the Environment • A Community Asset

36. Case Study: Newton South High School • Daylight harvesting with light dimming controls • Classroom lighting controls • High-efficiency glazing on operable windows • Recovered rain water for flushing and irrigation • Recycled existing materials such as tile and ceramics • Recycled wood products and low VOC paints and adhesives • High-efficiency motors, transformers, ballasts & lamps • Solar collectors (55 kW of electricity)

37. Look what they achieved! • Over 30% energy reduction • Annual cost savings of over $200,000 • Reduced energy consumption • Reduced operation and maintenance • Reduced water use

38. City Hall Annex, Cambridge, MA: A LEED Certified Building • A More Sustainable Site: 6 points • renovated historic building • water-efficient landscaping • bicycle room with shower • reflective roof

39. Reduced Energy Consumption by almost 50% • Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies: 15 points • Insulated walls • Maximized Daylighting • Energy efficient windows, • lighting systems and sensors • ground-source heat pump instead of furnace or boiler • Energy Star reflective roof • Displacement Ventilation and heat recovery system • Solar panels for 10% of building’s energy needs

40. Took building from a “sick” building to a provide high Indoor Air Quality • Indoor Environmental Quality:7 Points • construction management plan • Low-emitting materials • Controllable systems • Thermal comfort compliance

41. Reused an Historic Building - 1871 • Materials, Waste and Resource Management: 7 points • Building reuse • Construction waste management • Recycled content • Local/regional materials • Certified wood

42. Saved money during Construction • Innovation and Design Process: 4 points • Educational component • Construction waste management program: • Total Material: 688 tons • Recycling Cost: $ 37,035 • Avoided Disposal cost: $ 92,192 • Savings: $ 55,157

43. In conclusion: High performance green buildings impact community infrastructure • Public health • Education • Environmental quality • Property values • City revenues (and tax base) • Job creation • Economic growth From a class at Tufts Graduate School, Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning – Ela Chapin, Minona Heaviland, Ellen Minzner, Stephanie Young