Lessons Learned publication for 2013

Transcription

LESSONS LEARNED
Sponsors:
The Bromley Companies
The Durst Organization
National Multi Housing Council
NYSERDA
Tishman Speyer
Cooperating Organizations:
American Institute of Architects,
New York Chapter
Building Owners and Managers
Association International
Association, New York
BuildingGreen, Inc.
International Council of Shopping Centers
Natural Resources Defense Council
Real Estate Board of New York
The Real Estate Roundtable
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Urban Green Council
Urban Land Institute
Urban Land Institute – New York
U.S. Green Building Council
PRODUCED BY EARTH DAY NEW YORK
Welcome to the eighth edition of Earth Day New York’s Lessons Learned series, designed
to provide accessible and pragmatic information to the real estate community and help
speed the transition to healthier, higher-performing buildings. For over 15 years, we have
been chronicling the latest developments in the world of green buildings and always work
to present the most current thinking and the latest technology and process advancements
in a succinct and engaging format.
The latest developments indicate a relatively mature and sophisticated approach which is
addressing many of the significant remaining barriers to broader adoption. Landlord-tenant
cooperation and green leasing guidance is an increasing focus along with a much more
proactive role on the part of government to create programs that support the private sector
and can help make a more sustainable approach standard practice in the industry.
In this issue, we are also trying to help clarify some of the major changes that are being
proposed in the latest revision of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. While LEED has rapidly emerged as the gold
standard in green buildings, the latest changes are introducing a level of complexity and cost
that are a cause of concern to many. The articles on Integrative Process and the New Approach
to Building Materials are meant to provide additional detail to help our readers understand
what these changes will mean to the industry.
And finally, our Tools of the Trade section is a compendium of some of the best materials
available to help both new and experienced practitioners master the breadth and depth of
the issues involved in green building design, construction and management. Make sure you
review the resources provided, there is a wealth of information that can help you.
There are many people to thank for their important contributions to this effort, including
the experienced leaders who are generously sharing their knowledge and the cooperating
organizations who distribute our publication to their members. As always, I would like to say
a special word of thanks to our sponsors and advertisers. Without their support, we would
not be able to produce Lessons Learned.
The Earth Day New York staff has worked many hours to coordinate all the details, and our
talented designer, Jeff Williamson at Avenue C Productions, has done another fantastic job
at making it beautiful and readable. Thanks as well to our green printer, Stuyvesant Press for
using post-consumer recycled paper and vegetable-based inks.
Once again, we hope our publication provides insight, encouragement and solid information
that will help broaden the efforts to transform our built environment into a healthier, more
efficient and sustainable place to live, work and play.
Pamela Lippe
Executive Editor
President, Earth Day New York
Copyright © 2012, Earth Day New York
The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of Earth Day New York, our sponsors, advertisers or cooperating organizations.
Any reference to a specific product, service, process or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it.
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper using vegetable-based ink and aqueous solutions.
4 COnTinEnTs. 13 COunTriEs.
46 MiLLiOn sQuArE FEET.
OnE sinGuLAr VisiOn.
Tishman Speyer’s commitment to
sustainability reaches across the globe.
New or existing, each property in our
portfolio is developed or retrofitted
to operate with the greatest level of
efficiency. For our tenants, communities
and investors, we set the highest
standards to ensure a sustainable future.
Currently, Tishman Speyer has more
than 46 million square feet of property
that is certified or in progress, and we
continue to add more each year. Using
global best practices, market-driven
insights and a depth of experience, we
are dedicated to creating sustainable
value in everything we do.
tishmanspeyer.com
acquisition
development
leasing
property management
investment management
The Chrysler Building, LEED® Gold Certified for
Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance.™
TA B L E O F CO N T E N TS
Leadership
7
The Better Building Initiative: Driving Real Change
Maria Tikoff Vargas, Director, Better Building Challenge, US Department of Energy
13
Retrofit Chicago’s Commercial Buildings Initiative
The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago
15
Greening the Chicago Skyline
Rebecca Stanfield, Senior Energy Advocate, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
17
How the Next Congress Can Rebuild the Economy and
Put America Back to Work
Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President and CEO
Duane J. Desiderio, Vice President and Counsel, Real Estate Roundtable
What’s Next?
21
Why the Time is Right for Anaerobic Digestion...
And How It Can Play a Part in Our Energy Future
Jon Ratner, Vice President, Energy and Sustainability, Forest City Enterprises
24
Game Changers: Ideas to Inspire Owner-Tenant Collaboration
Joseph W. Markling, Chair and Chief-Elected Officer, BOMA International
26
Fostering Landlord-Tenant Partnerships for Energy and Waste Reduction
Adam Siegel, Vice President of Sustainability and Retail Operations,
30
Understanding Integrative Design in LEED® v4
John Boecker, 7group and Bill Reed, Integrative Design and Regenesis, Inc.
36
Lifecycle and LEED: The New Approach to Building Products
Brendan Owens, LEED AP, P.E., Vice President of LEED Technical Development, USGBC
s
Continued
TA B L E O F CO N T E N TS
Tools & Technology
40
Data Centers and Energy Efficiency in the Nation’s Most Competitive Market
Brian Platt, P.E., Program Manager, Process, Power and FlexTech, NYSERDA
43
Energy Benchmarking for Enclosed Shopping Malls...At Last
George Caraghiaur, Simon Property Group and Kevin Lantry, Energy Data Services, LLC
46
Rethinking the All-Glass Building
Alex Wilson, Executive Editor, Environmental Building News and Founder,
BuildingGreen, LLC
52
A New York Story: Case Studies in Green Roof Retrofits
Scott Melching, AIA, LEED BD+C GRP, FXFOWLE
Jonathan Resnick, President, Jack Resnick & Sons
Teresa Carleo, Founder and President, Plant Fantasies, Inc.
58
Tools of the Trade
A Compendium of Green Building Tools and Resources
69
Listings and Index
72
Cooperating Organizations
THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM:
FLEXIBILITY
MOBILITY
IN 1955, “MARRIED WITH CHILDREN” MADE UP 44% OF U.S.
HOUSEHOLDS. NOW THEY ARE JUST
20%
CHANGE1/2HAPPENS
CHOICES
OF ALL NEW HOUSEHOLDS THIS DECADE
COULD BE RENTERS, COMPRISING UPWARD
OF 7 MILLION NEW RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
Big shifts in our population are dramatically changing the
way we live. The biggest change: Half of all new households this
decade could be renters.
Just look. Only a fifth of U.S. households are “married
with children” – the traditional drivers of single-family housing
demand. In fact, the fastest growing populations in the next
decade will be young professionals and empty nesters – people
who want the flexibility and mobility apartments provide to
pursue their careers wherever they exist.
Apartments not only attract these skilled professionals
but also support a large number of local jobs: on average 116 for
every 100 apartment units constructed. And they generate an
additional $5.5 million in wages and $3.3 million in federal, state
and local tax revenue and fees.
With upwards of 7 million new renters this decade, maybe
it’s time to support this change in your community.
www.nmhc.org
APARTMENTS. WHERE THE FUTURE LIVES.
L ea d e r s h i p an d P u bl i c Pol i c y
The Better Buildings
Initiative:
Driving Real Change
Maria Tikoff Vargas
Director, Better Buildings Challenge and
Senior Program Advisor, US Department of Energy
T
he energy used in our nation’s buildings has broad
impacts – on the U.S. economy, the environment,
and on business’ bottom line. Commercial buildings
and industrial plants in the U.S. account for half of our
nation’s primary energy use and cost about $400 billion
annually to power and operate. They also generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study determined
that energy use by U.S. commercial buildings and industrial
plants produces more than two gigatons of carbon dioxide
emissions – 40 percent of the country’s total emissions.1
Energy efficiency offers huge potential for the economy
and the environment. By taking steps to become more
energy efficient, most commercial buildings can save 20-30
percent on energy costs. In addition to reducing energy
costs for American businesses and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, energy efficiency is also a proven, effective job
growth strategy, creating lasting jobs in industries such as
1
construction, manufacturing and professional services.
The Better Buildings Initiative is a broad, new initiative with
a goal of reducing energy intensity in the commercial and
industrial sectors by 20 percent by 2020 through effective
use of tax incentives, financing, corporate leadership, state
and local policies, and workforce development.
A recent report from the University of Massachusetts found
that the Better Buildings Initiative could create more than
114,000 jobs by 2020. A key part of the job creation from
energy efficiency comes from private investment. Citigroup,
a leading global financial services company, estimates that one
project in the Better Buildings Initiative alone, a $70 million
bond offering for Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility, will create
more than 1,000 jobs.
Through the Better Buildings Initiative, the Department of
Energy is deploying distinct strategies and focusing on
tackling market barriers to greater energy efficiency. Strategies
include: highlighting effective leaders and solutions through
the Better Buildings Challenge, engaging college and university students to drive innovative solutions through the Better
Buildings Case Competition, providing a suite of energy
efficiency assessment tools to supply better information to the
marketplace and expanding workforce development, financing solutions and effective use of tax incentives.
Better Buildings Challenge
Launched by President Obama in December of 2011, the
Better Buildings Challenge is a cornerstone of the Better
Buildings Initiative. It is a national leadership program that
calls on chief executives, university presidents, state and
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010, April 2012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Table 3-8, statistics from 2010
Lessons Learned Volume 8 • 7
local government and school districts to reduce their portfoliowide energy use 20 percent by 2020, and to share the results of
their energy reduction strategies with DOE and their peers.
The Better Buildings Challenge now has more than 110 participants, representing two billion square feet of building space
and more than 300 manufacturing facilities. These participants
represent an impressive array of leaders from a broad range of
sectors: commercial building owners, schools, hotels, hospitals,
retailers, manufacturers, and city and state governments.
Partners include: 3M, Starbucks, Best Buy, Transwestern, Kohl’s,
TIAA-CREF, Nissan, Alcoa, GE and the Cities of Atlanta, Houston,
Seattle, Omaha and Chicago.
In addition to the organizations who sign on as partners,
financial institutions and utilities participate in the Better
Buildings Challenge as allies. Fourteen financial organizations
are working to drive innovative solutions and financing products
for energy efficiency; together they have committed almost $2
billion in financing for energy efficiency upgrades. Utilities are
committing to provide commercial customers with multi-measure
energy efficiency programs and access to the energy usage data
that helps building owners better manage their energy use.
Better Buildings Challenge Partners are not only making energy
efficiency upgrades to help their bottom line, but they are truly
leaders in pushing the envelope by implementing new strategies to
save energy and sharing what they learn with other organizations
nationwide. These leaders are working collaboratively to create and
share implementation models that can help the marketplace move
more quickly to adopt energy efficiency measures.
As partners in the Challenge, organizations agree to reduce
the energy use in their facilities by 20 percent by 2020 and
showcase their energy saving solutions and results. Part of sharing their results with the marketplace is agreeing to complete
a “showcase project” that demonstrates the energy savings
potential within the type of buildings they own and operate. The
Department of Energy is highlighting these “showcase projects,”
as prime examples of replicable, scalable, and innovative solutions. A few Challenge Partners are highlighted below.
BOISFEUILLET JONES ATLANTA CIVIC CENTER
Showcase Project:
City of Atlanta
LOCATION
Atlanta, GA
PROJECT SIZE
231,000 Square Feet
Outside view of the
Atlanta Civic Center
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Project Cost $2.1 Million
Annual Energy Use (Source EUI)
Baseline (2009)
Expected (2012)
433 kBtu/sq. ft.
324 kBtu/sq. ft.
Actual (2012)
COMING SOON
25%
Expected Energy Savings:
Annual Energy Cost
$500,000
Baseline (2009)
Expected (2012)
$300,000
Actual (2012)
COMING SOON
Expected Savings:
$200,000
Figure 1
to save Atlanta $200,000 a year, or a total of $3.57 million over the
15-year life of the Georgia Sustainable Environmental and Economic
Development (SEED) contract. (See Figure 1)
The City of Atlanta
HEI Hotels
The City of Atlanta is a Better Buildings Challenge Partner that has
committed to reduce its energy intensity across 43 million square
feet of commercial space. The City has united with the metropolitan
business and non-profit community to implement a comprehensive
energy upgrade program for downtown buildings to meet the goal
of improving energy performance a minimum of 20 percent by
2020. The City has an initiative underway to benchmark Atlanta’s
400 block downtown area, including City Hall, the Civic Center, and
other landmark buildings. More than 30 property owners totaling
more than 30 million square feet have taken the Challenge since its
official launch in November 2011 as part of a strategic partnership
between the City and Central Atlanta Progress, Atlanta’s downtown
improvement district. Atlanta’s program includes a comprehensive
package of technical assistance, easy access to and management
of energy data, outreach materials, networking events and financing workshops. The City is developing a public-facing dashboard
to display aggregated energy use data and real time progress
against program milestones. The City of Atlanta’s showcase project,
Boisfeuillet Jones - Atlanta Civic Center, is expected to realize a 25
percent reduction in source energy use intensity. It is also expected
HEI Hotels is a hospitality owner and operator of more than 40
hotels including well-known brands Marriott, Renaissance, Westin,
Le Meridien, Sheraton, “W”, Hilton, Embassy Suites and Crowne
Plaza, totaling more than 11,000 guest rooms and suites located in
16 states. HEI’s showcase project, the San Diego Marriott La Jolla,
includes a lighting upgrade, programmable thermostats in guest
rooms, chiller replacement, kitchen exhaust variable frequency drives
(VFDs) and controls, and an EMS upgrade. These upgrades have
delivered a 12 percent year-to-date savings as of June 2012 when
compared to 2011 and upon project completion are estimated to
deliver annual savings of over $200,000 or 27 percent. Since 2005,
HEI has reduced energy consumption across their portfolio by an
average of 5 percent annually through a combination of energy
conservation related capital projects and enhanced energy saving best
practices. (See Figure 2)
8 • Lessons Learned Volume 8
SUPERVALU
SUPERVALU, one of the largest companies in the U.S. grocery
channel, has a network of approximately 2,500 retail stores and
1,900 independent stores serviced primarily by the company’s
ALBERTSONS CARPINTERIA
REMODEL & EXPANSION
MARRIOTT LA JOLLA
Showcase Project:
HEI Hotels & Resorts
Showcase Project:
SUPERVALU
LOCATION
San Diego, CA
LOCATION
Carpinteria, CA
PROJECT SIZE
325,000 Square Feet
Marriott La Jolla
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Project Cost $833,000
Baseline (2011)
Carpinteria remodel
produce area
PROJECT SIZE
Original: 18,850 Square Feet;
Final: 40,200 Square Feet
209 kBtu/sq. ft.
153 kBtu/sq. ft.
Baseline (2010)
Expected (2013)
Expected (2012-13)
798 kBtu/sq. ft.
558 kBtu/sq. ft.
Actual
COMING SOON
Actual
COMING SOON
27%
Annual Energy Cost
Baseline (2011)
$750,000
Expected (2013)
$550,000
Actual
COMING SOON
Expected Savings:
$200,000
30%
Annual Energy Cost
$340,000
Baseline (2010)
Expected (2012-13)
$240,000
Actual
COMING SOON
Expected Savings:
$100,000
Figure 2
Figure 3
traditional food distribution business. The company has committed
to reducing their energy use by 20 percent by 2020 and to reduce
carbon emissions by 10 percent across 89 million square feet of
commercial space. SUPERVALU’s showcase project is a remodel of
its Albertsons grocery store in Carpinteria, California. The store has
cut its energy use intensity by 30 percent, even while doubling its
square footage. It is the first U.S. supermarket to incorporate
a low-carbon refrigeration system, which results in greater energy
savings and allows for the use of natural versus traditional,
synthetic refrigerants. (See Figure 3)
Hartford, CT North American headquarters, which will act as a
demonstration site for the benefits of sub-metering. Legrand plans
to use sub-metering solutions to bring instantaneous transparency
of energy consumption to all their facilities, and believes this will
lead to the reconfiguration of existing systems, equipment updates
and employee behavior changes. Collectively, the projects at the
site are expected to yield a 10 percent energy intensity reduction
and over $100,000 per year in cost savings. For the company’s
showcase project, sub-metering will help identify the changes
needed to achieve a goal of 10 percent energy intensity reduction
in two years. (See Figure 4 on next page)
Legrand
Legrand, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of electrical
and data networking products for residential, commercial and
industrial buildings, set a goal of reducing energy intensity by 25
percent across its 14 U.S. facilities by 2020. However, in just their
first year as a Challenge Partner, Legrand achieved a more than 20
percent reduction in energy intensity. The company achieved this
outstanding outcome through a variety of efforts including making
significant changes in lighting for manufacturing and office facilities,
as well as through simpler measures such as fixing air leaks and
installing insulation. Through energy audits at manufacturing,
warehouse, and office facilities, Legrand has identified energy
efficiency opportunities with payback periods spanning immediate
results to six years. The company’s showcase project is its West
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine educates nearly 28,000 students
and has a history of environmental excellence as a recipient of
the California Governor’s Environmental & Economic Leadership
Award for Climate Change, the state’s highest environmental honor.
As a Better Buildings Challenge Partner, the campus is committing
7 million square feet of its most energy-intensive building space,
including more than 180 buildings housing instructional, office,
complex laboratory space, and recreational and patient care facilities.
The campus will share energy innovations developed on campus as
part of its commitment, including the Smart Labs Initiative, which has
successfully reduced energy consumption in laboratory space by more
than 50 percent using advanced occupancy and air quality sensors
SMART LABS INITIATIVE/
NATURAL SCIENCES II (NS II)
LEGRAND/WIREMOLD
HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
Showcase Project:
Legrand
Showcase Project:
University of California, Irvine
LOCATION
West Hartford, CT
LOCATION
Irvine, CA
PROJECT SIZE
NS II: 146,000 Square Feet
PROJECT SIZE
258,000 Square Feet
Shift change reduces
run time for paint line
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Project Cost $304,000
Baseline (2011)
Natural Sciences II
Project Cost NS II: $829,864,
with utility incentive of $416,442
Baseline (2008)
Expected (2013)
311 kBtu/sq. ft.
280 kBtu/sq. ft.
Expected (2012)
278 kBtu/sq. ft.
137 kBtu/sq. ft.
Actual
COMING SOON
Actual
COMING SOON
10%
Annual Energy Cost
Baseline (2011)
51%
Annual Energy Cost
$1,170,000
$360,000
Baseline (2008)
Expected (2013)
$1,050,000
Expected (2012)
$180,000
Actual
COMING SOON
Actual
COMING SOON
Expected Savings:
$120,000
Expected Savings:
$180,000
Figure 4
Figure 5
to reduce the number of air exchanges per hour when conditions
permit. UCI’s showcase project, the Natural Sciences II Building,
is expected to realize a 51 percent reduction in source energy
use intensity, and save UC Irvine $180,000 a year. One of the key
steps taken at the Natural Sciences II facility included reducing
the energy required to exhaust air from the building by reducing
exhaust stack velocity, which is saving the university over 900,000
kWh/year. (See Figure 5)
By requiring both executive-level commitment and the open
sharing of innovative strategies, the Better Buildings Challenge
is helping the marketplace move more quickly to adopt energy
efficiency measures by demonstrating how to overcome the
barriers to greater efficiency.
For a full list of Better Buildings Challenge partners and allies,
go to http://www4.eere.energy.gov/challenge/.
Better Buildings Case Competition
Federal Government Commitment
Delivering Better Information to the Marketplace:
Energy Assessment Tools
In December 2011, President Obama also challenged federal
agencies to make at least $2 billion worth of energy-efficiency
upgrades over the next two years—with no additional cost to
taxpayers. Federal agencies have now identified a pipeline of
$2 billion in energy upgrade projects to be implemented by the
end of 2013 for federal buildings that will use long term energy
savings to pay for the project costs using performance based
contracts and more than $300 million in projects have already
been awarded.
Through the Better Buildings Case Competition, DOE
challenges university students to develop creative and innovative
energy efficiency solutions for the commercial industry, creating
models for success.
The inaugural Better Buildings Case Competition was held in
March 2012 at the White House campus. Students from 19 universities traveled across the country to compete in an all-day workshop.
The student teams competed to find the best solutions to the energy
efficiency challenges presented in real-world case studies for the City
of Houston, the District of Columbia, HEI Hotels and Resorts and
Cassidy Turley. Winning proposals were selected from Carnegie Mellon
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University,
University of Colorado Denver, University of Southern California, George
Washington University and the University of California, Berkeley.
One of the most often cited barriers to greater energy efficiency
is the lack of information. Some barriers to implementing energy
efficiency techniques are common across industries, while some
are specific to sectors. The Better Buildings Initiative has created
a suite of tools that allow the marketplace, including building
owners, managers, investors, engineers and appraisers to more
accurately assess and value energy efficiency. Tools include:
Asset Scoring Tool
DOE is working to develop an Asset Scoring Tool that will
evaluate a building’s physical characteristics and as-built energy
efficiency, providing the user with a whole-building score. The tool
will also help identify cost-effective energy-efficient improvements
that, if implemented, could reduce energy bills and potentially
improve building asset value. The physical characteristics evaluated
include building envelope, HVAC system, lighting system, service
hot water system, and other major energy-using equipment. These
system-level efficiency indicators can be used as a quick screen to
determine where to make investments into the building systems or
equipment to improve a building’s energy performance. The Asset
Score will complement the operational benchmark information
building owners and managers can get now by using Portfolio
Manager. While Portfolio Manager tells a building owner which
buildings may be underperforming when compared to similar
buildings, the Asset Scoring Tool will help them identify what
causes the low performance.
Buildings Performance Database
As another resource to the building industry, DOE is building
the Buildings Performance Database, a tool that aggregates data
about both building asset characteristics and energy consumption
using a comprehensive, standard taxonomy. The Buildings
Performance Database is a decision-support platform, comprised
of a database and data analysis tools, which will enable building
owners, program managers, engineering firms and investors
to evaluate the energy savings resulting from energy efficiency
upgrade measures across similar buildings. The Database
contains measured rather than modeled data and currently has
data for about 60,000 commercial and residential buildings. DOE
is actively collecting data and welcomes data from all contributors.
For more information and to contribute data, please contact
buildingsperformancedatabase@ee.doe.gov or go to http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/buildingsperformance/index.html.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Appraisal
Foundation
The DOE has an MOU with the Appraisal Foundation to ensure
that appraisers have the building performance information, practical
guidelines and professional resources they need to evaluate energy
performance when conducting commercial building appraisals.
By working with professional appraisers to develop standards for
valuing green buildings, DOE will help equip the market with the
information it needs to ensure that the utility bill savings that come
with building efficiency improvements are appropriately factored
into the building’s overall value. The standards developed through
this partnership will be based upon the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice—the generally accepted standards
for U.S. building appraisers.
Workforce Development Pilot
The Better Buildings Initiative worked with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to create and deploy educational programs
aimed at training and expanding current and incoming building operators. DOE selected three Centers for Building Operations Excellence
to work with universities, local community and technical colleges,
trade associations and the Department’s national laboratories to build
training programs that provide commercial building professionals with
the critical skills they need to optimize building efficiency while reducing energy waste and saving money. The selected Centers include:
• T he Corporation for Manufacturing Excellence in California,
partnering with Laney College and the International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 39.
• Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center in Pennsylvania,
partnering with Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania
College of Technology and Drexel University.
• New York State Department of Economic Development,
partnering with City University of New York and Rochester
Institute of Technology.
179D Tax Incentive
The Internal Revenue Code currently provides a deduction for
the cost of qualifying energy-efficient commercial building property,
commonly referred to as the section 179D tax deduction. DOE
worked with the Treasury Department to modify energy savings
targets for taxpayers who claim a partial tax deduction in order to
better align with technological advances in energy-efficient lighting, HVAC and building envelope products. The revised language
provides greater incentive for taxpayers to upgrade HVAC systems
by decreasing the threshold for a partial tax deduction from 20
percent to 15 percent energy savings.
In addition, DOE has also developed a simplified, web-based
approach for modeling common energy efficiency upgrade
measures in order to streamline the requirements for claiming a
deduction and reduce modeling requirement costs for taxpayers.
This web-based tool serves as a substitute in many circumstances
to costly modeling requirements that have burdened the application and compliance process. The 179D DOE Calculator can be
accessed at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_
initiative/179d/.
The Administration continues to seek ways to reform and
modernize the tax code in a manner that optimizes outcomes for
both businesses and individuals, such as modifying the tax deduction into a more valuable tax credit.
Better Buildings: Looking Forward
Energy efficiency is a proven, effective job growth strategy that
creates lasting jobs. It is also our fastest, cheapest, and cleanest
energy resource. Greater energy efficiency saves money, protects our
environment and increases our competitiveness. By working
in partnership with the public and private sector leaders and highlighting proven successes and solutions, DOE’s Better Buildings
Initiative is poised to be a powerful platform to drive greater efficiency and help U.S. organizations.
Maria Tikoff Vargas is the Director of the Better Buildings Challenge at
the Department of Energy and also serves as a Senior Program Advisor in
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of
Energy. Prior to her work at DOE, Ms. Vargas was the Brand Manager for
the ENERGY STAR program for over 15 years while at the US Environmental
Protection Agency. Vargas also served as the Co-Director of the ENERGY
STAR Buildings and Green Lights Partnership. She has been involved in policy
work on the issues of ozone depletion, global climate change, and related
environmental and energy issues since 1985.
Jay Byers
LEED AP O+M
Business Operations Manager
Carrier Corporation
“As a LEED AP O+M, I make
recommendations that deliver
ROI and sustainability impact
to projects. Our customers are
watching their triple bottom
line and LEED helps them get
there.”
Learn how Jay’s LEED AP Operations
+ Maintenance credential sets him
apart at www.gbci.org/Jay.
L ea d e r s h i p an d PU B L I C P O L I C Y
Mayor Emanuel, DOE Secretary Chu and Chicago’s commercial real estate industry
leaders launch Retrofit Chicago’s Commercial Building Initiative in June of 2012.
Retrofit Chicago’s
Commercial Buildings
Initiative
The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Mayor, Chicago, Illinois
S
ince I took office last year, I have focused on creating
quality jobs, investing in our neighborhoods and building
a world-class quality of life for all Chicagoans. Over the
past 16 months, we have closed two coal power plants, created
34 miles of protected bike lanes, invested in our public transit and
launched Retrofit Chicago’s Commercial Buildings Initiative.
Looking forward, my goal is to make Chicago the most attractive,
livable, and competitive city in the world, and sustainability is
at the heart of all these aspirations. We will save households
and businesses money by maximizing energy efficiency, we will
provide residents with safe and convenient ways to move around
the city by foot, on bike, by bus or train and we will put people
to work by building a city that can thrive in the 21st Century.
Our citywide effort to address building energy efficiency is a
central component of Chicago’s broader sustainability strategy.
Chicago’s celebrated architectural heritage fuels an ambitious
plan for our future. In the 19th century, Chicago built the
world’s first modern skyscraper. In the 20th century, we created
a world-renowned skyline. And today, Chicago aspires to make
that skyline the most efficient on the planet.
I am proud that Chicago’s commercial sector is leading the
way on this issue in our own communities and across the country.
This past June, we brought together many of Chicago’s real
estate community leaders in the historic Wrigley Building on
Chicago’s Magnificent Mile to launch Retrofit Chicago’s
Commercial Buildings Initiative in partnership with 14 landmark
Chicago buildings that have committed to reducing their energy
use by 20% over the next five years. These iconic buildings
span 14 million square feet of commercial space, representing
a rich diversity of size, age and style. Despite their differences,
all of these buildings are owned and managed by people who
value the benefits that energy efficiency can bring to their
customers and tenants and to the city at large in terms of
a cleaner environment, lower costs, and job creation.
When the work on these 14 buildings is done, they will
have reduced annual operating expenses by over $5 million
a year, created over 100 jobs and avoided annual greenhouse
gas emissions equivalent to taking over 8,000 cars off the
road. Additional buildings have already committed to join this
historic effort and we look forward to expanding the program
even further.
The Commercial Buildings Initiative is one of three components
of Retrofit Chicago, our coordinated, cross-sector plan to bring
energy efficiency improvements to municipal, commercial,
and residential buildings throughout the city. The first phase
of Retrofit Chicago is focused on City assets: we have created
an infrastructure trust, an innovative way to leverage private
investment for transformative infrastructure projects. Retrofit
Chicago’s municipal effort will likely be the first project brought
before this new Trust. The municipal upgrades will reduce energy costs
by more than $20 million annually, create about 2,000 jobs, and
remove the equivalent of more than 30,000 cars’ worth of emissions
from the atmosphere each year. Retrofit Chicago also includes the
Residential Partnership, which will retrofit more than 6,700 apartments
and 1,000 single family homes over the next 18-24 months. We are
targeting this work in 12 neighborhoods to ensure efficient and cost
effective program delivery.
With the creation of the Commercial Buildings Initiative, as well
as our efforts to upgrade 10 million square feet of municipal buildings, Chicago pledged a 20% reduction in energy use intensity
across 24 million square feet when it joined the U.S. Department
of Energy Better Buildings Challenge, a national leadership initiative
to improve the efficiency of American commercial and institutional
buildings and industrial plants by 20% or more by 2020.
Part of what makes this initiative possible is the statewide energy
efficiency portfolio standard, passed by the Illinois General Assembly.
This policy requires ComEd, People’s Gas and other utilities to invest
in energy efficiency to lower the amount of more expensive and
dirtier energy we need to power our homes and businesses. ComEd’s
commercial building programs will be an important driver in the success
of the Retrofit Chicago’s Commercial Buildings Initiative by making
financial incentives available to many of the participating buildings.
In addition, the Commercial Buildings Initiative has a number of
partners committed to providing technical and financial support,
including the Building Owners & Managers Association of Chicago,
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Clinton Climate Initiative,
Civic Consulting Alliance, ComEd, Peoples Gas, Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning,
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Group, Sieben Energy Associates
and The Joyce Foundation, among others.
As we work with the Commercial Buildings Initiative’s founding
participants’ initial buildings, we are also working to grow the initiative
so that more of Chicago’s 1,200+ high-rise buildings can achieve
additional jobs, cost savings, and environmental benefits for the City.
Rahm Emanuel was elected the 55th mayor of Chicago on February 22nd, 2011 and
was sworn in on May 16th, 2011. Prior to becoming Mayor, Emanuel served as the
White House Chief of Staff in President Barack Obama’s administration. During his
tenure, he helped orchestrate the passage of key milestones such as the economic
Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, and health care reform. Before accepting the
position as Chief of Staff to the President, Emanuel served three terms in the U.S.
House of Representatives representing Chicago’s 5th District. Prior to being elected
to Congress, Emanuel served as a key member of the Clinton White House from
1993 to 1998, rising to serve as Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy.
Mayor Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and received
a Master’s Degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in
1985. He is married to Amy Rule, and they have three children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah.
Retrofit Chicago’s
Commercial
Buildings Initiative
Participants
(as of June 5, 2012):
222 South Riverside Plaza
333 North Michigan Ave.
One Financial Place
515 North State Street
The AT&T Building
CNA Headquarters
Franklin Center
InterContinental Chicago
Magnificent Mile
Hyatt Center
The Marquette Building
NBC Tower
224 South Michigan Ave.
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers The Wrigley Building
Greening the
Chicago Skyline
Rebecca Stanfield
Senior Energy Advocate,
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
E
nergy efficiency has been a top priority for the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for decades. We
understand the value of efficiency to the environment,
and the economy, and we relentlessly target barriers to
capturing the full potential of energy efficiency. Our analysts
and experts have long been key players in state Public
Utility Commissions working to make energy efficiency the
resource of choice for our electric and gas utility companies.
More recently, our Center for Market Innovation has had
major breakthroughs in overcoming the barriers to efficiency
in major commercial buildings by engaging owners, tenants,
brokers and energy service companies.
It was a natural for us to partner with the Chicago Commercial
Buildings Initiative (CBI) to work toward the vision articulated
by Mayor Emanuel and the participating buildings. Our staff
is bringing the lessons we’ve learned throughout the country
to bear in Chicago, and we’re exporting what we learn in
Chicago to other buildings and cities across the nation.
The Chairman of our Board of Trustees, Dan Tishman, took
a leadership role in the Chicago Commercial Building Initiative
by making the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers, which is a
Tishman Realty property, one of the first fourteen buildings to
pledge a 20% reduction in energy use over the next five years.
Mr. Tishman is personally committed to sustainability, and that
means Tishman Hotel & Realty and Tishman Construction are
interested in using all available tools to make their buildings
efficient, cost-effective and sustainable.
“I am excited to have the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers
be one of the first buildings to participate in the Chicago
Commercial Buildings Initiative,” said Dan Tishman. “The size
and significance of the Sheraton will send a great message to
the business community in Chicago as the Building Challenge
helps this great city meet the economic and environmental
needs of this century.”
Tishman is no stranger to this effort, having managed
construction for the Durst Organization of pace-setting
skyscrapers, including 4 Times Square (also known as the
Condé Nast Building) which was the first green office tower in
New York City and The Bank of America Tower at One Bryant
Park, the first skyscraper to receive platinum certification
under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Core & Shell rating system.
Work has already begun at the Sheraton. A comprehensive
energy analysis of the property has been conducted and many
energy-efficient practices are being implemented. There is a
property-wide conservation effort that includes lighting and
HVAC upgrades, public area improvements, optimizing the
hotel’s chiller plant facility and reducing horsepower factors on
prime HVAC movers.
One outstanding upgrade the Sheraton made was to
install motion-sensing thermostats in each of its 1,214
hotel rooms; these adjust the temperature based on occupancy.
If a room is not reserved for the day, the thermostat will place
the HVAC in “deep setback,” which means it will be drawing the
lowest possible load given the overall climate conditions. Once
a guest arrives at check in, the thermostat will engage so that
the temperature is comfortable by the time he or she enters
the room. When a guest leaves and then returns, the temperature can be brought back to comfortable conditions within 15
minutes. The system is automatically notified when a guest
checks out, so that it can go back into deep setback.
This simple and elegant change will lower the hotel’s electric bills
by more than $150,000 per year, and the system will pay for itself in
2.5 years. Installing it employed ten workers for a month. Each of the
rooms will save 5 kwh per day, totaling 2.2 million kwh per year. This
reduced the hotel’s carbon footprint by about 2,000 tons annually
– the equivalent of taking 436 cars off the road. In other words, the
motion-sensing thermostat is reducing pollution and the hotel’s operating costs, creating jobs and improving the hotel guests’ experience.
Now, this may not seem revolutionary but this is just one of
many things the Sheraton is doing, and it is just one building in the
Chicago Commercial Buildings Initiative. There are hundreds more in
the city who can adopt similar strategies if they are motivated and
empowered to do so.
Another leader in the initiative is Tishman Speyer who owns the
Franklin Center. The building owners have been successful in one of
the most difficult aspects of retrofitting a commercial office building
– engaging building tenants. At no cost to themselves, the owners
have arranged for free analysis of the costs and benefits of lighting
retrofits for a dozen of the tenants and three tenant spaces have
already undergone lighting retrofits. Now, the building is working
The Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Tower
The Franklin Center
with the local utility Commonwealth Edison to address efficiency of
tenant data centers and server rooms.
The Chicago Commercial Buildings Initiative is working to address
the barriers that owners encounter when faced with making energy
efficiency investment decision for their buildings. One major problem
is not having sufficient technical analyses of these complex building
systems to understand what improvements will have the biggest
energy demand reduction, and which measures are likely to be costeffective. NRDC and the CBI partners are linking building owners
and managers with technical advisors so that they can make fully
informed investment decisions.
Another critical problem is figuring out how to share the costs
and benefits of energy efficiency between landlords and tenants.
NRDC has developed an “energy aligned” lease that can establish
upfront an equitable sharing of these costs and benefits and we are
making it available to buildings who want to use it. For more information, go to: www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/initiatives/clause.shtml.
We are also working to find innovative ways for building owners to
engage tenants in finding ways to reduce energy use in space that
is already leased, or in making sure a new build-out of tenant space
incorporates energy efficiency measures.
And finally, we’re working to help buildings identify available
incentives that can help buy down the upfront costs of efficiency
measures and reduce the measures’ payback period.
The impact of a successful city-wide efficiency initiative can be
truly transformative to the real estate industry, and can build a sound
foundation for the future of the city of Chicago. That is the vision
that the Mayor has articulated, and it is a vision that is shared by
NRDC and the other partners.
Becky Stanfield is a senior advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council
working in the Midwest Program. She directs the energy efficiency policy work
for the Midwest region, which focuses on utility efficiency investment and building
efficiency in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Missouri. She has 18 years of experience
working on energy and clean air policy at the state and federal levels. She is a
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Law and the University of Illinois.
How the Next Congress Can
Rebuild the Economy and
Put America Back to Work
Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President and CEO
Duane J. Desiderio, Vice President and Counsel
The Real Estate Roundtable
T
he prospects for comprehensive energy legislation may
be one of the few areas of bipartisan policy to emerge
from Capitol Hill when the 113th Congress convenes in
January. The seeds for political compromise have been sown:
some Democrats align with the GOP’s “Drill baby, drill”
mantra to produce domestic energy sources, and several key
Republicans are on record as supporting renewable energy
technologies long favored by Democrats.
While the policy debate in Washington, D.C. will continue
to consider the relative merits of oil and coal versus wind and
solar, a growing number of lawmakers are forwarding proposals
that encourage energy avoidance rather than energy creation.
At the risk of sounding cliché, bills that focus on energy
efficiency – and measures to encourage retrofit projects of
commercial and residential buildings – can achieve a “win-
win-win” by (1) getting construction workers back on the
payroll by modernizing our nation’s buildings, (2) saving
businesses billions of dollars a year in utility expenses, and
(3) reducing the carbon footprint of our built environment by
lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Myriad policy demands and legislative proposals will
compete for limited budget dollars (not to mention “floor
time” for Senate and House votes), but energy efficiency
should be a top priority for legislators when they gavel
themselves back into session this year. The following “fast
facts”1 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, and other sources
make the case that legislation to encourage building retrofits
should be a focal point of the new Congress’s energy policy:
•There are over 5 million commercial buildings and
industrial facilities in the U.S.
•Up to 85% of commercial buildings that exist today will
still be standing in 2030.2
•Commercial buildings account for about 20% of the
nation’s energy consumption.
•The combined average annual energy costs for U.S.
commercial buildings and industrial facilities is $202.3
billion. About $20 billion can be saved if the energy
efficiency of commercial buildings and industrial facilities
improves by 10%.
•The basic tools to retrofit buildings – like efficient furnaces,
water heaters, and spray foam insulation – are manufactured
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/challenge/learn_more/FastFacts.pdf; http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003
fb69e/1603327c9023eb8c852579dd005e3385.
2
PlaNYC, “Greener Greater Buildings Plan”: http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/downloads/pdf/greener_greater_buildings_plan.pdf.
1
here in the United States and not in China, Germany, or
elsewhere overseas.3
•Saving energy is cheaper than producing energy. Our country must
pursue an “all of the above” energy policy, but it is important to
recognize that efficiency is the lowest-cost resource available to
move our nation towards energy independence. Simply put, the
cost of a kilowatt hour of energy saved – about 2-3 cents per
kilowatt hour4 – is cheaper than the cost of an equivalent kilowatt
hour of energy produced by coal, geothermal, wind, solar, and
nuclear technologies.5
•According to a report from the Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) International6, the expenditures that sustain
office building operations—management, maintenance,
repairs, building services and utilities—generate significant,
continuous and growing expenditures that support local businesses, create job demand, and contribute significantly to U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP). In 2011, $79.7 billion in office
building operating expenditures contributed $205.1 billion to
national GDP – equivalent to the State of California’s annual
budget. And, for each dollar of office building expenditures (such
as capital expenses on retrofits), the U.S. economy gains $2.57.
In short, targeted federal policies to encourage building retrofits can
achieve a “people, profits, and planet” triple bottom line that should
appeal to legislators no matter where they fall in the political spectrum.
A Platform for Congress to Act on Energy Efficiency
There is no single policy silver bullet that will encourage greater
energy efficiency and spur more building retrofit projects, but Capitol
Hill should consider a suite of actions to move our built environment
in the direction of better energy performance and resiliency. Accordingly, The Real Estate Roundtable and other national real estate
organizations will continue to urge Congress and the Administration
to consider and enact a variety of measures including the following:
1. Extend and Reform the 179D Tax Deduction for
Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings: The current tax
incentive at Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code encourages
energy efficiency in building design and construction. It offers a deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot, if installed equipment is designed to reduce the building’s power costs by 50% as compared to
a hypothetical “reference building” that otherwise meets minimum
code requirements. While the deduction has had some success in
encouraging limited lighting system retrofits, to date 179D has not
lived up to its potential to incent deep, whole-building retrofits of
multiple systems (including HVAC and envelope). Also, real estate
owners and managers report that they have tried to access 179D
as it is presently structured, but the complexity and costs associated
with building modeling to ascertain whether their assets qualify for
the incentive outweigh any deduction amounts they might receive.
Section 179D is scheduled to expire at the end of 2013. The new
Congress should extend this tax incentive with modest reforms that
will encourage whole-building retrofits. Last year, The Roundtable
and other organizations supported a proposal that would include
a performance-based component for existing buildings as part of
179D reform, introduced by now retired Senators Olympia Snowe
(R-ME) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Congress should enact this proposal, which would reward retrofits that produce actual and verified
energy savings as determined by “before and after” comparisons
using the Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Also, 179D’s incentive amounts
should be scaled to increase with greater energy savings to encourage ambitious projects, while also rewarding projects that achieve
meaningful yet more moderate levels of energy savings. And, 179D
should be improved to account for the tax status of real estate
investment trusts (REITS) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs), so
these and similar entities can make better use of the deduction and
modernize their buildings.
The federal tax code presently allows businesses to deduct utility
bills as part of their ordinary operating expenses – but retrofit investments can only be depreciated over long periods of time (typically
39 years) as capital expenses. More inefficient structures with higher
utility bills may thus benefit from a larger tax deduction compared to
buildings that use less energy. Section 179D aligns the code so that it
awards investments to save energy, as opposed to the operating expenses deduction that can otherwise be claimed for wasted energy.
Extension and improvement of the 179D deduction should thus be a
top priority as Congress considers a national energy strategy.
2.Authorize DOE Retrofit Loan Guarantees: Much of
the bipartisan groundwork on energy policy started last Congress,
especially through the “Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness” (ESIC) Act co-sponsored by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
and Rob Portman (R-OH). The ESIC Act will likely be the starting
point for continued deliberations this year, and its loan guarantee
provisions can prove to be a major catalyst to drive private sector
financing of building retrofits.
The ESIC Act would authorize credit enhancement from the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support and leverage private
sector financing for retrofits. The Real Estate Roundtable has long
advocated that DOE’s current loan guarantee program should
assist lenders and building owners with the capital expenses
associated with building energy upgrades – just as financing support has been made available for wind, solar, and nuclear projects.
DOE’s loan guarantee program was mired in controversy during
last year’s election cycle following the House investigation into
Solyndra, the bankrupt solar panel manufacturer. However, the
Shaheen-Portman bill gets DOE’s loan guarantee program back on
ttp://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/made-in-the-u-s-a-efficiency-materials/.
h
Costs of saved energy (“CSE”) per kilowatt hour (“kWh”) for energy efficiency programs range from 2 cents to 3 cents per kWh. See American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “Saving Energy Cost-Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved Through Utility-Sector Energy Efficiency Programs”
(Sept. 1, 2009), available at http://www.aceee.org/research-report/u092.
5
Costs for all power generation sources in table provided by U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources,” Annual
Energy Outlook 2011, available at http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html (provides “Total System Levelized Cost” for various “Plant Type(s)”
in dollars per megawatt hour (“mWh”)). For purposes of table conversion: mWh / 1000 = kWh.
6
“Where America Goes to Work: The Contribution of Office Building Operations to the Economy” (2012), available at http://www.boma.org/Resources/news/
pressroom/Pages/pr062412.aspx.
3
4
track as it was initially envisioned and created by both Republicans
and Democrats in 2005.7 The ESIC Act is carefully constructed to
address the problems that came to light in the Solyndra situation,
so as to limit DOE’s exposure to financial risks in the event of
a borrower’s default on a retrofit loan obligation.
For example, the ESIC Act does not pick technology “winners
and losers” by favoring the manufacture of any particular product
or technology. Rather, the bill is technology neutral, and supports
retrofit projects and not products. The bill lets building owners in the
market decide what types of efficiency measures it should install as
part of a retrofit project, as best suited to lower energy consumption
in their assets. Furthermore, the Shaheen-Portman proposal incorporates due diligence requirements as a prerequisite for credit support.
The bill directs DOE to develop guidelines that would limit the financial risk to taxpayers in the event of default through underwriting
criteria that assess a borrower’s creditworthiness, the building’s loan
to value ratio, the building’s history and expectations in generating
rental and other income, among other factors.
The Shaheen-Portman bill would also encourage successful retrofit projects that are guaranteed to result in energy savings. Their
proposal directs DOE to consider private sector, third-party guarantees of energy savings after a retrofit is implemented, and whether
those savings will pay for project costs over time. Accordingly, DOE
(and taxpayers) would not bear the “performance risk” of whether
a project will succeed and result in energy savings. Rather, third-party contractors responsible for the retrofit (like DOE-approved energy
services companies) would bear risks that installed energy efficiency
measures will perform as designed. In this way, a transaction can
be structured so as to amortize retrofit financing through measured
and verified energy savings accrued over time.
Significantly, the loan guarantee provisions of the ESIC Act are
structured so that loan guarantees would provide an incentive to
leverage far greater amounts of private sector investment in building retrofits. That is, the bill would ensure that real estate, lending,
and energy services firms have their own “skin in the game.” It
has been estimated that a $200 million federal loan guarantee
investment in retrofits would leverage as much as $2 billion in
private sector financing.
In sum, enactment of the ESIC Act’s bipartisan retrofit loan
guarantee title would provide a transformative platform to finance
efficient buildings, lower energy consumption, and get construction
workers back on the payroll. Congress should pass it.
3. Pass Legislation to Encourage Real Estate Appraisals
that Value Energy Efficiency: Real estate owners, lenders,
and appraisers should be better coordinated when valuing properties to account for energy efficiency attributes. A bill introduced
last Congress, the “Sensible Accounting to Value Energy Act” cosponsored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Johnny Isakson
(R-GA), would encourage better information sharing among real
estate professionals so that energy efficiency is more consistently,
accurately, and fairly valued when appraising commercial and
other real estate.
High-efficiency equipment and better building operations may
increase the value of commercial real estate. Yet stakeholders from
all perspectives – lenders, appraisers, building owners and managers, and energy efficiency advocates – bemoan the dearth of data
regarding the monetary benefits that energy efficiency components
can bring to real estate values. Better information sharing will
help monetize any added values from efficiency equipment and
platforms deployed in buildings, which in turn can spur greater
investments in retrofits.
The SAVE Act would establish rules so that appraisers, owners
and lenders have timely access to information that may be relevant
to the efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy features of
real estate. These include: building labels or ratings; installed appliances; blueprints and construction costs regarding retrofit projects;
utility bills; energy benchmarking data; third-party verifications of a
property’s energy performance; and financial or other incentives regarding installed high-performing components and systems. If such
information is consistently shared as an industry best practice, over
time a greater number of comparable assets will be available for
appraisers to evaluate energy efficiency when determining market
value. Banks may thereby assess the financing risks associated with
projects that will save money through energy savings, and develop
lending products specifically to underwrite retrofit investments.
Accordingly, as another appropriate measure for Congress to spur
financing for highly efficient buildings, it should enact the SAVE Act’s
provisions to provide better information regarding energy efficiency
attributes in the process of real estate valuation.
4. Pass Legislation to Align Commercial Landlords and
Tenants on the Goals of Energy Efficiency: A commercial
building can be retrofitted with the latest efficiency technologies but
still not perform as it was designed to achieve optimal energy savings.
This is because spaces leased by tenants may be “over-built” at the
time of new fit-outs to provide more energy capacity than a tenant
needs, or because building occupants may have behaviors that unnecessarily waste energy.
Legislation proposed to date has focused on how real estate
owners and developers may lower energy consumption. But this
is only part of the issue. Office tenants like data centers, law firms,
television studios, trading floors, financial services firms, restaurants,
and retail stores use a lot of energy. A recent analysis of typical
commercial office building end use attributes 45% of energy
consumption to occupants’ “plug load” and behaviors.8 Choices
made by office tenants in designing and operating within leased
spaces thus have great impact on U.S. energy consumption.
Accordingly, Congress should develop legislation that gets office
landlords and tenants on the same page with regard to energy
consumption in commercial buildings. The new Congress should
consider market-driven, non-regulatory approaches that align
building owners and their lessees to cooperatively reduce demands on the grid. Among other ideas, Congress should develop
legislation with solutions that would:
n Overcome Energy Consumption Data Barriers. In many
cases, commercial property owners are unable to get the data
The DOE loan guarantee program was created as Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6, 109th Cong.). It passed the House on April 21, 2005 by
a 249-183 vote, and the Senate on July 28, 2005 by an 85-12 vote. President Bush signed it into law on August 8, 2005.
8 Charles C, Copeland, “Improving Energy Performance of NYC’s Existing Office Buildings,” ASHRAE Journal (August 2012), Fig. 1 at p. 33 (available at
http://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/periodicals/ashrae-journal/features/improving-energy-performance-of-nycs-existing-office-buildings).
7
to tell them how much energy their entire building consumes.
This is because tenants control access to the energy meters in
the spaces they lease. The utility serving the Chicago area,
Commonwealth Edison, has overcome this significant data
obstacle with its “Energy Usage Data System.”9 An amendment
to existing law could establish a non-binding standard favoring
the ComEd model, for purposes of electricity and natural gas consumption. Utilities would be encouraged to provide aggregated
“whole building” energy consumption information in a manner
that fully safeguards tenant privacy concerns in their energy data,
without increasing prices on consumers. Other utilities throughout
the country are moving in the same direction as ComEd, and
federal policy makers should encourage more widespread adoption
of this platform across the nation.
n Create Opportunities for Voluntary “Tenant Star”
Recognition. The Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY
STAR program for commercial buildings has been operating for
over a decade and is widely embraced by commercial building
owners. It is a huge success, and certified buildings typically
use 35 percent less energy than average buildings and cost 50
cents less per square foot to operate.10 Many Roundtable members and other large commercial building owners and managers strive for the ENERGY STAR label to distinguish their assets
as “top of class.” Congress should provide EPA with the tools
necessary to bring the program to the next level with tenantoriented certification for leased spaces. Today’s ENERGY STAR is
based on whole-building recognition. Congress should authorize the federal government to expand the collection of energyrelated data so that EPA may likewise recognize efficient
tenant-leased spaces within a building. The synergy of “Tenant
Star” spaces within “ENERGY STAR” buildings could transform
– in a non-regulatory way – how commercial real estate owners
and their tenants think about energy efficiency and dramatically
lower energy use throughout the built environment.
n Develop Replicable Standards for New Tenant “Fit-Outs.”
Commercial tenants are most likely to make structural investments in the areas they occupy when they enter into new leases,
or renew leases for longer terms. We thus want to encourage
high-performance design and construction of leased spaces at
the point of new “fit-outs” that suit tenants’ needs, but are not
“over-built” to encourage or allow wasted energy use. Just as the
federal government has developed standards for energy efficient
appliances, it should start the process to study and develop
replicable standards for high performance new tenant fit-outs
with the input of industry stakeholders.
To conclude, sound energy policy must take a holistic approach
that considers the up-front costs associated with retrofit projects,
financing constraints, efficient building designs within the control of
owners, and the consumption and behaviors of office tenants and
other building occupants. Federal legislation that takes a voluntary,
market-based approach to leverage private sector investment with
modest financial assistance – while educating and aligning commercial building landlords with their tenants – can yield deep cuts in
energy consumption attributed to the commercial real estate sector
as a whole and create thousands of well-paying construction jobs in
the process.
Jeffrey D. DeBoer is President and CEO of The Real Estate Roundtable.
Duane J. Desiderio is The Roundtable’s Vice President and Counsel.
The Real Estate Roundtable brings together leaders of the nation’s
top publicly-held and privately-owned real estate ownership, development, lending and management firms with the leaders of major national real estate trade associations to jointly address key national policy
issues relating to real estate and the overall economy. This article is
based on a written statement presented by Mr. DeBoer at a June 2012
hearing of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
See https://www.comed.com/Documents/business-savings/fact-sheets/EUDS_FS.pdf.
See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled_buildings.locator; http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_
portfoliomanager_intro.
9 10 Tel 212-922-1965
Fax 212-922-1936
plippe@e4inc.com
High Performance Building Consulting
Energy Benchmarking, Audits and Feasibility Studies
Building Commissioning
LEED Project Management and Administration
High Performance Building Workshops / Charrettes
Construction and/or Operations Plans and Reporting
Green Material Submittal Review and Requests for Information
Building Management, Vendor and Subcontractor Education
Government Funding and Incentives
Courtesy of The Durst Organization
Pamela Lippe,
President
201 E 42nd St., Ste 3200
New York, NY 10017
www.e4inc.com
W h at ’ s N e x t ?
Why the Time is Right
for Anaerobic Digestion
And How It Can Play a Part
in Our Energy Future
Jon Ratner
Vice President, Energy & Sustainability, Forest City Enterprises
I
n July 2012, Forest City was joined by Cleveland Mayor
Frank Jackson and over 200 guests to celebrate the
opening of our new anaerobic digester, a waste-to-energy
facility that uses natural processes to break down organic
matter, producing biogas, which is converted into energy
(electricity in this instance).
You might be asking yourself why Forest City, a publicly
owned real estate owner and developer, is in the renewable
energy business. Well, to understand where we’re going,
you have to look at where we’ve been.
More than 90 years ago, a company called Forest City
opened for business at the corner of East 179th Street
and St. Clair Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. Built with an
entrepreneurial spirit, our business has grown to focus on
real estate management and development of transformative
urban communities that change cities for the better. With
more than $10 billion in assets, our associates have created
hundreds of remarkable properties, from the tallest residential
building in the western hemisphere, designed by Frank Gehry,
to regional retail centers, office buildings, mixed-use communities and more.
Then again, some things haven’t changed. We’re still
based in Cleveland, the original “Forest City,” and we still
believe in the power of real estate to deliver solutions that
improve the quality of life and change cities for the better.
Those are just a few of the reasons we were proud to
gather just a few blocks from where it all began to usher in
a new era for Forest City.
Developed with our joint venture partner, quasar energy
group, the Collinwood BioEnergy Facility produces 1.3
megawatts of electricity that is sold to the local public utility.
Built on the former site of a GM plant, it marks one of the
first stand-alone applications of this renewable energy
technology in an urban setting in the U.S.
New thinking and technological advancements have set
the stage for an exciting future that stands to benefit our
industry and communities. Still, there is more work to be
done, as we must educate the public on the benefits of
anaerobic digestion and advocate for public policies that
encourage green technology that will allow cities to better
manage their growing energy needs in the next century.
Why Anaerobic Digestion Makes Sense for Real
Estate Development
Our approach to bio-energy is simply a new deployment
of known science that has been used for hundreds of years.
Anaerobic digestion bio-energy facilities are widely used in
Europe and have seen decades of successful operation.
Forest City has built a strong relationship with quasar, an
innovative waste-to-energy company that designs, builds,
owns and operates anaerobic digestion facilities, using U.S.
components to produce cleaner, renewable electricity, natural
gas and fuel for vehicles.
Together, Forest City and quasar have had a joint venture in
place since 2010. As the partnership has grown, both firms have
developed an appreciation for each other’s strengths – understanding
the complementary relationship that a large publicly-traded
company with strong internal controls, deep relationships, and
nuanced marketplace understanding brings to an entrepreneurial
startup with a focus on engineering, construction and logistics.
Yet the question remains: Why did we enter the energy business?
As a diversified real estate company with more than 200
properties and 45,000 apartment units and homes, our footprint
stretches from the skyscrapers of New York to military homes on
the shores of Hawaii and everything in between, including many
dynamic mixed-use, transit-friendly urban communities.
With such a large portfolio, and regional offices across the
country, it’s not hard to imagine that we spend a lot of money
each year on energy – more than $150 million.
Rather than continually exposing ourselves to that type of volatile
expense, much of it coming from dirty fuel sources, Forest City
has a dedicated team that manages it through energy efficiency,
purchasing and the generation of on-site renewable energy.
As such, we have an in-house capability to develop and manage
renewable energy projects in solar, wind and waste-to-energy.
Our strategy includes deploying these projects on existing Forest
City assets as well as on new developments. The impact on our
business can be significant: At one 635-unit apartment community,
for example, we were able to offset 30 percent of our common
area energy usage as a result of the retrofit installation of a 355
KW solar array, generating a positive impact on our balance
sheet while improving the asset.
Going forward, we see the greatest opportunity in waste-toenergy for many reasons, including:
• It produces electricity at the lowest cost – maximizing value
for all stakeholders, including our shareholders, associates,
partners, communities.
• It can produce electricity in the smallest amount of space – allowing
for the development of facilities in metropolitan markets.
Because of these factors and our proven track-record as an urban
developer, we believe our partnership can create a sustainable
competitive advantage by penetrating urban and high barrier-toentry markets.
For us, though, it’s not just about the money. At Forest City,
we are committed to the principles of sustainability and resource
stewardship. They are inherent in much of what we do, and are
among the core values that drive the actions of our company.
Our emphasis is on the practical. “How” we operate is
important. As a long-term developer, owner and operator of real
estate, we appreciate the growing importance of energy usage,
water conservation, waste reduction and related measures on
the bottom line – and on the triple-bottom line of people, planet
and profit.
“What” we do makes a difference. We believe our business model
is aligned with important societal needs, including, for example,
urban revitalization, transportation-centered development, adaptive
reuse and historic preservation of buildings, affordable housing,
community engagement and public/private partnerships.
Bio-energy can help us deliver on these promises, and help
our cities meet their goals for reducing waste sent to landfills
and generating clean energy production while promoting job
creation and economic development.
Why It Makes Sense for Cities and Public Partners
Our Forest City/quasar partnership focuses on anaerobic
digestion that utilizes organic industrial waste, like that of large
scale food processing and production. At the grand opening of
our facility in Cleveland, a truck from a local ice cream company
brought a shipment of their finest leftovers to be processed and
converted into electricity.
This represents one of the key value propositions of anaerobic
digestion, as our facilities “close the loop,” taking in waste typically headed for municipal landfills, earning a collection fee, and
then using it to create energy, which becomes the “product”
that is sold to public utilities.
Our recent recession has clearly increased pressure on our cities
and municipal partners to simply maintain their current level
of services, with many facing additional burdens as America’s
aging infrastructure demands attention. These demands will
only increase, as three major trends drive the need for domestic
waste-to-energy solutions:
• Populations are growing, creating more waste and more
demand for energy.
• Living standards are rising, and there is a strong correlation
between increased living standards and a per-capita increase
in energy usage and waste creation.
• Increased trends toward higher density urban areas have made
it harder to open new waste and energy facilities near population
centers, creating the need for distributed waste and energy
generation facilities.
Anaerobic digestion represents an untapped opportunity for cities
to implement long-term, sustainable solutions that relieve some of
the pressure on their infrastructure and drive economic development.
What Needs to Change To Make It a Reality
When combined with technological developments, economic
conditions and public policy trends, a significant waste-to-energy
market opportunity has emerged. The acute need for facilities
today lies at the intersection of federal incentives, state-level
legislation mandating the adoption of renewable energy, and
increased regulations that affect how cities and companies
dispose of certain wastes.
As we have seen in the real estate industry, requirements around
sustainability are not going away. Just as many municipalities are
requiring new development projects be built to the U.S. Green
Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) standards, some states, including New York, have begun
to encourage companies to reduce their landfill footprints, yearover-year. While just a recommendation and not yet a law, this
measure gives us a glimpse of the future. We know where this
road goes, and cities must proactively seek solutions to these
coming changes.
Increased landfill and disposal costs and taxes will drive companies
to seek out waste-to-energy solutions. One clear example can be
seen in the United Kingdom, where many of the largest food re-
tailers are diverting their food waste to anaerobic digestion, with
one sending nearly 90 percent of their food waste, due in part
to increasing landfill taxes. “Diverting food waste from landfill
to anaerobic digestion is a no-brainer for the supermarkets —
landfill charges and energy costs are only getting more expensive,”
Niamh McSherry, a food retail analyst at Berenberg Bank, told
Bloomberg Businessweek.
Stateside, progressive municipalities are taking action. In San
Francisco, officials have set the audacious goal of zero waste
by 2020. This bold initiative will certainly force the public and
private sectors to seek new solutions, with waste-to-energy
a seemingly perfect part of their future plans.
The good news is the federal government and some states
have begun fostering the necessary conditions for renewable
energy to thrive in metropolitan areas.
At a federal regulatory level, utilities are required to grant
interconnection to renewable energy facilities under a 1978
law known as Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).
Bio-energy facilities qualify as renewable energy facilities under
PURPA, and thus utilities are required to allow interconnection.
A barrier exists in that a utility is not required to pay for required
interconnection upgrades, and thus siting a facility in an area rich
in existing infrastructure is important. Forest City’s metropolitan
strategy lends itself well to locating projects to take advantage
of a low-cost interconnection, and its experienced team has
allowed the company to adeptly maneuver through utility and
regulatory processes.
In addition, federal incentives help make renewable energy
sites both feasible and advantageous for all stakeholders. One area
of regulation that would represent a positive step forward are
state laws regarding virtual net-metering, which allow customers
of an electric distribution company to generate their own electricity
in order to offset their electricity usage.
In essence, a real estate company can become their own
utility, using energy from their own anaerobic digestion facility
(or another technology) to power their own development, while
being compensated for any electricity they generate but do not use.
If you’ve never seen an electricity meter spin backwards because
you’re generating more energy than you’re consuming, trust me,
it’s a beautiful thing. There’s something visceral and exciting about
creating energy from waste destined to sit in a landfill for hundreds
of years. It really is a no-brainer: it’s clean, it’s constant, and it’s
economically feasible. But as we’ve seen in everything from CFLs
to reusable shopping bags, widespread adoption cannot happen
without consumer awareness and public support.
Clearly, innovative solutions are needed as our energy future
remains as volatile as ever. We believe anaerobic digestion, a triplebottom line solution that creates jobs, reduces waste and generates
renewable energy 24/7, is the answer. But policy changes are needed
in New York and other states to allow for cities and the real estate
industry to form stronger public-private partnerships that make use
of anaerobic digestion and net-metering technology.
Jon Ratner holds the position of Vice President of Energy and Sustainability
for Forest City Enterprises, Inc. In this capacity, Jon provides day to day leadership
over a broad reaching initiative to improve the way in which Forest City practices
sustainability as a technology, a capability and a core value throughout its
entire portfolio.
If you like what you’re reading...there are seven more.
Lessons Learned
Four Times square
An environmental information and resource guide
for the commercial real estate industry
LESSONS LEARNED
HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS
The CosTs and BenefiTs
of high PerformanCe
Buildings
Lessons LearneD
sPonsors
Bromley Companies
Carrier Corporation–
United Technologies
The Durst Organization, Inc.
Flack + Kurtz Consultants
Fred F. French Investing LLC
SponSorS
proDuceD By
The DurST organizaTion, inc.
earTh Day new yorK
cooperaTing organizaTionS
KaSTle SySTemS
real eSTaTe BoarD of new yorK
TiShman realTy & conSTrucTion co., inc.
BuilDing ownerS’ anD managerS’ aSSociaTion
of greaTer new yorK
uniTeD TechnologieS
Earth Day New York
cooPerating organizations
Real Estate Board of New York
Building Owners’ and Managers’
Association of Greater New York
New York Building Congress
Real Estate Roundtable
Tishman Realty &
Construction Co., Inc.
U.S. Department of Energy
american gaS aSSociaTion
inSignia/eDwarD S. gorDon co., inc.
NYS Energy Research
& Development Authority
sponsors
AlBAnese orgAnizAtion inc.
BenjAmin moore
BromleY compAnies
cAlmAc
hugh l. cAreY BAtterY pArk
citY AuthoritY
dsA encore llc
fox & fowle Architects
hines
nYs energY reseArch &
development AuthoritY
sArnAfil inc.
skAnskA
the durst orgAnizAtion
tishmAn construction & reAltY
us depArtment of energY
Produced by
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
new yorK BuilDing congreSS
Lessons Learned Four Times Square 1
Cooperating organizations
an environmental information and resource
guide for the commercial real estate industry
AmericAn institute of Architects, new York chApter • Building owners And mAnAgers of greAter new York
locAl initiAtives support corporAtion • mortgAge BAnkers AssociAtion • nAtionAl AssociAtion of reAltors ®
nAtionAl AssociAtion of industriAl And office properties • nAtionAl multi housing council
new York Building congress • reAl estAte BoArd of new York • the reAl estAte roundtABle
urBAn lAnd institute • us green Building council, new York chApter
us green Building council
proDUCeD BY earth DaY new York
Earth Day New York (EDNY) is a low-overhead, broadly educational non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes
environmental awareness and solutions through:
• involving schools, teachers and students in the Earth Day Education Program and School Gardens Initiative;
• educating public and private policymakers through conferences and publications; and
• involving the general public in annual Earth Day events.
If your organization would like to sponsor EDNY programs or participate in Earth Day events in New York City,
please contact us at info@earthdayny.org.
For information on ordering and to review each table of contents, please visit
http://earthdayny.org/index.php/education/lessons-learned or contact us at 212-922-0048 or info@earthdayny.org.
Earth Day New York
201 E. 42nd Street #3200 New York, NY 10017
Game Changers: Ideas to
Inspire Owner-Tenant
Collaboration
Joseph W. Markling
Chair and Chief-Elected Officer, Building Owners and
Managers Association (BOMA) International
B
y now, we all know the business case for energy
efficiency. Just do the math! With 10.1 billion square
feet of office space in the U.S. (based on CBRE data)
and energy costs running at approximately $2.32 per square
foot (based on data from 2012 BOMA International Experience
Exchange Report®), a conservative five percent cost reduction
would result in savings of $1.17 billion per year!
If only building owners and tenants would more effectively
collaborate to make needed upgrades – and share the benefit.
Over the past decade, many commercial real estate leaders
have demonstrated the environmental and financial benefits
of energy-efficient buildings. As a result, more and more
building owners and tenants have been searching for the game
changers that will result in widespread reductions in building
energy use. However, the availability of new technologies and
processes does not always result in people actually applying
those solutions, even where there is a clear, positive return on
investment and a short payback period.
“To date, conversations around energy efficiency between
landlords and tenants have largely revolved around the fact
that landlords must pay for upgrades, but tenants receive the
immediate benefits,” according to Roy Torbert, a building
analyst for the Rocky Mountain Institute. This “split incentive”
issue has long been cited as a major barrier to retrofitting
multi-tenanted commercial office buildings. Split incentives
result from the structure of many commercial leases. Net
leases and modified gross leases, the most common types
of leases, typically make the building owner responsible for
bearing the cost of all capital upgrades. Energy costs, being
a routine operating expense, are paid by the tenants. In
other words, the owner makes the capital investment to
improve the building and the tenant is the sole beneficiary
of the reward of reduced operating expenses.
The result is that commercial real estate owners have little
direct financial incentive to upgrade their buildings to save
energy. To further complicate the issue, unless the tenant
space is separately metered or submetered, all of the tenants
pay a pro rata share of the building’s energy costs. Therefore,
tenants have little incentive to modify their behavior or implement any energy-reduction strategies because they must share
the reward of their improved behavior while also sharing the
costs of other tenants’ wasteful behavior.
Last fall, the Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA) International and the Rocky Mountain Institute teamed
up to tackle the split incentive issue and find the “sweet spot”
of collaboration between owners and tenants. We assembled a
very impressive group of experts, including seasoned building
managers, leasing experts, tenant representatives, environmental organizations and financing specialists, to identify the
“game changer” – or at least offer some insight on why, after
all these years and in spite of all of the technological advance-
ments, we haven’t found a viable solution to inspire owner-tenant
collaboration.
Although there is no magic bullet, we did identify five simple
steps that we believe will go a long way to achieving the goals.
The five actionable steps offer solutions and ways to push for
deeper and more aggressive energy savings:
1.Make energy use and costs more transparent.
2.Engage building occupants in saving energy.
3. Incorporate energy efficiency in tenant fit-outs.
4. Plan ahead for deep retrofits.
5.Structure agreements to benefit both parties.
“It’s not rocket science, but I think that’s the most important
lesson we learned. Sometimes it really is as simple as having the
conversation, outlining the sustainability goals for the property,
engaging all stakeholders—including management, tenants, and
lenders— and setting in place a plan,” stated Karen Penafiel,
BOMA’s vice president of advocacy, codes and standards. The end
product, a free downloadable guidebook, Working Together for
Sustainability: The RMI-BOMA Guide for Landlords and Tenants,
outlines steps both owners/managers and tenants/occupants can
take to begin implementing energy efficiency. It doesn’t attempt to
recreate the wheel; it provides links to other resources, information,
examples and breakthroughs to help all parties find workable
solutions that reduce energy consumption and save money while
ensuring a quality work environment.
Make energy use and costs more transparent. Benchmark,
benchmark, benchmark, then share your data with your tenants.
Communicating the results to tenants – explaining what it means
and how it’s a key means to chart your building’s sustainability action
plan – will help build trust and cooperation. Tenants will also gain
a better understanding of the building owner’s goals as well as the
crucial role tenants play in successfully lowering building energy
consumption and their own costs.
Engage building occupants in saving energy. To most
property professionals, having a conversation with tenants on how
occupant behavior impacts energy use is not something they look
forward to. But occupancy schedules, usage patterns, occupant
behavior and attitudes, and the appliances and equipment used
in leased space can either help or hinder the building’s energy
performance. Plug and process loads typically account for 30 to 35
percent of the total electricity used in a commercial building. A wellstructured occupant engagement process can identify opportunities
for significant energy savings – without pinpointing any blame.
Incorporate energy efficiency in tenant fit-outs. Tenants are
generally not the experts when it comes to incorporating energy
efficient measures in the build-out of their space, and if the building’s
goals are not effectively communicated to the architect or contractor,
opportunities can be missed. We encourage tenants to evaluate
product selection, contractor practices, an integrated design/green
team to improve initial and ongoing performance, and the possibility
of bringing on a third-party to coordinate tenant initiatives and
maximize the efficiency potential.
Plan ahead for deep retrofits. It’s always hard to know the
right time to schedule a deep energy retrofit. No building owner
wants to do anything disruptive to the tenants, and no occupant
welcomes the disruption. Energy management and maintenance
practices should be implemented regularly as part of the overall
strategy for a building. Ongoing commissioning (or retrocommissioning) will also be helpful to identify improvements
that can be made. But even if a building owner/manager is doing
all of this, that may not be enough. Building owners should plan
ahead for significant events, such as a major tenant fit-out or when
a major tenant moves out, that could provide an opportunity for
deeper retrofits.
Structure agreements to benefit both parties. Green leases
are no longer a new concept, though they have thus far been
slow to enact change and green clauses are often the first thing
sacrificed during negotiations between prospective tenants and
landlords. But they’re still a great and underutilized tool, and clearly
the best way to agree how the costs and benefits of energy retrofits
are to be equitably shared. Green leases are also a great way for
the building owner to communicate to tenants the sustainability
goals for the building. Don’t have a green lease in place? Consider
amending the lease or using a letter of agreement, which is particularly helpful when an owner has a specific retrofit planned and needs
to get tenant buy-in or renegotiate some of the lease terms to
more equitably share the costs and savings of the potential retrofit.
Throughout the process of working with our team of experts, RMI
and BOMA discovered that collaboration is key. Anytime a property
manager has an opportunity to communicate a success with tenants
they should take advantage of it. And tenants don’t have to wait on
the building owner/manager to make things happen. At any point,
tenants can initiate the conversation. A good property manager will
welcome the opportunity to partner in sustainability.
Joe Markling is Chair and Chief-Elected Officer of the Building Owners
and Managers Association (BOMA) International and Managing Director,
Strategic Accounts, CBRE.
Stuyvesant Press
Earth Day New York’s green printer.
Stuy Press
ad
199 Coit Street,
Irvington, NJ 07111
T: 973-399-3880
F: 973-399-9696
mroesch@stuyvesantpress.com
www.stuyvesantpress.com
Fostering Landlord-Tenant
Partnerships for Energy &
Waste Reduction
Adam Siegel
Vice President of Sustainability and Retail Operations,
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
W
hen a retail company adopts an environmental
commitment, it’s easy to picture the corporate
wheels starting to turn. However, making changes
to retail energy and recycling systems is easier said than
done. When looking to implement store sustainability projects, the feasibility rests largely on one factor: whether or
not the space is leased.
If the store is leased, the ability to make decisions
concerning resource management is often dependent on
collaboration between the tenant and landlord. For example,
the tenant can usually make certain upgrades within its
own store space. However, lease provisions related to
upgrades and maintenance will influence the ability for the
tenant to recuperate its costs. Also, the tenant may not have
the ability to pursue more sustainable strategies in areas
the landlord manages such as the roof, waste hauling, and
base energy systems. What can be done to overcome this
barrier and achieve the cost savings associated with energy
and waste reduction?
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) and the
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) have
engaged in an ongoing alliance, now 14 months old, to
address just that question.
When RILA and ICSC first teamed up in June of 2011,
the need for dialogue was clear. At RILA, we heard from
members with leased stores of all sizes. They told us that
they encountered a variety of obstacles when looking to
improve their energy and waste management practices.
Interestingly, ICSC was hearing the same from property
owners and managers, who were equally frustrated when
their requests to retail tenants proposing sustainable upgrades
went unanswered. That same month, RILA and ICSC
respectively recruited ten top retailers and ten of the largest
property developers to meet for a conversation about how
landlords and tenants can collaborate constructively for
mutual advantage.
Paladino & Company, Inc., a sustainability and green
building consulting firm based in Seattle, jumped on board
to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Our first meeting was
attended by both retailers and landlords alike, thirteen
companies in total. We began by asking how retailers and
property developers each viewed the status quo in terms
of shopping center sustainability efforts, and contrasted
that with where we want to be. The group was pleasantly
surprised to find that this exercise made the potential for
collaboration quite clear – everyone agreed that there was
a gap between the current ability to “green” shopping
centers and the ideal vision for the future.
Most importantly, we identified a variety of internal and
external challenges to overcome for both parties that were
inhibiting our mutual sustainability objectives.
What Challenges Do Retailers Face?
Retailers need access to store-level data and incentives to set
benchmarks and reap the benefits of retrofit investments. Typically
in larger, multi-store shopping centers, utility bills are mastermetered for the entire property without differentiating between
occupants. The portion of the utility bill attributed to an individual
store may be determined using an engineering study done a
number of years earlier, taking into account potential loads for
the leased premises’ electric usage which may or may not reflect
current consumption. That approach completely disconnects
energy costs from the individual occupant’s energy use. Also,
whether the tenant invests in technological upgrades or behavioral
changes, they do not benefit from the energy savings they have
achieved unless the tenant is separately metered.
Moreover, retailers often lack the communication channels necessary
to integrate sustainable practices into real estate and facility
management priorities. The individuals within a company who are
setting reduction goals may not be in regular contact with those
operating the actual stores and negotiating lease terms.
What Challenges Do Landlords Face?
On the other hand, landlords are often unaware of retailers’
desire for “greener” building operations and perceive it as a lack
of interest. They also face their own internal communication challenges when attempting to effectively integrate sustainability goals
organization-wide. For the purposes of efficiency, any programs
taken on by property developers should scale over multiple sites
because of the logistical barriers created when one-off projects are
proposed. Additionally, landlords must prioritize and justify common
area charges typically recovered from tenants as a fixed-cost per
square foot or on a pro-rata basis. This necessity limits the type of
projects the landlord can undertake.
What Challenges Do Both Retailers and Landlords Face?
Both sides share concerns over the “split incentives” associated
with cost and benefit allocations of any new green feature. If landlords pay for upgrades whose improvements in efficiency result
in savings only for the retail occupants, the costs cannot be recovered
because typically lease language does not allow recovery of capital
improvements. The same holds true for upgrades financed by
a tenant that cannot be recuperated by that tenant.
Retail leases cover a variety of operational and logistical provisions
but rarely incentivize efficient resource use. Adding any components
to a lease retroactively can be a headache for both retailers and
landlords, especially if seemingly simple requests conflict with
existing policies. For example, a lease might state that the landlord
is in charge of replacing burned out lights in the parking lot—but
what if the retailer would like those lights replaced with a more
efficient model? Does the landlord need to honor that request?
Who pays for the new lights? What if rewiring is required? What if
the parking lot has to be resurfaced in order to make the upgrades?
In addition, deep retrofits almost always require collaboration
with external parties, be it technology or service providers, utilities,
waste haulers, municipalities, or others. Sometimes there are
adjacent property owners like supermarkets and department
stores that need to sign on. Seeking alignment among numerous
stakeholders can often prove challenging.
Finally, we noticed that both retailers and landlords struggle to
determine with whom to collaborate in the other organization.
It is usually not clear from the outside who makes decisions for
energy or waste projects and what the process is for making those
decisions. Approaching the wrong person can delay—or even
prevent—a financially beneficial project from moving forward.
Because of these questions and challenges, RILA and ICSC
members have begun to focus on the concept of “green” leasing.
In essence, they are working to develop lease clauses that align the
interest of the landlord and tenant in promoting a high efficiency
building within the leased premises as well as the common areas.
What Are the Opportunities Presented by
“Green Leasing”?
Green leasing specifically addresses five key features of efficient,
healthy, sustainable, and productive buildings: (1) base building
efficiency including common areas; (2) resource use transparency
at a store level; (3) incentive alignment so that green features
benefit all parties; (4) tenant space improvements; and
(5) clarification of access and control for key spaces.
Base building efficiency is concerned with how efficiently the
entire building is functioning. A number of components determine
the base building efficiency, including the building envelope, or
the elements of a structure that separate the interior from the
exterior environment. It is important to know specific information
concerning the existing envelope, such as insulation effectiveness.
Measured by its R-value, the resistance of insulation to temperature
flow between the interior and exterior will have a significant
impact on heating and cooling costs. However, insulation does
little good if the building lacks airtightness. If a building is poorly
weatherized, it means larger utility bills. Similarly, heating and
cooling costs are impacted by the design of a building’s roofs and
walls, the prevalence, design, and positioning of windows, doors,
and skylights, and the customizations specific to a region’s climate.
Secondly, occupants need resource use transparency at a store
level. Sustainability efforts are most effectively adopted and
expanded when companies can track their progress toward their
goals or commitments. To acquire sustainability-related data, utilities
such as energy and water must be separately metered by the user.
Tracking store data is essential to understanding potential energy
and waste reduction opportunities, and provides the basis for
financial return calculations.
Mixed incentives can complicate and prevent even the most
economically sound efficiency upgrades. Aligning incentives
through cost-benefit sharing provides both retailers and landlords
with opportunities to pursue investments that previously would
not have paid back the funder.
Green leases help define a process for all future sustainable
upgrades, simplifying and streamlining what was previously done
through case-by-case discussions. By simply addressing these
requests at the beginning of the store’s lease, it is possible to
proactively identify opportunities for cost and eco-impact reductions, address misconceptions about “greening,” and improve
landlord-tenant relations.
Green Leasing Committee
Our retail and landlord volunteers worked together in three
committees. Two of the committees were focused on energy
and waste management, respectively. The primary Green Leasing
committee worked to address the overall challenges at the earliest
stage possible—the lease itself.
The leasing process follows a well-established sequence. For an
existing structure, the first interaction between property owner
and interested lessee is the Letter of Intent (LOI), in which a retailer
expresses interest in leasing a store at a particular location. Once
a retailer decides on a location, the landlord, occasionally in
partnership with the retailer, develops a draft lease, generally
starting with the landlord’s model lease modified to address the
prospective tenants’ specific circumstances. At this point, while
most of the business terms have been agreed upon, rounds of
negotiations follow, discussing all pertinent items like the
tenant work letter specifying build-out options, space features,
renegotiated lease clauses, and other criteria. After the retailer
and landlord have signed the lease, the space is built out to the
specifications agreed on by the two parties in the lease, codified
in the tenant work letter—which includes design and construction
criteria and is usually attached as an exhibit to the lease.
This attention to detail facilitates operations by providing defined
procedures—however, components that are absent from the document face the significant challenge of having no rules to guide
them. Retrofitting processes that are not codified in the lease face
additional implementation hurdles and may never come to fruition.
Thus it makes sense to begin as early as possible to discuss desired
green lease provisions, which can be incorporated into new leases.
As a result, the committee drafted useful tools for retailers and landlords to integrate green provisions into their negotiations.
For most retailers, the letter of intent to the property owner is
the first opportunity to discuss green standards. A sample “green”
LOI and a questionnaire were our first two tools. The documents
provide a way to initiate discussions concerning a variety of operating
practices and efficiencies in the base building. Included are questions
about whether the building already does or would comply with
green standards such as LEED, energy reduction opportunities
including the ability to install renewable energy systems, water and
storm-water management, indoor air quality and waste management.
This information is helpful for retailers to better understand the
property’s features and operations. Green lease provisions result in
lower utility bills and more options to introduce new technology as
opportunities arise during the life of the lease.
Although it is tempting to construct a standardized green lease
template to use, the diversity of retail locations and business
priorities makes this ill-advised. We recognized that all companies
are different and that creating tools that integrate into the
workflow of both retail and landlord professionals would be
a better approach to unlocking the most value from sustainability
performance. Much like the letter of intent, we have begun to
draft sample lease and sample work letter language, intended as
references to educate companies on potential implementation
strategies. Retailers and landlords can use these tools to familiarize
themselves with sample lease language and can use them to facilitate
productive discussions when entering into lease negotiations.
This provides both parties an opportunity to directly influence the
design and build out of retail space to ensure green elements are
part of the original investment rather than an afterthought.
Energy Committee
There are many opportunities for energy reduction which
require cost-benefit sharing but have the potential to improve
overall building efficiency.
As a first step, retailers and landlords must be aware of their
energy use and have incentives to reduce consumption. As the
backbone of all other efficiency efforts, accurate data and energy
management systems are essential. This almost always requires
energy submetering that is capable of recording data at a store
level separate from common areas controlled by the landlord.
Another important challenge to address is that of alternative
power generation, which typically takes the form of rooftop solar
photovoltaic systems. Harnessing the millions of square feet on
top of retail centers to produce energy would dramatically reduce
environmental emissions and dependency on the grid.
Other energy saving opportunities address base building efficiency,
like incorporating daylighting, using high efficiency HVAC systems,
ensuring a tight building envelope, and using high efficiency windows
and high R-value insulation. A more efficient base building will
allow rooftop renewable energy sources to meet an even greater
portion of the building’s energy needs. Even simple specification
adjustments before installing a roof, such as using a white reflective
roofing material rather than black, can lower cooling costs in the
summer and minimize the urban heat island effect.
In the case of submetering, the committee is developing an
Energy Submeter Cost-Benefit Calculator to analyze predicted
payback period and reduced annual utility bills to help justify
installation. By including all the figures related to one-time and
recurring costs and savings, the tool helps identify whether
submeters make financial sense for retailers and landlords – the
easiest selling point for an energy project.
Recycling Committee
The list of recyclable materials that can be collected from typical
retail locations is formidable: cardboard, hangers, shrink wrap,
strapping, poly bags, mixed paper, mixed plastic, scrap metal,
aluminum, e-waste, wood pallets, plastic pallets, organics, foam,
mixed metals, and glass. Many of these are valuable commodities
if they can be recycled properly. In some cases, the monetary gains
from recycling can more than pay for the charges for segregating
pick up, preparation, hauling, and processing. However, the ability
to divert these items from the landfill is largely dependent on the
availability of local infrastructure. Diverting waste from the landfill
will always result in real savings because of avoided disposal fees,
which are ever-increasing. While cardboard is nearly universally
recycled, opportunities to recycle other commodities are expanding
but must be researched on a market-by-market basis.
Property owners often do not realize that recycling can be profitable
for them and their retailers. When recycling is simply viewed as an
added cost, there is no incentive to reorganize pick-ups, buy new
equipment, and engage tenants to participate. But when looked
at as a business opportunity, it becomes clear that these materials
have a value, which can be harvested with the proper infrastructure.
To clarify this potential revenue, the recycling committee created
a Recycling Cost-Benefit Tool to help calculate the total estimated
setup costs, benefits, and simple payback period for recycling
programs. The tool even gives the option to share the distribution of
benefits with tenants to encourage and incentivize their participation.
What’s Next?
From our conversations, we have learned to distinguish
between the aspects of the retailer-landlord relationship that
simply need clarification and those that require more in-depth
discussions between the two parties. With the existing tools available to those companies that have engaged in the ICSC-RILA
partnership, the next step is to continue defining opportunities for
retail green leases and to determine what other resources can help
them improve their sustainability performance. For example, we
recognize that developing tools to facilitate internal educational
discussions at retail or developer companies can better prepare
both parties for a greener lease negotiation.
We are expanding the set of involved organizations to also
include smaller retailers and property owners. Because one property can contain so many different retailers, we aim to promote
awareness of the issue among all retailers and property owners
with a vested interest in cost reductions. This collaborative project
will be an ongoing educational process and we welcome more
retailers and property developers to enter the conversation.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) is best defined
by the companies we represent: America’s leading retailers. RILA
proudly counts nine of the top 10 U.S. retailers as members. RILA
members also hold the top spots in key retail segments including:
apparel, consumer electronics, department stores, home improvement, large format and small format. No other trade association
represents more top retailers than RILA.
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), founded
in 1957, is the premier global trade association of the shopping
center industry. Its more than 55,000 members in over 90 countries
include shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing
specialists, investors, retailers and brokers, as well as academics and
public officials. As the global industry trade association, ICSC links
with more than 25 national and regional shopping center councils
throughout the world.
Whether its converting waste to energy
with our partner quasar energy group
or creating the internationally acclaimed
Stapleton community in Denver, we’ve
embarked on an ambitious effort to
incorporate the lessons of sustainability
into the way we do business and the
way we work every day.
Forest City is building our legacy
as a developer, owner and manager
of sustainable real estate, one quality
community at a time.
Learn more about our sustainability efforts
by visiting our Web site at www.forestcity.net.
Understanding
Integrative Design
in LEED® v4
John Boecker, 7group
Bill Reed, Integrative Design, Inc. & Regenesis, Inc.
Background
B
eginning in November 2005, a core committee of building industry practitioners gathered in Chicago to begin a
dialogue on how to offer the marketplace a document
that clarified the meaning, importance, structure, and practice
of Integrative Design. The Institute for Market Transformation
to Sustainability had requested the formation of this group to
create a standard guideline that would provide building owners
and design and construction practitioners with a framework for
practicing in a highly interactive way.
An Integrative Process (IP) is increasingly being seen as critical
to achieving both cost efficiencies and building performance.
For example, national public meetings on green building
underwriting (conducted at Federal Reserve regional offices in
2010) concluded that a consensus Integrative Process is such
an important part of their underwriting, that “it should be
1
2
a condition of financing.” This was according to the National
Consensus Green Building Underwriting Committee and
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, not green building activists.
In response to growing interest, most design professionals
give lip service to this process, but very few teams do it well.
Consequently, after more than six years of work, an ANSI
Standard was created to inform designers, engineers, constructors, facilities managers and building owners about the advantages of the Integrative Process and to take the mystery out of
how to do it. The resulting Integrative Process (IP) ANSI Consensus
Standard Guide© 2.0 for Design and Construction of Sustainable
Buildings and Communities was published in February 2012.
In 2009, we wrote a book to elaborate and delve deeper into
the “lessons learned” from implementing an Integrative Process
(IP). The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building serves as a
kind of Reference Guide for the current IP ANSI Standard Guide.
Throughout 2009 and into 2010, approximately thirty peer
reviewers, selected from a wide range of design and construction professions, were engaged to review the detailed practices
and stages outlined in the book. The IP ANSI Standard Guide
2.0 was the result; it synthesizes and reflects the suggestions,
comments and edits that grew out of this peer review process.
Definition of Integrative Process
The Integrative Process actively seeks to design and construct
projects that are cost-effective over both the short and long
term, by engaging all project team members in an intentional
process of collaboration to discover mutually beneficial interrelationships and synergies between systems and components.
http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/CMP_FFIC_Risk_Reduction_Statement.pdf.
It was based on an earlier version ANSI/MTS 1.0 Whole Systems Integrated Process Guide (WSIP)-2007 for Sustainable Buildings and Communities.
It is done in a way that unifies technical and living systems, so that
high levels of building performance, human performance and environmental benefits are achieved.
Philosophy Underlying Integrative Process
When working in a traditional linear way, the design process
isolates design and construction disciplines into silos (e.g., architects,
mechanical engineers, landscape architects and constructors) and
fragmented solutions are created. These ‘solutions’ can, and do,
create unintended consequences – some are positive, but most are
negative. The corollary is that when working to holistically integrate the
input of diverse team members early in the process, it becomes possible
to achieve significant efficiencies, cost savings and other benefits.
Those who hold knowledge that is typically spread across various
disciplines must be brought together in ways that enable the thinking
from each discipline to inform and link with the others. This requires a
process that explores all major issues in parallel. The entire design and
construction team should group-think and problem-solve together to
identify synergistic opportunities and the resultant benefits.
For example, by enhancing insulation levels, optimizing lighting,
increasing air distribution efficiency and installing high-performance
glazing, we can downsize a building’s mechanical systems (equipment such as furnaces, air conditioners, heat pumps, fans, etc.). In
many climates, entire perimeter heating systems can be eliminated.
The cost savings achieved through the mechanical equipment
reductions pay for the changes that allowed for the downsizing in
the first place. The resulting building will cost the same (or less), but
energy consumption and utility bills will be reduced dramatically.
An integrative process mandates more coordination. It encourages
team members to challenge typical assumptions and rules-of-thumb
from the very beginning of the project. Opportunities presented by
building and site systems are considered early and examined before
schematic design starts, or at the least, while it proceeds. Integrating
the many systems involved in a building project requires that the
expertise of each team member responsible for each system be
brought together for this very purpose. It rarely happens by accident.
In short, all issues need to be addressed concurrently, with
everyone present, at the earliest possible time because you can
never be sure where an innovative solution may come from. This
can be summarized as: Everybody Engaging Everything Early.
What Is (and is not) an Integrative Design Process
On a 34,500 square foot office project in Pennsylvania, an
early decision was made to couple ground-source heat pumps
with underfloor supply-air-plenum distribution. As the design
architect, I had decided that the central HVAC equipment should
be located in a penthouse on the roof. At an early schematic
design meeting, the participants discussed piping and ductwork:
specifically, how to get piping from the ground-source heat
pump well-field up to the penthouse, and how to distribute air
ducts back down from the air-handling units into the underfloor
supply-air plenums on both the first and second floors.
Suddenly, it dawned on me that this was not, in fact, an integrative process. Rather, the discussion of how best to assemble
these systems (albeit, as a group) amounted to little more than
accelerated coordination. Further, the decision to locate the central HVAC system components in the penthouse had been made
in isolation (by me!) without any input from the other disciplines
at the table.
Realizing this, I stopped the meeting. I looked across the table
at the mechanical engineer, and asked, “If you were designing
this building, where would you locate the central HVAC system
components? Where’s the best place for the mechanical room?”
The engineer was stunned. He sat in silence; later, he said that
he felt like a deer caught in headlights. Noticing the engineer’s
discomfort, I asked what was wrong. He explained, “Nobody’s
ever asked me that question before.” Here was someone with
over twenty years’ experience designing HVAC systems, yet
never in his career had an architect asked him for his expert
advice on where to locate the HVAC system components and
the mechanical room.
It only took a couple of minutes, though, for the engineer to
recover. He suggested placing the eleven ground-source heat
pump units in two separate mechanical spaces on the ground
floor of the building—six units in one room (serving the west
wing) and five in the other room (serving the east wing). He
explained that he could then route supply piping from the well
field directly up through the slab on grade to each of these
units, thereby eliminating all of the piping up to the penthouse
and back. Additionally, supply air could be provided directly into
the first-floor air plenum with only a foot or two of ductwork
in three directions. Further, only five feet of vertical ductwork
would be needed to supply air to the second-floor plenum,
thereby eliminating virtually all of the ductwork that otherwise would have been needed to provide supply air from the
penthouse. Further still, the engineer noted that since the duct
runs would be so significantly reduced, less resistance to airflow
would result, which meant that fan sizes could be reduced.
Lastly, he explained that instead of facilities staff having to climb
a ladder in the janitor’s closet to get onto the roof and then go
out into the snow and rain to replace filters, compressors and
so on; these activities could be performed in an easily accessible,
weather-enclosed space, resulting in significantly improved ease
of maintenance over the life of the building.
The engineer’s solution was elegant. In fact, everyone loved
the idea except for one person, the owner, who heard only
that he was going to lose 400 square feet of prime lease space
from the first floor of his building. Locked into a minimum
square footage of lease space, he viewed such an adjustment as
impossible. But, after some discussion and calculations, it was
determined that this new idea would save the owner $40,000 in
base construction costs. Hearing this, the owner happily agreed
to make up the lost square footage by adding an inexpensive
18 inches of length to each end of the building. Everyone was
happy. Even the sheet metal constructor, who initially balked at
the idea of losing all that ductwork (asserting that such a system
would never work), said by the end of the project that it was the
best system he had ever installed. – John Boecker
Integrative Process
Discovery
Design and Construction
Habitat
Water
Occupancy, Operations and
Performance Feedback
Energy
Materials
Budget
Prep
Evaluation
Concetual Design Design Development The IP ANSI Consensus Standard Guide
The Guide is intended to serve as a common reference that
supports the building industry (architects, constructors, designers,
engineers, landscape architects, ecologists, facilities managers, clients,
manufacturers and others) in the practice of integrative design.
It provides a clear framework based upon the following principles:
• It is simple enough to be referenced by busy building professionals
and clients seeking to understand why they can benefit from an
integrated process.
• It is specific enough to function as a guideline for practitioners
and clients in determining the associated scope and deliverables.
• It is generic enough to be applicable to a wide variety of project
types and entry points in the timeline of a project. It also addresses
all the participants in project delivery, so that each team member
can comfortably and effectively participate in the process.
Relationship to USGBC’s LEED Rating System
The availability of the above documents contributed to the US
Green Building Council’s (USGBC) creation of a new credit in LEED v4,
currently in its fifth public comment review period. This proposed
Integrative Process (IP) credit includes activities associated with
“Discovery” and “Implementation.”
The credit rewards project teams for gathering and analyzing
information during the Discovery Phase to make improved building
design decisions during Implementation. By identifying synergistic
opportunities early in the process, they can improve performance and
often lower costs. As described above, improving the envelope may
make it possible to downsize the HVAC system but if it happens late
in the process, the chiller, boiler and distribution systems are already
designed and often bought and savings may no longer be possible.
Compliance with the IP ANSI Standard Guide is not required to
achieve the LEED credit, but it can be useful since it helps teams
pursue a collaborative process versus the conventional approach to
design and construction (which is typically linear and oppositional).
LEED v4 Integrative Process Credit
The proposed Integrative Process credit is designed to begin
moving LEED project teams beyond a focus on checklists. Although
a comprehensive integrative process (such as that outlined in the
IP ANSI Standard Guide) engages all building and site systems, the
LEED IP credit is intended to introduce project teams to an integrative approach by focusing primarily on energy and water systems.
Through early analysis of energy and water systems, project teams
Construction Documents Integrative Process diagram
depicting the interrelationships
and interactions between
disciplines, subsystems, and
cost through the stages of
an integrative process. Image
courtesy of 7group and Bill Reed,
graphics by Corey Johnston.
Bidding and Construction
will ideally discover the following:
• Unique opportunities that lead to innovative designs and translate
into more LEED points by providing increased building performance
and greater environmental benefits, such as reduced energy, water
and resource consumption.
• Unique challenges that can be addressed early in design by capitalizing on synergies between systems, saving projects time and
money in both the short and long term.
• Deeper understanding of the interrelationships between systems
and their components, enabling optimization of each.
How Can Paint Color Affect Energy and
Construction Costs?
On a school project some years ago, the number of lighting
fixtures in every classroom was reduced by 25% compared to
standard practice, simply by virtue of the paint color selected.
How? In schematic design, the lighting/energy consultant
asked the architect, a simple question: What is the light reflectance value (LRV) of the paint color being selected for every
classroom in the project? This was highly unusual at the time
(in 1997), and it remains so today.
The LRV found on the back of the paint chip sample was
64%. The team determined that if the LRV of the paint was
increased to 75% (a slightly lighter color), the lighting consultant could reduce the number of lighting fixtures in each classroom by 25%, while still maintaining the necessary illumination
on student work surfaces. But, lighting also produces heat. A
rough average is that for every 3 watts of energy used for lighting, another watt of energy is required to cool the heat generated by those lights. In fact, lighting is often the largest single
contributor to internal heat loads in commercial buildings. As a
result, reductions in lighting energy generally result in reductions in both cooling system size and associated cooling energy.
In summary, by optimizing the paint color in classrooms, the
project team reduced the construction cost of both the lighting
and HVAC systems, reduced operating and energy costs, and
decreased the environmental impacts associated with both
the manufacturing and operation of the equipment. These
immense savings were only possible because this minor change
was identified early in the process, and because the opportunities were recognized and reflected in the design through an
integrative process.
• R
eduction in time and cost associated with making design changes
during the Construction Document (CD) phase and reduced
change orders during construction.
The LEED IP credit is organized into two sets of requirements:
Discovery and Implementation. Discovery identifies the analysis that
must be performed, while Implementation clarifies how the analysis
informs building design and site decisions.
The Discovery phase is designed to create the opportunity to
question assumptions, align team members around goals and foster
ongoing engagement in an iterative process. Accordingly, the
Discovery component of the credit requires analysis, while the
Implementation component requires documentation of how the
analysis informed design decisions. Achieving credit compliance
requires completion of Discovery and Implementation tasks only for
energy-related and water-related systems:
The Discovery Phase
“The Discovery phase is the foundation of an integrative
process. Every team member should be engaged in discussions
and setting performance goals to be considered as early as
possible. Rather than imposing solutions, it is important to work
to discover solutions through a process of co-learning – asking
the right questions – and successfully working together to
understand interrelationships between building systems,
between the work of the design team members and between
the project and the larger natural systems it inhabits.”3
Similar steps will be outlined in the LEED Reference Guide (with any
modifications that emerge from the fifth comment period) to provide
guidance for project teams pursuing the IP credit. Although not all of
these steps are required for credit compliance, they are recommended
for engaging integrative design effectively during the Discovery phase:
Step 1: Become Familiar with the Integrative Process
Although the credit is derived from the IP ANSI Standard Guide,
steps for achieving LEED compliance represent only a small introductory piece of the much larger integrative process outlined in the
ANSI guide. Accordingly, it would benefit project teams to become
familiar with the IP ANSI Standard Guide.
Step 2: Conduct Research and Analysis to Prepare for the
Goal-Setting Workshop
Without initial research, potential integrative design opportunities
will not be able to be discussed at the Goal-Setting Workshop with
a high level of rationale behind them. In order to avoid a “factfree” workshop, it helps to begin by gathering data as described
below pertaining to site, energy and water-related systems.
Step 2A: Energy-Related Systems Research and Analysis
1.Understand Site Conditions: Gather annual, hour-by-hour,
local climate data for later input into the energy model, including dry-bulb temperature, wet-bulb depression, relative humidity, and comfort hours. Although not required, it also is useful
to gather the information outlined in the requirements for
3
the new LEED v4 Sustainable Sites Credit 1: Site Assessment,
including information about topography, hydrology, climate,
vegetation, soils, and existing infrastructure.
2.Benchmark Energy Performance for Similar Buildings:
Research the typical energy performance for the project
building type and location, and prepare an Energy
Performance Report of findings. This can be accomplished
by using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
Target Finder, an online tool.
3.Understand Likely Energy Load Distribution: Produce
an extremely simple (or “simple box”) energy model with
an assumed building form to inform the team about the
distribution of loads by energy consumption end use. This
helps identify where the leverage points are for maximizing
impacts. Prepare an initial energy load distribution chart
in order to identify where the dominant energy loads are,
thereby identifying priority areas to look for savings that can
result from integrative strategies. This initial simple modeling can be accomplished by either an MEP engineer or an
energy modeling consultant via a wide array of available
software ranging from quite simple to extremely complex.
At this stage, simple works well.
Step 2B: Water-Related Systems Research and Analysis
1.Understand Site Conditions: Gather the following basic
data in preparation for the Goal-Setting Workshop:
•Annual rain fall (inches or millimeters per year) for the
project site
•Average monthly rain fall (inches or millimeters per month)
for the project site
•Identify the location, capacity, type of treatment, and level
of treatment for sewage treatment serving the site, including
any sewage plant facilities (map and distance from site).
Include data regarding average water treatment cost (per
applicable unit)
•Identify the location, capacity, type of water sources serving
the site, including reservoirs, aquifers, wells, lakes, rivers,
non-potable sources, municipal supply, etc. Include data
regarding average potable (and/or non-potable) water
supply cost (per applicable unit).
Step 3: Convene Goal-Setting Workshop
Actively engage the project owner in the Discovery phase to develop and align the project team around the owner’s aspirational goals
for the project, including budget, schedule, programmatic requirements, scope, quality and performance expectations by convening
a workshop with all primary project team members. Understanding
the nature of the owner’s goals and the purpose behind them will
aid the team in creative problem-solving and will encourage more
fruitful interaction. The workshop should:
•Introduce all project team members to the fundamentals of the
integrative process
•Share initial background research and analysis findings from
Step 2 above. For example, the team can agree to an annual total
energy use target derived from EPA’s Target Finder (such as 40,000
Btu/sf/year), which can then be translated into an annual energy
Adapted from 7group and Bill Reed, The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
budget so that the operating cost impacts can be understood.
• Elicit owner and stakeholder values and aspirations
• Clarify functional and programmatic goals
•Establish initial principles, benchmarks, metrics and performance
targets (such as 40,000 Btu/sf/year), including LEED credits
•Identify integrative strategies for achieving performance targets,
such as solar orientation (based on site constraints/opportunities), building envelope characteristics, opportunities for reduced
lighting levels and other load reduction strategies aimed at
achieving the targeted annual energy consumption
•Determine key questions that need to be answered to support
project decisions
•Develop an Integrative Process Road Map that identifies initial
responsibilities and deliverables
•Initiate documentation of the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR).
The LEED Reference Guide recommends a list of key team members
who should attend the Goal-Setting Workshop.
Step 4: Conduct Research and Analysis to Evaluate
Possible Strategies
Based on the goals developed during the Workshop, evaluate
the proposed performance targets for feasibility by identifying
and exploring a wide range of opportunities and possible
strategies for project energy- and water-related systems.
Evaluate possible strategies against the initial performance
targets (and targeted LEED credits) identified at the Workshop
using the analysis below to discover, for example, what set of
related system decisions might achieve the targeted 40,000
Btu/sf/year. That is, which combination of building massing,
insulation, window performance and lighting levels will result
in the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building BEFORE
design begins.
Step 4A: Energy-Related Systems Research and Analysis:
Analyze Potential Energy Load Reduction Strategies
Conduct preliminary comparative energy modeling using the
“simple box” energy model that evaluates potential energy load
reduction strategies associated with the following:
•Programmatic and Operational Parameters: Consider
options such as altering hours of operation, space allotment
per person, shared program spaces, teleworking policies, etc.
•Site Conditions: (not required for LEED Interior Design and
Construction) Consider options such as landscape, solar
shading, exterior lighting, and feasibility of natural ventilation.
•Massing and Orientation: Consider options such as altering massing (number of floors/building footprint) and solar
orientation.
•Building envelope performance: Consider options such as
increasing wall/roof insulation and/or thermal mass, altering
window size and orientation, use of exterior solar shading devices, and increasing window performance by revising U-values,
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Light Transmittance.
•Lighting Levels: Consider options for reducing Lighting
Power Density, such as assessing lighting needs in workspaces,
reflectance values for ceiling and wall surfaces, high efficiency
lighting fixtures and controls and daylighting.
• Thermal Comfort Ranges: Consider options for temperature
setpoints and thermal comfort parameters.
34• Lessons Learned Volume 8
•Plug and Process Load: Consider options that reduce plug
and process loads through programmatic solutions such as
equipment and purchasing policies and layout options.
Step 4B: Water-Related Systems Research and Analysis
Conduct Preliminary Water Budget Analysis
1.Understand Water Demand: Assess water demand volumes
related to the following:
•Indoor Water Use: Determine preliminary baseline and
design case water consumption volumes inside the building,
based upon the building occupants’ use of initially assumed
plumbing fixture flow and flush rates as calculated using
the methodology for Water Efficiency (WE) Prerequisite for
Indoor Water Use Reduction.
•Outdoor Water Use: Determine preliminary baseline and
design case water consumption volumes for landscape
irrigation, based upon initially assumed landscape strategies
and irrigation systems as calculated using the methodology
for WE Prerequisite for Outdoor Water Use Reduction.
•Appliance and Process Water: Determine baseline
and design case water consumption volumes inside the
building for water-consuming appliances and processes,
based upon initially assumed appliances and process
equipment, as calculated using the methodology for
WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction Appliance
& Process Water Use. This is required for all projects
containing any of the water-using equipment regulated
by WEp2. Additionally, include in the process water
demand calculations all make-up water used by cooling
towers, using the calculation methodology outlined in
WE Credit Cooling Tower Water Use.
2.Understand Water Supply Sources: Gather any data (in
addition to that for Discovery Step 2B above, as necessary) to
assess and quantify the project’s potential use of non-potable
supply sources, such as captured rainwater (based upon average monthly rainfall data and initial assumptions about collection areas), greywater from flow fixtures (based upon indoor
water use calculations described above), condensate produced
by the assumed HVAC cooling equipment, etc.
3.Analyze Potential Water Use Reduction Strategies:
Conduct preliminary water budget analysis to assess and
quantify how potential non-potable supply sources can be
used to offset potable water use for the water demands
calculated above. Identify how at least one on-site nonpotable water supply source can be used to meet a portion of
the demand volume for at least two demand components.
The LEED Reference Guide will outline the documentation required to
demonstrate the steps; this will likely include the following:
• Develop a preliminary energy load distribution end use report
• Compile preliminary energy modeling output
• Provide an energy analysis narrative
• Provide a water budget analysis narrative
•Incorporate the results and effects of the above analysis into the
project’s OPR and BOD.
Conclusion
A successful sustainable project is a solution that is greater than
the sum of its parts. By intentionally exploring opportunities between
the engineered, cultural and natural systems present in all building
projects, significant efficiencies, cost savings and even regeneration
of living systems can be achieved. Simply adding or overlaying individual “environmental” systems in isolation will not allow projects to
benefit from the synergies that can be identified in an integrative or
whole-system design approach.
The core concept of integrative design is simple: almost everything
in a building project affects everything else. Consequently, the integrative process examines how to understand in advance how the
different systems impact each other and consciously make choices
that improve the efficiency of a project. The challenge is to integrate
site parameters, solar orientation, water and stormwater systems,
thermal envelope, lighting, window performance, heating and cooling systems, ventilation and air distribution in a way that all of these
systems are working together, much like those within an organism.
To accomplish this, a robust integrative design process constantly
examines the tradeoffs between up-front costs for pursuing sustainability goals and the benefits that are derived from achieving them.
Innovative cost-effective choices emerge from quantifying and evaluating the interrelationships between building and natural systems and
engaging everyone on every issue early. An integrative process helps
project teams design and construct high performance buildings that
cost no more (and often less), that save money when operating and
that minimize harm to the environment. This is the fundamental aim
of sustainable design and cost-effective LEED projects.
John Boecker serves as a founding partner in 7group, an internationally
recognized multi-disciplinary consulting firm (and member of the Alliance for
Regeneration) focused on integrative design and regenerative development.
As an architect, his practice has worked exclusively on green buildings since 1996.
He has served as LEED Faculty since 2001, served on the LEED Steering Committee
from 2002-2009, and he chaired the USGBC’s national LEED Curriculum
Committee from 2002-2007. Along with his 7group partners and Bill Reed, he
co-authored The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building, a seminal book
published by Wiley in April, 2009. He also co-hosted with Bill Reed the national
Voice America radio program, “Building Deeper Green: Reframing Sustainability.”
As a highly sought keynote speaker, John has lectured on the benefits of integrative design and regenerative development in 35 states and 14 countries.
Bill Reed, AIA, LEED, Integrative Design, Inc. & Regenesis, Inc. is an internationally
recognized proponent and practitioner in integrative systems design and
regeneration. Bill works to lift building and community planning into full
integration and co-evolution with living systems. The objective: to improve the
overall quality of the physical, social and spiritual life of our living places and
therefore the planet. He served as co-chair of the LEED Technical Committee
from its inception in 1994 through 2003 and is a founding Board Member
of the US Green Building Council. He currently serves as an advisor to
Environmental Building News and on the boards of Ecological, based in New
York City, and Abundance, Wellness & Enlightenment, Inc. in San Francisco. As
a pioneering advocate in the fields of Integrative Systems Design and the living
systems practice of Regenerative Development, he lectures and teaches worldwide about the practical application of these concepts. He is also the author of
many articles, and with the 7group, the book, The Integrative Design Guide to
Green Building: redefining the practice of sustainability.
A leader in green buildings
We have long promoted sustainable solutions through
integrated thinking by bringing together all the
technical specialists needed to shape a new building
or retrofit an existing one. By considering how all
elements of a building work together to meet the needs
of its owners, occupants, and environment, we design
for better performance from every angle. The result:
buildings that conserve resources, are affordable to
build and operate, and provide good places to live,
work, learn, and play.
Arup specialists have played a central role in
many of the buildings considered to be exemplars
of sustainability worldwide, such as the LEED®
Platinum-certified Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Headquarters and Syracuse Center of Excellence.
From 90 offices in 35 countries, our 10,000 planners,
designers, engineers and consultants deliver innovative
projects across the world with creativity and passion.
We shape a better world.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Headquarters
Seattle, Washington
©Timothy Hursley
www.arup.com
Lifecycle and LEED:
The New Approach to
Building Products
Brendan Owens, LEED AP, P.E.
Vice President of LEED Technical Development, USGBC
Background
S
ince its inception, the LEED green building certification program has existed with one overriding goal: to
promote innovation and change the marketplace. With
each new version of LEED, the scope of the environmental
and human impacts addressed by the rating systems has
grown. LEED v4, the proposed version of LEED scheduled for
member ballot approval in mid-2013, continues that upward
momentum, calling on all professions within the building
industry to keep pushing the envelope to find new and better
ways to demonstrate leadership in our built environment.
LEED v4 is designed to support innovation, and nowhere is
that more clear than in the proposed Materials & Resources
(MR) credit changes, especially with respect to supporting
innovative product manufacturers. A huge share of the
energy and environmental impact of buildings comes from
the materials and construction practices used. In fact, it takes
many decades for the energy and emissions from operations
to equal the energy and emissions from the materials and
construction. And energy use is only one of the ways that
building materials have environmental impacts.
Materials & Resources credits have used the same formula
since LEED was introduced into the market. Market
transformation is accelerated by providing LEED credits for the
selection of products and materials that contribute to a
“virtuous cycle.” Reporting (or information) allows for evaluation and comparison, which enables preferential selection,
which drives further innovation to create more competitive
products. Innovation necessitates further reporting (as proof of
improved products), which allows for increased evaluation and
better materials in the marketplace for project teams to choose.
This cycle is the underlying mechanism by which the
markets for high-recycled-content, low-VOC, local/regional
and low-emitting materials (to name only a few) have been
established and encouraged since LEED was launched in
2000. Throughout the last decade, project teams demanding
materials with improved environmental attributes have driven
demand for more sustainable products and fostered marketdriven innovation in the building products industry. From
responsibly harvested wood to green cleaning products, the
progress has been measurable.
As the market that LEED has addressed transforms, the
USGBC believes it is time to expand the conversation about
materials in new directions. Europe has had this kind of system
for years and many manufacturers globally are already providing this information. At the same time, it is critical to continue
to build on LEED’s successes - such as the rapid acceleration
and acceptance of energy modeling and commissioning – to
keep the industry moving.
The information below is based on the LEED v4 draft
released for the fifth public comment period. Some details
may change based on user comments but we want to share some
of the basic concepts underlying the changes and explain the
current approach.
Introducing Lifecycle Thinking
Under LEED v4, project teams will find credits available for
supporting a lifecycle approach in their designs and building material
choices, delivering improved performance and providing for the
most resource-efficient building overall and over time. Put another
way, LEED v4 rewards project teams for using products that take
into account the upstream and downstream impacts of their use. It
provides the most points for reuse to account for the large environmental – and, in many cases, economic and social – benefits associated with reuse strategies. When reuse is not possible, projects are
rewarded for using less material while maintaining building function
and durability and reducing environmental impact.
Beyond lifecycle assessment, LEED v4 seeks to better address human
and ecological health impacts of material extraction and manufacturing. The new LEED standard will encourage product manufacturers to
begin with disclosing information about a variety of product attributes,
which will influence the industry’s material selections and inevitably
lead to more sustainable products in the marketplace.
USGBC Strategies
Encourage More Reporting and Disclosure
Lessening negative impacts from material choices is impossible without an understanding of what goes into the products
themselves. The lifecycle approach to MR provides incentives for
project teams to specify product manufacturers that provide a
product’s full back story. “Just like nutrition labels in the grocery
store, project teams want to know what’s in the building products
they are using,” says Scot Horst, SVP of LEED, U.S. Green Building
Council. “By providing this information, innovative manufacturers
will gain a competitive advantage in the market, as they will be
differentiated from business as usual manufacturers.”
Encourage Continuous Improvement of Environmental
Attributes
Both project teams and manufacturers benefit from the availability of good information in the marketplace. Project teams may
improve their product choices to minimize negative impacts and
put pressure on manufacturers to strive toward improving their
production practices or developing new best-in-class innovations.
Product manufacturers that report on the environmental, human
and ecological health impacts of their products demonstrate market
leadership. With time, markets are expected to function more effectively and freely through the open sharing of this information.
Acceptable Products
Available reporting programs will be used to identify acceptable
products. These programs currently include the Global Reporting
Initiative, the U.N. Global Compact Communication on Progress, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ISO 26000 Guidance on
1
Social Responsibility, Cradle to Cradle, GreenScreen v1.2 and Health
Product Declaration. The USGBC expects to approve other programs
even after the rating system is finalized. In this fast-evolving world
of product innovation, other programs that can be demonstrated to
accomplish the credit’s intent by LEED users or manufacturers will be
recognized.
In each of the following credits, use of domestic and local (within
100 miles of the project site) materials are given an additional
weighting. Materials sourced within 500 miles receive a somewhat
smaller bonus. This weighting for domestic and local material
enhances LEED’s influence related to job creation and support of
manufacturers who choose to do business in areas with stringent
environmental protection laws. The weighting provides project
teams with an incentive to purchase local and domestic materials
because it will help them more easily achieve the cost threshold that
is required to meet the credits below.
New Credit Breakdown
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization –
Environmental Product Declaration
This credit rewards project teams for selecting building products
and materials for which lifecycle information is available and from
manufacturers who have verified reductions in environmental
impact. In this credit, the tool providing the information is called an
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). EPDs provide a standardized way of quantifying the environmental impact of a product
or system. They include information on the environmental impact
of raw material acquisition, energy use and efficiency, content of
materials and chemical substances, emissions to air, soil and water
and waste generation. A variety of different EPD programs exist,
some requiring information be publically available (accessible to the
market), while others also provide a third-party verification that the
information provided is accurate. Certification bodies and declaration processes conform to ISO standards1 to ensure consistent
reporting of information.
The first part of this credit awards one point for using at least
20 permanently installed products whose manufacturers provides
a declaration following an established process and set of rules.
Products must be sourced from at least five different manufacturers.
There are three levels of achievement in this credit that represent
increasing levels of rigor and accuracy of the product review:
• M
anufacturer’s self-declarations or product-specific declarations
must be publically available and critically reviewed (not necessarily
verified) by a third-party to ensure that it conforms to the relevant
rules and ISO standards.
• Industry-wide or generic EPDs have third-party certification (Type III),
including verification. The declaration is generic to an entire industry of product, such as concrete, rather than a particular manufacturer or company. The manufacturer must be recognized as a
participant by the EPD program operator as following the defined
set of rules and standards associated with the declaration process.
• Product-specific Type III EPDs use third-party certification (Type
III), including external verification. Unlike generic EPDs, product-
T he International Organization for Standardization (ISO) develops and publishes international standards that provide requirements, specifications, guidelines or
characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/
standards.htm)
specific declarations are specific to a particular manufacturer and
do not necessarily reflect the practices of the rest of the industry.
We have created these different thresholds because different
industries are at different stages in their development of EPDs.
Before an EPD can be created, the relevant industry must agree to
the boundary of what is included in the scope of the declaration.
These are called product category rules (PCR). The flooring industry
has an established PCR and as a result, there are several carpet
and resilient flooring companies with EPDs already available. For
industries that do not yet have established PCRs, manufacturers
are encouraged to provide their own information, but we value it
less because it is not third party-verified or necessarily comparable
to other similar products. Generic EPDs that represent a product
type, such as sheetrock or steel studs are a good starting point for
manufacturers. They provide a baseline of information for a specific
product category, but are not specific to a company or manufacturing plant.
Option 2 of the credit, called Multi-Attribute Optimization,
rewards projects that use at least 50% (by cost) of permanentlyinstalled products from a manufacturer participating in an Extended
Producer Responsibility program2 or adhere to another USGBCapproved program that will certify verified reductions in at least
three of the following: global warming potential, depletion of
stratospheric ozone, acidification of land and water resources,
eutrophication in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate, formation of tropospheric ozone or depletion of non-renewable energy sources.
At this time, USGBC has not endorsed any specific programs,
but expects programs like the Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) level® and Architecture 2030
Challenge for Products to begin to base their certifications on data
verified from EPDs. The first step is making the information available
and that is why we’re valuing disclosure so highly. Then, we can rely
on third-party programs that will allow project teams to compare
product performance against validated data.
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization: Sourcing of
Raw Materials
This credit expands the principles of the successful LEED 2009
credit encouraging the use of sustainably harvested wood to all
extracted materials. It’s meant to increase transparency in mining,
quarrying, agricultural products and other industries. Extraction is
the first step in a product’s lifecycle. How materials are taken from
the ground or sourced and what processes were used to protect
humans, biodiversity and ecosystems vary substantially between
products.
Building materials and construction play a large role in the world’s
deforestation. Timber logging is the largest source of deforestation
in Latin American and subtropical Asia, accounting for over 70%
of this critical resource depletion. Mining operations are claiming
increasingly large amounts of forest: 18% of the world’s “lungs”
are now being cleared for mining operations. And forests are only
one of the many places resource extraction’s harmful impacts are
felt. Air and water quality, indigenous homelands, even modern
settlements, can be damaged if material extraction isn’t carefully
and responsibly managed. This new credit will engage more parts
of the extraction industry than ever before and provides opportunity
for more industries to demonstrate leadership and innovation in
sustainability.
The reporting component of this credit rewards the use of at
least 20 permanently installed building products from manufacturers that have made information available, such as supplier locations, commitment to long-term ecologically responsible land use,
reducing environmental harm and meeting applicable responsible
sourcing programs. Products must be sourced from at least five
different manufacturers. Project teams receive credit depending on
the type of report the manufacturer provides. For example, a third
party-verified corporate sustainability report is valued higher than a
disclosure report that is not verified.
Existing reporting frameworks that can contribute toward this
credit and are utilized by many Fortune 500 companies, include
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Report, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the U.N. Global Compact
Communication on Progress, ISO 26000: 2010 Guidance on Social
Responsibility or other USGBC-approved program.
Option 2 of this credit rewards the use of products (25% of total
products, by cost) that come from an extraction process showing
leadership in minimizing environmental impact. USGBC-approved
standards and certifications for this point are the Sustainable
Agriculture Network’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard for biobased materials and the Forest Stewardship Council for new wood
products. Additionally, reuse and materials with recycled content
contribute toward achievement of this credit, as the spirit of the
intent is met by avoiding extraction and the use of virgin materials
altogether through the use of recycled feedstock.
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization: Material
Ingredients
The occupants of the average office building have no idea what
is in the building products that surround them every day and often
the project teams that specified them know just as little – unless
that information is voluntarily made available by the manufacturer.
This credit aims to support manufacturers that disclose information
about the ingredients in their products, allowing project teams to
make more informed decisions.
Option 1 for receiving this credit is using at least 20 permanently
installed products that provide a chemical inventory through one
of a variety of third-party programs, such as a Health Product
Declaration, Cradle to Cradle Silver certification, GreenScreen or
a Manufacturer’s Inventory that must meet a number of criteria.
Products must be sourced from at least five different manufacturers.
Option 2 involves using at least 25% by cost of products that
have documented their material ingredients using pre-approved
USGBC programs such as GreenScreen v1.2 Benchmarking, Cradle
to Cradle v2 Certification or REACH Optimization.
The goal, Horst says, is “to promote the availability of information
that allows a project to make better decisions about what comes into
In waste management, extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a strategy used to promote the integration of environmental costs associated with goods
throughout their life cycles into the market price of the products. EPR uses financial incentives to encourage manufacturers to design environmentally friendly
products by holding producers responsible for the costs of managing their products at end of life. EPR may take the form of a reuse, buy-back, or recycling
programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibility
2
their buildings. We understand that there is no current market incentive for product manufacturers to disclose this information, so our
goal is to use LEED credits to reward project teams that preferentially
select products for which information has been disclosed and
optimization has occurred to catalyze this type of activity.”
The more we know about what’s in our building products and
materials, the more we can seek to understand their impacts. The
environmental and health safety of chemicals used in the manufacture of building materials is not always tested. In fact, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency indicates that only 4% of manmade chemicals have been fully tested for toxicity.
Conclusion
To sum up, the new credits proposed in the MR credit category
of LEED v4 boost the incentives for innovation in building materials
in a number of key ways. LEED v4 expands existing concepts to
engage additional parts of the building industry – such as broadening extraction reporting beyond wood. It introduces new incentives
for taking a lifecycle approach to building and product design, for
disclosure of material ingredients and for project team leadership in
making choices aimed at reducing human and environmental health
impacts of harmful ingredients. And finally, it rewards project teams
for reusing as much as possible, designing to reduce material use
and using domestically and locally manufactured materials.
Brendan Owens, Vice President of LEED® Technical Development at the U.S.
Green Building Council, collaborates with volunteer technical committees to
refine and evolve the USGBC’s LEED Green Building Rating System. During
his time at USGBC, Brendan has led development activities for LEED for New
Construction, LEED for Existing Buildings, LEED for Core and Shell and several
market specific LEED Application Guides including retail, healthcare facilities
and laboratories. Brendan is currently focused on creating the framework for
LEED Version 3, a system that promises to be technically more robust and easier
to implement. Brendan is a member of the ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA committee
developing Standard 189.1 – Standard for High-Performance Green Buildings
and is a delegate to the United Nations Environmental Programme Sustainable
Buildings & Construction Initiative (UNEP/SBCI) Think Tank on Benchmarking
Sustainable Buildings. He represents USGBC on the steering committee for the
Advanced Energy Design Guide series and the Green Guideline for Healthcare.
Prior to joining USGBC, Brendan worked designing and implementing performance contract based energy conservation projects in existing buildings.
Brendan also managed the energy conservation program for a 100+ building
campus. Brendan is a LEED Accredited Professional and a licensed Professional
Engineer. He received his Bachelors of Science in Engineering from Purdue
University in West Lafayette, IN.
ARchITEcTURE
PLANNINg
INTERIORS
22 WEST 19 STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10011
MAIN +1.212.627.1700
FAX +1.212.463.8716
SUSTAINABILITY
NEW YORK
WAShINgTON dc
INFO@FXFOWLE.cOM
WWW.FXFOWLE.cOM
Tools an d T ech nolo gy
Data Centers and Energy
Efficiency in the Nation’s
Most Competitive Market
Brian Platt
Program Manager, Process, Power and FlexTech
NYSERDA
authority offers cost shares and incentives for a full range of
energy-efficiency solutions that generate measurable results.
Projects eligible under NYSERDA’s data center program
include IT infrastructure improvements like server virtualization,
server refresh, storage optimization, PC power management
and server load prioritization. NYSERDA also assists with
facility upgrades, including computer room air conditioner
and air handler replacements, uninterruptible power supply
upgrades, variable-frequency drives, free cooling and airflow
management.
Investment Bank IT Consolidation Assistance
W
all Street securities traders need their data delivered
instantaneously. For this to happen, data centers must
be located very close to the markets where financial
professionals trade. These data centers represent a large and
profitable sector of the New York City real estate market. The
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) administers programs and incentives specifically
designed to help these facilities operate more efficiently. If your
mission is to process information faster and better than your
competitor while consuming fewer kilowatt hours (kWh), our
program can help fund your efforts. NYSERDA programs and
incentives are open to all data centers across New York State.
Real-World Results
With more than $110 million in financial incentives and
teams of energy experts, NYSERDA’s data center program is
ready to help companies identify and implement solutions
that make data centers more energy- and cost-efficient.
From energy analyses to complete data center upgrades, the
40• Lessons Learned Volume 8
Measures
Incentive Rate
Energy Savings
Energy Cost Savings
• Server virtualization
• Server refresh
$0.16/kWh saved
9,000,000 kWh/year
$1,500,000/year
NYSERDA Incentives
Approximately $1,400,000
For example, NYSERDA recently assisted an investment
bank on IT consolidation measures in its Manhattan data
center. A $0.16 incentive was offered for every kWh saved
based upon the first year’s energy savings due to these
measures. NYSERDA provided an incentive of nearly $1.5
million to help offset the capital costs of this project.
Similarly, NYSERDA collaborated with a data center owner
who repurposed a building into a state-of-the-art, multi-tenant
data center facility. This project consisted of a number of
energy-efficiency measures including high-efficiency chillers,
variable-frequency drives on pumps and fans, water-side
economizers and energy-efficient lighting, lighting controls
Multi-Tenant Data Center
Measures
•
•
•
•
High-efficiency chillers
Variable-frequency drives
Water-side economizers
Energy-efficient lighting, lighting
controls and power systems
Energy Savings
5,000,000 kWh/year
Energy Cost Savings
$640,000/year
NYSERDA Incentives
Approximately $800,000
and power systems. These measures will reduce the data center’s
electricity consumption from baseline by an estimated 5,000,000
kWh per year. Consequently, NYSERDA will provide an incentive of
approximately $800,000.
Projects such as these help provide greater reliability, improve data
delivery speed and significantly reduce the time it takes a company
to see a return on its investment.
Helping New York Companies Compete
The number one issue for the financial institutions using these
data centers is latency. Latency is the speed at which data can be
delivered. Typically, customers look for latency measured in singledigit and double-digit microseconds. Data centers cannot afford to
be 500 milliseconds behind the market or they will lose customers.
They therefore prefer to be located a short physical distance from
end-users, making financial centers like New York City the ideal
home for these facilities.
“Speed, time of delivery and time to market are very important.
And when I say speed, I mean the speed of delivery along the last
mile. With a number of our customers located in New York City, it
does not make sense for us to be halfway across the country when
that last mile is so short,” remarked Vipul Nagrath from Bloomberg
L.P. at a recent industry conference.
Computing at this level is energy intensive, and balancing this
need for speed with a data center’s energy-efficiency efforts is
a complicated endeavor. However, like their Wall Street customers,
data center managers understand the value of a good investment,
and this is where NYSERDA can help.
“Over the last two years we have seen power become our
single biggest expense,” says Lee Weinstein of XAND Corporation.
“Generally, if payback is in the range of three to five years, or even
less, we will always do it.”
Most data center projects utilize NYSERDA’s Industrial and Process
Efficiency Program, which provides incentives to offset the cost of
investments in energy efficiency and IT productivity projects at existing
data center sites. Under this program, incentives can run as high as
$0.16/kWh for electricity-saving measures and $20/MMBtu saved in
natural gas.
Existing data centers may also find the Authority’s FlexTech
program helpful. FlexTech provides assistance to companies wishing
to conduct energy studies. These may include computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and other airflow studies, the development of energy
and IT master plans and the evaluation of IT system improvements.
NYSERDA can share in the cost of these studies.
Owners and operators of data centers in the design phase
may find the Authority’s New Construction program suits their
needs. The program provides incentives for design studies and
performance-based incentives to offset the cost of investments in
energy-efficiency building systems and IT productivity projects at
newly constructed or substantially renovated data center sites.
To offset capital costs of the project, NYSERDA’s performancebased program can offer a project owner up to $5 million in incentives
for electrical efficiency upgrades and $1 million for upgrades leading
to more efficient use of natural gas.
In addition to these statewide programs, NYSERDA offers an areaspecific program for New York City data centers. The Data Center
Efficiency Program is a partnership to help data center customers in
the Con Edison service territory reduce their energy usage, save on
operating costs and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Con Edison and
NYSERDA work together to provide data centers with individualized
and targeted technical assistance and are dedicating over $10 million
in funding for energy-efficiency initiatives in data centers.
Lessons Learned
With its financial incentives and energy experts, NYSERDA is
ready to help data centers become more energy- and cost-efficient.
Lessons learn that can be applied to data centers are:
•Solutions can be, and must be, tailored to each application.
NYSERDA’s incentive programs are designed to be flexible,
to advance with technology and meet any business’ needs.
•A company’s focus on reliability, uptime and low latency are not
barriers to energy efficiency. With NYSERDA’s assistance, energy
efficiency measures in data centers are cost-effective, achievable
and increase computing efficiency.
•Data center efficiency can be looked at holistically. Server loads
directly impact the amount of power and cooling needed; the
efficiency of the power and cooling systems impacts the reliability
Three Benefits of Working with NYSERDA
Number 1— Reduce energy costs, raise
efficiencies. NYSERDA provides customized energy studies to analyze your facility’s efficiency needs. We will work with
you to identify areas for improvement
and help you plan and implement solutions to save energy and money.
Number 2— Make informed energy
decisions. A team of NYSERDA engineers,
technology specialists, project consultants, architects, designers and energy professionals is available to provide assistance with
energy decisions.
Number 3— Receive objective information and support. Whether you need
assistance prioritizing, analyzing or implementing an energy-efficiency project, a
team of consultants and contractors with
data center expertise is available to work
with you. This team is available to provide support every step of the way, from
application submissions to inspection of
energy-efficiency projects.
and efficiency of the IT equipment. By approaching the efficiency
of both the IT and facilities equipment, NYSERDA can help
customers maximize their energy savings.
•Data center layout affects the efficiency of operations. The
implementation of hot aisle/cold aisle layouts and improved
airflow management can decrease cooling loads and increase
efficiency.
Getting Started
The key to maximizing NYSERDA assistance is finding the right
program, or mix of programs, that will meet your facility’s specific
needs. NYSERDA is here to help with this too.
Landlords and data center owners and/or operators in New York
State should visit www.nyserdasolutions.org/verticals/data-center
to get more information and sign up for NYSERDA assistance. The
website includes a contact form for prospective customers. Once
this is completed, a representative will contact you to discuss your
project needs and help you find the right incentives.
Brian Platt is the NYSERDA Program Manager for the Process, Power, and FlexTech
program. He has worked 20 years in the energy field for New York State. Previously,
Brian worked for Shell Oil Company as a project manager for offshore process
facilities and cogeneration plants. Brian is a New York State licensed professional
engineer. He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University.
Energy Benchmarking for
Enclosed Shopping Malls
...At Last
George Caraghiaur, Simon Property Group
Kevin Lantry, Energy Data Services, LLC
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and
express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when
you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
– Lord Kelvin, 1883
Introduction
M
all owners have struggled for years to find a way
to compare – or benchmark – their buildings’
energy use with others in the same peer group.
Benchmarking is important because it is critical to establishing
accountability and incentivizing continuous improvement in an
area that represents up to 30% of a property’s controllable
costs. Because energy use accounts for some 95% of a building’s
carbon footprint, the shopping mall industry’s fledgling
attempts to develop a credible sustainability assessment
tool cannot be completed without first developing a reliable
benchmarking methodology.
The Complications with Enclosed Shopping Malls
There are well documented tools available for benchmarking
certain types of commercial and residential buildings. Energy
Star Portfolio Manager, developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), is the most widely accepted tool that
can reliably benchmark whole-building energy use for 15
different types of commercial and institutional buildings. The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has also developed a tool to benchmark diverse multifamily residential facilities. To date, however, there has been
no accurate tool to benchmark the 1,160 enclosed shopping
malls in the United States.
The two major obstacles to benchmarking enclosed shopping
malls are the lack of a comprehensive public data set and
the complexity of the facilities themselves. The Department
of Energy’s latest Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey (CBECS) covers over 4,800 buildings but includes
only 213 malls, and only two are full-sized enclosed malls.
Comparing the energy use intensity (EUI) of malls is further
complicated by the wide variations in tenant mix. One
enclosed shopping mall may have many high-intensity energy
users such as restaurants, food court tenants and hair salons,
while another may have mostly clothing stores. Is it fair to
penalize the owner with high-intensity energy consumers
when assessing how efficient its mall operations are?
The biggest problem is due to the various energy metering
and billing arrangements that are standard to the industry.
Landlords are always responsible for energy usage in an
enclosed mall’s common area. However, only a small percentage
of malls are master-metered with energy accounted for by
Developing a Benchmarking Tool
Industry Standard Utility Arrangements
Category A – the landlord is only
responsible for the common area. Tenants provide and maintain their own electrical and cooling systems.
Category B – the landlord is
responsible for the common area
AND redistributes electricity to tenants. Tenants provide and maintain their own cooling systems.
Category C – the landlord is
responsible for the common area AND provides cooling to tenants. Tenants provide and maintain their own electrical systems.
Category D – the landlord is
responsible for the common area AND provides both cooling and electricity to tenants.
Electricity provided by landlord
Cooling provided by landlord
the landlord and redistributed to tenants. Whole building data is
the standard used to benchmark buildings. In most malls, tenants
are separately metered and tenant utility data is almost impossible to
collect on a whole-building basis. Complicating the picture further,
landlords sometimes provide heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC), but more often, tenants provide their own HVAC services.
The sidebar above presents a simplified picture of the four standard
utility arrangements for enclosed shopping malls. In practice, the
picture is further complicated by various exceptions.
While the gross building square footage is typically known, the
utility information accessible to landlords rarely covers the entire
building (lighting, service loads, cooling and heating) as tenants
often pay utilities directly. A useful energy benchmarking tool
would need to compare energy efficiency among properties in each
of the four categories regardless of tenant mix, location and other
factors outside of the landlord’s control.
A Successful Corporate and Academic Collaboration
Simon has been exploring a solution to this problem for many years
now and had proposed a conceptual solution to an EPA-industry work
group in Chicago in 2007. We were lucky to be approached by a
graduate student completing his Master’s Degree program in Facilities
Management at the School of Engineering and Technology at Indiana
University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). He was intrigued by
the idea of developing an energy benchmarking system for a
challenging building type. To complete his work, he needed a sponsor
who understood the magnitude of the problem, who could guide him
and who could provide access to the largest and most comprehensive
energy data set for enclosed shopping malls in the world.
The first step was to study the two key building energy benchmarking systems currently used in the United States. Both the
U.S. EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager and Benchmarking Utility
Consumption and Cost System (BUCCS), created by HUD, use
a statistical analysis benchmarking approach to develop a regression
model-based system. The U.S. EPA Portfolio Manager is the most
widely used tool to benchmark whole-building energy use in the
commercial buildings sector. These thoroughly tested systems
have been extensively documented and the details of their
development are publicly available. Thus, it made sense to develop
our Benchmarking tool following the proven methods used by
the EPA and HUD.
The second critical step was to gather a statistically robust and
representative data set for enclosed shopping malls. The data
developed by Simon Property Group contains complete records for
174 enclosed shopping centers. This is comparable in size to the
final data set used by the EPA in Portfolio Manager for single tenant
retail buildings. The complete records contain physical building
information, operational and utility consumption data and
identification details including the property name, location and
climate information (heating and cooling degree days) for the
mall zip code.
The physical data includes the gross building area (GBA), leasable
area, and the area breakdown by tenant type (retail, food and major
store), detailed information about services provided to tenants
(electricity, gas, heating and cooling) and the number of floors. The
utility consumption data includes the utility metering arrangement
(one of four arrangements shown in the chart at left) and total
electricity and natural gas consumption data (converted to kBtu). In
only a few cases did the utility information cover the entire building
for all energy services (electricity, gas, cooling and heating). This was
expected, since some tenants – even in master-metered malls – pay
utility companies directly for electricity or natural gas or provide their
own cooling services.
The third step was to devise an approach which would allow
for a fair comparison of landlord energy use between enclosed
shopping malls. Typically, the EUI is the total (whole building)
energy consumption divided by the gross square footage of the
facility, and is expressed in units of kBtu/sf. Clearly, comparing
data that reflects common area energy use to a fully-tenanted
master-metered mall is pointless.
Portfolio Manager and BUCCS normalize for differences in building
operations by performing a statistical regression analysis to identify
the drivers of energy use. This technique allows for analysis of a
dependent variable (a building’s EUI) subject to various independent
characteristics, such as operational parameters and weather, which
have a statistically significant correlation to energy use. For example,
one would expect that a mall with many high energy users, such
as restaurants, would have a higher EUI, as would a mall located in
a hot, humid area requiring around-the-clock cooling.
Simply explained, the predicted EUI of a specific building is the
average EUI of the population of buildings, appropriately adjusted
based on a building’s operating characteristics.
The goal was to calculate an enclosed shopping mall’s energy
intensity based on the energy consumption accounted by the landlord
versus the whole building. The challenge was to identify the various
building characteristics that would predict an accurate EUI for the
landlord in a statistically valid manner, regardless of the metering
configuration and tenant mix. The key was to determine which
parameters were the drivers of energy consumption at the
properties represented by the data set and develop an equation that
would predict the EUI accurately.
After starting with over 35 independent variables, we ultimately
identified a simple equation, which using only seven easily available
variables, yielded an impressively high level of accuracy. Eighty-six
percent of the variation observed in the EUI figure is described by
the model. The variables include:
• T he common area square footage divided by the entire enclosed
shopping center square footage, or GBA.
• The area occupied by food tenants who are supplied with
electricity by the landlord divided by the GBA.
• The area occupied by retail tenants who are supplied with
electricity by the landlord divided by the GBA.
• The area occupied by big box and anchor tenants who are
supplied with electricity by the landlord divided by the GBA.
• The enclosed shopping center’s sales per square foot (SPS).
• The heating degree days (HDD) in the shopping center’s region
multiplied by the percentage of area of the mall supplied with
heating by the landlord.
• The cooling degree days (CDD) in the shopping center’s region
multiplied by the percentage of the area of the mall supplied
with cooling by the landlord.
This set of variables makes sense. Different tenant types obviously
use energy at different intensity levels. For example, food tenants
use a large amount of energy for ventilation and cooling. The model
compensates for this increased usage, effectively removing the bias
that is present in an enclosed shopping center with a large area of
food tenants. The same reasoning extends to the other variables
and their effect can be gauged in the regression analysis. HDD and
CDD are engineering metrics that reflect the heating and cooling
requirements of a building, due to variation in local temperatures
from a comfortable level, and their inclusion in the model reflects
their relationship with energy intensity. The SPS variable confirmed
our expectation that a shopping center with more sales and traffic
(and thus increased cooling requirements) and/or a greater proportion
of high-end tenants (who typically are less frugal in their use of
energy) use energy at a different intensity level.
Energy Performance
The regression model makes statistically sound predictions of the
EUI for all records in the data set. Some, however, use more energy
than predicted by the regression equation, while others use less.
Dividing the actual EUI of a shopping center by the predicted EUI
yields a performance ratio. Lower performance ratios indicate that
a center uses less energy than predicted, and consequently is more
efficient. Higher performance ratios indicate the opposite. This ratio is
used to assign a percentile benchmarking score. Centers that perform
below their predicted values (more efficiently) receive high scores and
those that perform above their predicted values receive low scores.
Using this method, enclosed shopping centers are not ranked
directly based on their energy consumption, but rather based on how
they perform relative to the predicted energy consumption from the
regression model. Since the predicted consumption is based on the
parameters that influence energy consumption in enclosed shopping
centers, using the ratio of actual to predicted EUI eliminates the bias
factors that are included in the regression model. The benchmarking
system’s scale of 1-100 allows a mall manager to quickly understand
his or her enclosed shopping mall’s relative energy performance:
a rating of 50 indicates average energy performance, while a rating
of 75 indicates performance in the top 75th percentile.
This provides an elegant solution for understanding the relative
energy performance of complex buildings. The tool can also be
used to establish a baseline to verify and quantify energy
performance improvements from energy conservation programs
or retrofit projects. In this capacity, a sound benchmarking system
provides a simple and much-needed metric that can be used
to monitor and encourage system-wide reduction in energy
consumption. Finally, since the use of energy is the predominant
source of a building’s greenhouse gas emissions, the tool is key to
assessing an enclosed mall from a sustainability point of view and
driving reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the commercial
shopping center industry.
Conclusion
Our goal was to develop a simple, accurate way to compare energy
use intensity between enclosed shopping malls. A functioning
benchmarking tool was successfully developed using a comprehensive
data set and following a proven procedure used in two prominent
energy benchmarking tools developed by the United States
Government. The tool takes seven easy-to-gather inputs regarding
the physical and operational characteristics of an enclosed shopping
mall, along with its metered energy consumption, and returns
a benchmarking score which represents its energy performance
compared to peer buildings. Simon will be using this tool moving
forward as part of its ongoing efforts to reduce carbon and improve
sustainability across its portfolio worldwide.
George Caraghiaur, B. Eng., M.S., LEED AP, has a thirty-year track record in
energy and sustainability. George is currently Senior Vice President, Energy &
Procurement for Simon Property Group, the world’s largest real estate company,
where he manages the procurement of over $500 million annually in energy,
waste handling, and supply chain services, as well as energy-related investments
and operations. He spearheaded initiatives that reduced the company’s energy
use by 29% since 2003 without compromising comfort, reliability or safety.
George is the author of “A Guide to Energy Service Companies”, published by
The Fairmont Press. He currently serves on the Board of Advisors for the Richard
G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy, Purdue School of Engineering and
Technology at IUPUI, as well as the Board of Directors for PACENow, a non-profit
organization that provides support for property assessed clean energy funds as
an innovative way to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades
to buildings.
Kevin Lantry, PE, CEM, has over ten years of experience as an engineer in the
facilities industry. Kevin earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering
from Purdue University and a master’s degree in technology focusing on facilities
management from the Purdue University School of Engineering and Technology
at IUPUI. His experience includes HVAC design and retrofits for commercial buildings, facility assessment, capital planning and energy auditing in the public and
private sectors. Kevin’s consulting firm, Energy Data Services, LLC, specializes
in utility data analysis, advanced energy benchmarking, energy auditing and
energy management consulting.
Rethinking the
All-Glass Building
Alex Wilson
Executive Editor, Environmental Building News
and Founder, BuildingGreen, LLC
Reprinted from Environmental Building News with permission
I
s it time to end our love affair with the all-glass
building? A lot of proponents of high-performance,
green design certainly think so—while other respected
architects, including some leading green designers and
energy experts, argue that all-glass can work well if
done right.
From Shanghai to Las Vegas, Abu Dhabi to Frankfurt,
highly glazed façades have been in the vanguard of highrise, high-design buildings for the past half-century.
Some of the world’s most prominent “green” skyscrapers,
including New York City’s One Bryant Park (the LEED
Platinum Bank of America skyscraper) and the New York
Times Tower, wear the mantle of green with transparent
façades. But there is a high environmental cost to all that
glitter: increased energy consumption. Until new glazing
technologies make technical solutions more affordable,
many experts suggest that we should collectively end our
infatuation with heavily glazed, all-glass buildings.
Why Are Glass Buildings So Popular?
There are a lot of reasons why all-glass buildings are
appealing to architects and building owners. While design
and aesthetics are clearly the drivers of heavily glazed
façades, there are other reasons why we like glass so much.
Transparent skins provide access to daylight, and natural
daylight is one of the leading drivers today of architectural
design—green or otherwise. Well-designed daylighting is very
energy-efficient. According to Paul LaBerge, the green building strategy manager for Apogee Enterprises in Minneapolis
(the parent company of Viracon, Wausau Window and Wall
Systems, and other fenestration-related businesses), sunlight
through spectrally selective low-emissivity (low-e) glazing has
a good light-to-heat ratio of about 175 lumens per watt (lpw),
compared with less than 100 lpw for the best fluorescent and
LED lighting. If we incorporate features to distribute daylight
deeply into a building and to block sunlight when it isn’t
wanted, highly glazed façades offer a tremendous amenity in
large buildings. Some research suggests that good daylighting
also improves productivity.
Closely related to daylighting is the visual connection to
the outdoors that can be provided by a transparent façade.
“For us to have contact with nature and access to nature is
huge,” says Bob Fox, FAIA, of Cook + Fox. With his firm’s
design of One Bryant Park, this was a top priority. “Everyone
has access to the outside,” he says of the 2.1 million squarefoot (195,000 m2), 52-story building owned by the Durst
Organization. “You can look out a window no matter where
you are. To us that is very important.”
Phillip Mead, AIA, the architecture program coordinator at
the University of Idaho, notes that glass façades are thought
to “promote transparency—in particular, with government
buildings.” Notes John Myers of Harmon, a leading glazing and
curtainwall service company, many companies like the association of
transparency with corporate image, as if it says, “See, we’re in here,
doing something for you; we’re not hiding anything.”
Glass is durable
As long as it doesn’t break, glass is a highly durable material.
Michael Utzinger, AIA, an associate professor of architecture at
the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, notes that “glass, as
a surface material, ages in urban environments better than many
building skins.”
Because it’s technologically possible
David Lee Smith, a professor of architecture at the University
of Cincinnati, looks to the history of the Modernist movement
in architecture for the popularity of glass. “The extensive use of
glass was, in part, a response to the fact that such a novel thing
was possible,” he said. Two factors contributed to this, according
to Smith. First, a freestanding structural frame no longer required
an exterior wall to serve as a major bearing support; second, glass
became available in larger sheets. “Being able to do something is
at times a motivation that might overwhelm any sense of logic.”
Most, but not all, highly glazed façades are curtainwalls (as
opposed to structural walls with inset windows), and with curtainwalls the entire glazing system is engineered and manufactured
offsite. “You can get the curtainwall manufacturer to design it and
take responsibility for it,” says Fiona Cousins, P.E., a principal of the
engineering firm Arup, in the company’s New York city office. Her
colleague, senior engineer Scott Bondi, Ph.D., P.E., added that “the
quality and precision is generally a lot better [with curtainwalls], and
they go up a lot faster.”
The Problem with Highly Glazed Façades
So what’s the problem? In a word: energy. In general, heavily
glazed buildings consume more energy than buildings with more
moderate levels of glass. With a higher glazing fraction, solar
heat gain as well as heat loss in cold weather are both greater.
Glass does introduce daylighting, of course, and well-executed
daylighting can reduce both electric lighting and mechanical
cooling costs but the ideal percentage of glazing is far
below that of many of today’s prominent all-glass buildings.
To get a better handle on the impact of higher glazing areas
on building performance, Fiona Cousins, Scott Bondi, and
Cameron Talbot-Stern at Arup’s New York office carried out
a detailed energy-modeling exercise for Environmental Building
News (EBN). They looked at the effects of five different
variables—building footprint, location, glazing type, orientation,
and percentage of glazing—on overall energy consumption of
a ten-story building with 10,000 sf (930 sm) per floor.
Building footprint and orientation
The footprint, or shape, of a building affects the “façade
zone” (or perimeter zone), which Arup defined as the outer
15 feet (5 m) of the building. Also modeled was the impact
of orientation on elongated buildings. It is assumed that lights
are dimmed based on available daylight in the façade zone.
Building location
We selected three cities for energy modeling to show how the
energy impact of glazing percentage varies by climate. New York was
picked as a fairly cold climate, Miami a hot climate, and San Francisco
as a very moderate climate (low heating and cooling loads).
Glass type
For glass type, Arup looked at single glazing, double glazing
Aesthetics, pure and simple
with no low-e coating, high-performance double glazing
Architects like glass, and a lot of it. Juliet Landler, a senior
with low-e, and triple glazing with low-e. In new commercial
instructor in the architecture department at the University of
buildings, single glazing is almost never used except in the
Technology in Sydney, Australia, and previously a façade engineer
mildest of climates, and triple glazing is rare except in very
for Arup in Sydney, Hong Kong, and London, suggests that there
cold climates, applications where condensation control is highly
are parallels between architects’ infatuation with all-glass façades
and the appeal of women’s clothing. “I have worked with architects
important (such as hospitals and art museums), and in the
who believe that façades should be like women’s lingerie—sleek,
highest-performance green buildings. The analysis assumes
neither exterior nor interior shading.
smooth, sexy, shimmering,
simple—and simultaneously
transparent and mirroring,”
Glazing Type 1
Glazing Type 2
Glazing Type 3
Glazing Type 4
she told EBN. “Isn’t that worth
a little stupidity?” she asks.
Stephen Selkowitz, head
of the Building Technologies
Department at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory
and a leading expert in
glazing technology, notes
that architects are often
caught between the desire
to produce an efficient
Single Glaze Double Glazed
High Performance
Triple Glazed
façade design and owners
(No Low E-Coating)
Double Glazed
(Low E-Coating)
who believe they need the
(Low E-Coating)
all-glass image to meet “Class
A office lease competition.”
Arup modeled four glazing configurations for this article.
Below: Annual energy consumption is compared for a square building in three different cities and with four glazing types as the glazing
area is increased from 20% to 80%.
Impact of more glazing on HVAC loads
Again, assuming a square building footprint, the graphs below
show the impact of a higher glazing percentage on cooling capacities
(in tons) and heating capacities (in million Btus per hour, MBH). As
with the last graphs, the four different glazing types are compared
(from single glazing to triple with low-e).
This analysis shows that the impact on peak cooling and peak
heating demand from increasing the glazing is greater than the
impact on annual energy consumption. In New York, for example,
going from 40% to 60% clear double glazing increases the cooling
capacity required for a square-footprint building by 21% (from 280
to 340 tons), while the impact on heating capacity is 24% (from
2,500 to 3,100 MBH).
Again, the impact of increasing the glazing percentage is reduced
when better glazing is used, but the increases are still significant. With
cooling in particular, those increases in capacity (peak demand) result
in fairly proportionate increases in first costs—doubling the capacity
of a chiller roughly doubles the cost—while boiler costs are not nearly
as tied to capacity.
Another way to look at this issue, notes Selkowitz, is to fix the
size of the cooling system, say at 220 tons in the New York example, and look at how much glazing area that chiller will serve. With
standard double glazing, you can have only 20% glazing area, but
by boosting the glazing performance to double glazing with low-e
you can double the glazing area to 40%, and with triple glazing
and low-e you can jump to 60% glazing area. “So my conclusion
from your data is that you can buy an enormous amount of design
flexibility—i.e., a 300% change in glass area—by adding a sheet
of glass and coating,” Selkowitz told EBN. He also notes that this
modeling assumed no shading (exterior or interior), and effective
New York Cooling Capacity
New York Heating Capacity
Glazing percentage
Finally, Arup modeled four different glazing percentages: 20%,
40%, 60%, and 80%. It is assumed that wall area not glazed
consists of spandrel panels and floor plate.
Impact of higher glazing percentage with different glazing types
The impact on annual energy consumption on the modeled
100,000 sf (9,300 sm) building, assuming a square building
footprint, with increasing glazing area shown in the three graphs
above. Energy consumption is shown in million Btus per year
(MBtu/yr) for the building, including cooling, heating, ventilation,
lighting (1.2 watts/sf), and miscellaneous loads (1.5 watts/sf).
We can draw two conclusions from this analysis. First, the penalty
of increasing the glazing area is greater with single glazing and clear
double glazing than with low-e clear double glazing and low-e clear
triple glazing. But with all glazing types, increasing the glazing percentage increases annual energy consumption. Second, the impact of
increasing the glazing area is greater in more extreme climates.
Miami Cooling Capacity
Miami Heating Capacity
These graphs show the impact of different glazing types and glazing percentages on peak cooling load (in tons) and peak heating load
(in million Btus per hour) for New York and Miami. A square building footprint is assumed.
use of either can change the results significantly.
Arup examined the impact of increasing the glazing percentage
in New York when the shape of the building footprint is changed
from square to moderately elongated, to highly elongated. The
building orientation was averaged, and only the two most advanced
glazing options were modeled: double glazed, low-e and triple
glazed, low-e.
These results show that the impact of increasing the glazing
percentage is greater when a building footprint is more elongated
—which puts more of the floor area in the façade zone. The differences aren’t huge: in a 60% glazed building with double-glazed
low-e glass, for example, changing from a square footprint to
a moderately elongated footprint increases the modeled energy
consumption 3.9%, while changing from square to a highly
elongated footprint increases energy consumption 9.7%.
Effect of orientation
Finally, because the orientation of an elongated building footprint would be expected to have an impact on energy consumption,
Arup modeled the differences between moderately elongated
buildings that are aligned east-west with those that are aligned
north-south for the New York climate.
The effects of orientation are more pronounced with lowerperformance glazing, but with all glazing types, having the
longer façades face east and west results in higher annual energy
consumption than when the longer façades face north and
south. With double-glazed, low-e glass and 40% glazing area,
for example, that energy penalty is 5.9%. At 80% glazing, the
penalty jumps to 9.4%.
Concerns extend beyond the glazing
Beyond the concerns of the glazing itself are concerns about the
framing. “The thermal bridging that takes place in most framing
elements,” says Cousins, “exacerbates [the energy] problem—the
frame almost always performs worse than the glass.”
Engineer Marc Rosenbaum, P.E., also raises concerns about
how curtainwall systems are detailed at junctions with other
building assemblies, such as concrete slab edges. “The idea that
the curtainwall building is R-8 is unlikely when the entire façade
is actually modeled,” he says.
Building codes and percent of glazing
Commercial building energy codes already address the amount
of glazing that can be installed in buildings. In the ASHRAE
90.1-2007 energy code, the prescriptive performance path sets
a maximum glazing area at 40%. To exceed that glazing percent,
according to Cousins, you have to show that a building will use
less energy than it would with that 40% glazed façade. That’s
pretty hard to do, she says. In fact, it’s not clear that some of the
very prominent commercial green buildings that were built in
New York before the current energy code went into effect would
even meet today’s 90.1-2007 code.
Making All-Glass Buildings Work
For many reasons, all-glass buildings use more energy than
buildings with punched window assemblies. From an energy
standpoint, the arguments are pretty clear that we should move
away from using all glass. According to Sean Scott, AIA,
a Portland, Oregon architect and instructor on high-performance
envelopes at the University of Oregon, “The bottom line is that
the data does not support more than about 25% glazing on most
building types and climates.” Beyond that percentage (“give or
take 5%”), says Scott, glazing does not contribute more daylight,
and it starts to create a net energy loss.
The smart thing to do would be to stop designing these
highly glazed buildings. Because such a wholesale change in
design aesthetic is not likely in the near future, how can we
lessen the energy impact of lots of glazing?
All glass but not all glazing
The look of “all glass” can be achieved with significant spandrel
panel area. Indeed, most of the buildings we think of as “all glass”
have at least 20% of the wall in opaque area—often a lot more.
Steve Fronek of Wausau admits that we’re overusing vision glass
today. “If downward view is not important, the glass below sill
height is nothing but an energy waster,” he told EBN. Vision glass
at floor level also tends to expose the backs of desks, power-strips,
and other items that add visual clutter when looking in.
Paul LaBerge of Apogee points out that curtainwalls can be
designed to have anywhere between 20% and 80% glazing area
(or window-to-wall ratio). “When you look at an all-glass building, you have to dig to understand its thermal performance,” he
points out. “You can’t simply say, ‘Oh, that’s bad.’”
Spandrel panels can be relatively well insulated (compared to
glass and framing). Mapes Industries in Lincoln, Nebraska, for
example, offers a wide range of spandrel panels insulated with
polyisocyanurate, polystyrene, or rigid mineral wool in thicknesses up to 4½ inches (115 mm) with insulating values in excess of
R-25, though spandrel panels an inch to an inch-and-a-half thick
(to match the insulated glass units, IGUs) are far more common.
Where the vision glass and spandrel panels belong is governed
by common sense. Norbert Lechner, author of the text Heating,
Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects,
is a master of common sense in energy design: “On any one
floor, the higher glass produces the best daylighting, because
the light travels further inside and the window causes less glare.
The middle glass is best for views and only fair for daylighting,
while the lower glass has almost no daylighting benefits and
questionable view benefits.” Thus, Lechner argues that it’s most
efficient to have insulated spandrel panels for the lower part of
the window wall.
Spectrally selective glazing
When a lot of glazing is called for in a design, the most common
way to reduce the heat gain penalty is to lower the solar heat
gain coefficient (SHGC) of the glass. Tinted glass is the traditional
solution for this, but it blocks most of the visible light as well, so
spectrally selective clear glazing is more popular today. This type
of glazing provides high visible light transmittance but selectively
blocks out a lot of the solar spectrum outside of the visible band.
Another option is to apply frit to the glazing panels. This is a
screen-printing pattern that serves to block heat gain while still
allowing fairly good visibility out through the glass. There are
both translucent and opaque frits, and these behave differently,
according to Selkowitz.
“Frit can be used to reduce effective aperture,” says lighting
designer and daylighting expert James Benya, P.E., “but it cannot
address the poor insulation of glass walls.” Benya says that the
fritted clerestories and skylights used at PDX Airport in Portland,
Oregon, work pretty well because it’s a temperate climate. “The
same technique at O’Hare [in Chicago] works comparatively poorly,
because there’s too much glazing, and the climate is too extreme.”
Glazing tuned by orientation
“Since the east and west exposures get the most summer sun,
they should have the least glazing,” says Lechner. The shading,
too, should vary by orientation. “Each façade would look a little
different in order to respond to the varying sun angles.”
Unfortunately, providing different types of glazing on different orientations is rarely done—because of aesthetic concerns,
according to Myer. It can be done, though. With the Minneapolis
Public Library, low-iron glass is used for all façades, but each
orientation has a different fritting pattern to regulate heat gain,
according to Don McCann of Viracon.
Exterior shading
The modeled energy impact of glazing percentages presented
in this article assumes no shading. With effective exterior shading
strategies, tuned by orientation, it’s possible to significantly reduce
the energy penalty of a high glazing fraction. Exterior shading
helps control solar gain, so it can reduce both total annual energy
consumption and peak cooling capacity. Exterior shading is more
effective in this capacity than interior shading (with adjustable
blinds) because the sunlight is blocked before entering the building;
once sunlight is transmitted through glazing, most of that solar
energy will be trapped in the building.
Exterior shading can be either fixed or adjustable. Adjustable
shading is attractive as it provides a greater level of control, but
the mechanisms to adjust exterior louvers are prone to failure.
According to Steve Fronek of Wausau, “A lot of climates in the U.S.,
with ice and dust and snow, make these a bit impractical.” Fixed
shades are far more common. Note that fixed exterior shading has
no effect on heating energy use or demand; the benefit relates
solely to reduced solar heat gain.
Interior shading
Moveable blinds on the interior provide an easily adjustable level of
control for solar heat gain. With white or reflective exterior surfaces,
a portion of the sunlight striking the lowered blinds will be reflected
back through the glazing. Automated blinds can be programmed to
open and close on an entire façade to optimize energy performance,
or blinds can be operated manually. According to Selkowitz, manual
shades or blinds in one-person perimeter offices may be used, but in
an open space such blinds are rarely used to effectively control solar
gain—which gets at the issue of behavior in buildings. “In my view,”
says Selkowitz, “an automated system is preferred because it can
more reliably deliver comfort and energy performance.”
Moveable blinds that are fitted into edge-tracks or that are sized to
provide very small openings at the edges can help to control heat loss
as well as heat gain. With relatively poor glazing, such blinds can also
help to improve comfort by raising the mean radiant temperature.
Some advanced buildings, such as the highly glazed New York
Times Tower, have both fixed exterior shading and automated,
motorized interior blinds triggered by daylight sensors to provide a
maximum level of control—which is very important with floor-toceiling, low-iron vision glass. The New York Times Tower also uses
an addressable, dimmable daylight control system that provides
lighting energy savings up to 40 feet (12 m) from the façade,
according to Selkowitz, who was involved in the shading and
daylighting specifications for the project.
Optimizing daylighting
Another design strategy with heavily glazed façades is to distribute the resultant daylight as deeply as possible into the interior of
the floorplate—essentially extending the façade zone. Lightshelves
can help to accomplish this, while reducing heat gain and glare at
the perimeter. Combining exterior shading with lightshelf design
illustrates the importance of integrated design, according to
Benya: “A lightshelf, for example, that protects the view glazing
from direct sun during the cooling season is a superior design. But
the length of the overhang is a cost and structural problem, especially with the threat of snow or ice accumulation.” He adds that
the higher the sill, the shorter the projection, so limiting floor-level
glazing has an added benefit.
Triple glazing
Most curtainwall systems today use double glazing—often with
tinted glass or spectrally selective coatings to control solar gain.
Triple glazing can also be used, and this is becoming more common
with the highest-performance buildings.
“There’s interest in it,” says John Myers of Harmon on triple glazing, but he is quick to point out the challenges. “You’re doubling
the risk of seal failure, and you’re limiting some of your glass choices
and the ability of the framing to manage that because you’re talking about much heavier glass.” He told EBN that with residential
applications, triple glazing is easier because you have relatively thin
glass and small apertures, but with commercial buildings, you’re
adding 50% to the weight and increasing the glazing thickness.
When suspended low-e films are used to provide triple glazing, as
is being done currently by Serious Windows with the window retrofit of the Empire State Building, the added weight can be avoided.
Additional layers of glass can also be achieved with double-envelope or double-façade designs, a strategy that is more common in
Europe than in the U.S. The basic approach is to provide two glass
skins, separated by a fairly deep air space (typically several feet) that
is usually ventilated to the outside. Typically, the outer lite is singleglazed and the inner lite double-glazed, but this is occasionally
reversed, according to Selkowitz, who believes most of the interest
in double-façade design in Europe is driven by desire for improved
solar control in buildings that often do not have air conditioning.
He notes that with a double façade you can provide an “external
shading equivalent” with a less costly system that doesn’t have to
withstand wind and weather.
While Wausau fabricated the first double wall in the U.S. on
the Hooker Chemical building in Niagara Falls, New York, in 1983,
the Apogee companies are generally not enthusiastic about this
option. “Unless you’re effectively harvesting the air inside that
cavity, you’re not gaining a whole lot of benefit from it,” said
Myers. “Maintenance is a nightmare and, quite frankly, if we’re
talking about effective payback, someone who is leasing a space
[is] losing footprint.”
Fiona Cousins at Arup said that the first work she did as an
engineer in the early 1990s was modeling about 40 doublefaçade options for a project in Germany—but none of those
worked better than a standard curtainwall design. That’s still the
case. “There are ways to do it without doing harm,” she said,
“but we can’t make it pay for itself.” Cousins notes that with a
double-envelope building, it’s almost always warmer in the cavity
than it is outside. “In Antarctica that’s probably a good idea,”
she says. “In Austin it isn’t.”
The one situation where Cousins is encouraging of double
façades is in wholesale re-skinning of older buildings. In such a
retrofit application it’s possible to dramatically improve performance
(because the base case is very poor) while allowing the building to
be occupied during construction.
Dynamic glazing
While a combination of exterior and interior shading can be fairly
effective at controlling heat gain, another option is to use glazing
that does the same thing. The most promising technology here is
electrochromic glazing, in which the glazing is tinted on demand by
supplying a low-voltage current.
Sage Electrochromics (a Building-Green Top-10 product in
2006), has been making significant headway in bringing the cost
of electrochromic glazings down. Two years ago, according to
marketing director Jim Wilson, costs were in the range of $100$120/sf ($1,000-$1,300/sm). Today, those costs are about $65/sf
($700/sm), and Wilson expects the cost to continue dropping.
“It’s a common conception in the market that it’s just too
bloody expensive,” Wilson told EBN, but he says that the product is already cost-competitive when compared with other methods for glare and heat-gain management. High-quality interior
blinds typically cost $39-$79/sf ($420-$850/sm), according to
Wilson, while exterior shading systems cost a minimum of $32/
sf ($340/sm) and sometimes over $100/sf ($1,100/sm). Indeed,
John Myers of Harmon said that the wall system for the New
York Times Tower (including curtainwall system, glazing, exterior
shading, and interior blinds) was somewhere in the range of
$700/sf ($7,500/sm), though EBN was not able to verify this
number or determine exactly what it included.
from 25% to 75%. “The reason this works,” Selkowitz told EBN,
“is because heating and cooling are typically not the biggest energy
loads in commercial buildings—it’s lighting, and a well-designed,
thermally efficient façade can produce significant lighting savings,
thus beating the overall energy use of an opaque façade.”
“Imagine a high-performance façade,” says Selkowitz, “with
operable exterior shading for sun control and daylight redirection,
a triple-glazed, low-e, gas-filled window, with interior automated
roller shades for glare control with dimmable daylight controls.
Sounds complicated?” He argues that the motorized shade and
daylight sensors are much less complicated than the centrifugal chiller,
fans, pumps, cooling towers, and power plant that they displace.
Despite the potential for technical fixes, a growing body
of experts in sustainable design argues that our architectural
aesthetic should evolve away from all-glass façades. “Transparency
being so often a non-negotiable design choice,” suggests Henry
Siegel, FAIA, of Siegel & Strain Architects of Emeryville, California,
“is a real failure in leadership and vision in the design community.”
He argues that “broadening the definition of design excellence to
include values other than aesthetics seems like one place to start
changing some of these fixed ideas.”
Alex Wilson has been the most trusted voice on energy efficiency and
environmentally responsible design and construction for more than 30 years.
He founded BuildingGreen in 1985 and launched Environmental Building
News (EBN) in 1992 as the first North American publication focused on
green building. He built the reputation, resources, and staff that today makes
BuildingGreen the leading information company on green building, publishing not
only EBN, but also the GreenSpec Directory, BuildingGreen.com, and LEEDuser,
as well as providing consulting for a variety of companies for whom sustainable
design is a core value.
Efficient mechanical systems
The solution of last resort with all-glass buildings is to provide
the most energy-efficient mechanical solutions available for
satisfying that demand. “If it’s really non-negotiable,” says
Cousins, “then you have to look at the systems and make them
really low-energy to compensate for the energy waste—not a
good place to find yourself.”
Final Thoughts
With their layered transparency, connection to the outdoors,
and daylighting—maybe even higher productivity—all-glass
buildings have their appeal. But the energy penalty of such buildings
cannot be ignored. As lighting designer James Benya told EBN,
“It is hard for me to imagine that an all-glass building is ever a
good idea, but smart variations can probably be responsible if
the nasty east and west façades are intelligently addressed and
the south side is shaded, with climate tuning.”
Selkowitz agrees that “most highly glazed buildings today probably
don’t perform as well as similar buildings with a smaller glazing
area—but, if designed and executed properly, that need not be the
case.” He thinks the idea that there’s a standard glazing solution,
such as 30% vision glass, that is best for all designers is simplistic.
He sees a clear pathway to producing environments that are more
pleasant, lower-energy, and well daylit with glass areas ranging
Av e n u e C P R O D U C T I O N S
Ave C
ad
Graphic Design
PROVIDING DESIGN SERVICES
T O E A R T H D A Y NE W Y O R K
FOR MORE THAN A DECADE
2 1 2 - 2 5 2 - 9 2 8 8 | j wi l l @ av e n u e - c . com
A New York Story:
Case Studies in
Green Roof Retrofits
Scott Melching, AIA, LEED BD+C GRP, FXFOWLE
Jonathan Resnick, President, Jack Resnick & Sons
Teresa Carleo, Founder and President, Plant Fantasies
This paper was developed for the GRHC Cities Alive Conference
Introduction
A
s a major metropolis with a growing population,
New York City’s land values continue to rise while the
number of vacant parcels are shrinking. Opportunities
for new exterior spaces are scarce on the ground plane. With
such an extensive urban fabric of building stock, New York
City building owners are constantly seeking ways to harness
the potential of their rooftops. There are over 2 million existing
buildings in New York City comprising 55% of the city’s land
area. Rooftops account for almost 20% of the city’s area,
20-30 times the size of Central Park.
The benefits of retrofitting existing buildings with green
roofs are vast – from stormwater capture and urban heat island
reduction to increased habitat and species diversity. Given that
every existing structure is unique, green roof retrofit efforts
1
City of New York, 2008. Greener, Greater Buildings, PlaNYC.
require an intelligent strategy based on the distinct programmatic,
technical and financial constraints of each project. This article will
highlight some of the opportunities and challenges encountered
on two distinct Manhattan projects.
250 Hudson is a 16-story office building owned and
managed by Jack Resnick & Sons in Manhattan just west of
SoHo. The building benefits from panoramic views of the
city in four directions – lower Manhattan to the South, the
Hudson River to the West, SoHo to the East and the Empire
State Building to the North. As part of the building-wide
renovation, FXFOWLE Architects along with Plant Fantasies
designed an 8,000 SF green roof amenity space available to all
building tenants.
Symphony House, also owned and managed by Jack Resnick
& Sons, is a 43-story mixed-use office and luxury residential
tower in Midtown West. The building’s distinct shape includes
a set-back at the ninth floor between the podium office
component and the residential high rise. FXFOWLE and Plant
Fantasies renovated the former quarter-mile jogging track into
12,000 SF of semi-intensive green roof amenity space available
to all residential tenants.
Motivations
In 2007, Jack Resnick & Sons reached out to FXFOWLE to
create a green roof as part of the redevelopment of 250
Hudson. An owner of multiple properties in the city, Resnick’s
goal in the commercial property redevelopment was to set
the building apart from its neighbors in Hudson Square. A
complete renovation began in 2008 that would reposition the
office building in a way that would attract new tenants and increase
rental revenues. The successful partnership formed between Jack
Resnick & Sons, FXFOWLE Architects and Plant Fantasies at 250
Hudson led to the development of the next green roof retrofit at
Symphony House. Each project presented distinct challenges based
on their respective existing conditions. As such, FXFOWLE developed
a systematic methodology to carefully analyze the idiosyncrasies of
each building. Outlined below are the components of the feasibility study that proved invaluable in the customization and overall
success of both green roof retrofits.
FXFOWLE
“Because tenants were to have access to 250 Hudson’s green roof, it was necessary to satisfy
building-code egress and ADA requirements. Thus, the amount of accessible/usable space
was dictated by the available means and methods of exiting. Once this was resolved, we
had the freedom to use larger plantings and add other features that greatly enhance the
quality of the experience.“
– Bruce Fowle, FAIA Founding Principal FXFOWLE
Considerations
Converting unused existing roof space into a dynamic design
feature for tenant enjoyment can be challenging. Careful examination
and analysis of the existing conditions from the onset helped to
overcome many of the largest hurdles to the projects. Below is a list
of the critical structural and building code issues that require
investigation to undertake a rooftop renovation:
Available Roof Space
Available roof area is the first consideration when evaluating the
possibility of installing a green roof. To maximize usable interior
(rentable) space most Manhattan rooftops are densely packed
with large chillers and air handlers. Advancements in the design
of mechanical systems have greatly reduced the size of rooftop
mechanical equipment. Oftentimes, by conducting a study of
the existing conditions an engineer can determine if the existing
mechanical units can be eliminated, reduced in size, or relocated.
Chillers or condensers can often be stacked to conserve space.
At 250 Hudson, new rooftop chillers were added as part of the
building renovation. Working closely with the mechanical engineer
to consolidate and stack rooftop equipment above the penthouse
office space preserved 8,000 square feet of roof area for a green
roof amenity. The 9th floor roof at Symphony House was already
free of mechanical equipment; therefore the green
roof installation
Glazing
Type 1
was unencumbered.
Structural Roof Capacity
Before plants, roof pavers and occupants can be incorporated onto
a roof, it is critical to determine if the structural capacity of the existing
roof construction is adequate to support additional live and dead loads
required for assembly occupancy. Typically, a roof structure is designed
to meet building code minimum load (40 lbs/sf snow load) in New York
as opposed to the 100 lbs/sf live load required for assembly spaces.
Calculating an existing roof’s capacity is not always straightforward.
The simplest method is to review the building’s certificate of
occupancy, which states the floor loads and use for each level. The
next option is to contact the building’s original structural engineer or
Structural probe at 250 Hudson
architect - depending upon the building’s age, this oftentimes proves
difficult. The most complex and last resort for structural identification
is undertaking a probe of the roof’s structure. This involves cutting
into the roof assembly from above to evaluate the structure of the
roof. By measuring the thickness of the beams, concrete slab and
roofing material, a structural engineer can calculate the available
capacity. To complete the calculations, the interior column spacing
and floor to floor heights will need to be considered.
After probing the roof at 250 Hudson, the structural capacity
was deemed insufficient to support a green roof. In order to make
the green roof vision a reality, a new structural concrete slab was
installed above the existing concrete roof to provide the required
support. Adding the new structural slab was costly and time
consuming. By contrast, at Symphony House, the structural engineer
was able to confirm that the required loads were available by
reviewing as-built drawings.
Accessibility and Egress
Accessible assembly roof spaces require three elements – a minimum
of two egress stairs, an elevator that provides direct access to the
exterior space, and a connection between the interior and exterior
space that conforms to ADA requirements. It is rare to find all
three requirements already in place. When visiting a potential roof
space it is critical to carefully review how the roof is accessed.
If steps are required to access a higher exterior roof level, it will be
more challenging to provide access than if the roof is lower than
the interior space, where it is possible to utilize adjustable paver
pedestals to align the interior and exterior finish floors in lieu of
stairs. The roof at 250 Hudson was higher than the interior floor
level. To provide an accessible route, two steps and an extra
accessible ramp were added as part of the green roof design.
This was only possible because the new structural concrete slab
was engineered to accommodate a depression aligning with the
interior floor. As part of the building renovation new elevators were
added to access the roof level.
The existing conditions at Symphony House were the converse
of those found at 250 Hudson. The ninth floor already had full
access to the residential elevators and the existing roof was lower
than the interior finish floor. Concrete pavers were installed on
adjustable pedestals in order to align the interior and exterior floor
levels, creating a seamless transition between interior and exterior.
Waterproofing Membrane and Warranty
It is always important to select waterproofing membranes and
green roof systems that are compatible and won’t damage one
another. Plant roots can deteriorate many bituminous membranes
while TPO and PVC are not as susceptible to deterioration. If a
bituminous membrane is selected, manufacturers require a root
barrier be placed between the membrane and the plants.
At both 250 Hudson and Symphony House, modified bituminous
membranes were installed with root barriers above them. Due to the
increased height of the roof at 250 Hudson, new counter flashing was
installed along the parapet wall. At Symphony House, the existing
through-wall flashing was reused and only the counter flashing
required replacement.
A multiple source warranty indicates the roofing assembly is
warrantied separately from the green roof assembly. The advantage
of this system is freedom to select diverse plants and vary the depth
of the growing medium. The disadvantage of this system becomes
evident when a leak occurs – initiating a two-step process. First, the
landscaper must remove the green roof to provide the roofer access
to the membrane. Once the leak is fixed, the landscaper is responsible
for replacing the green roof.
250 Hudson and Symphony House were both multiple source
warranties. Installation of built-up green roof systems at both
projects provided maximum flexibility of plant selection.
Most existing inaccessible or
mechanical roofs do not have parapets.
Accessible roof amenity spaces require
a 42” tall guardrail at the perimeter
of all gathering spaces. The construction of a green roof typically increases
the finished elevation of the roof by
8”-24” which alone renders most
existing parapets inadequate by code.
Adding a new guardrail can be
challenging depending on the condition
of the existing parapet. Parapets are
unique building elements that are
exposed to the weather on three
sides – often causing the parapet
wall to deteriorate more rapidly than
the rest of the building exterior.
At 250 Hudson, the finished floor
was raised 18” to accommodate the
new structural concrete slab, building
Access to Sunlight
A critical part of the analysis process is studying the roof’s
access to direct sunlight. To do this, the design team used a 3D
modeling software called Ecotect. Ecotect is an analytical tool
that utilizes the building’s geometry, neighboring structures and
geographic location to calculate the amount of direct sunlight
the roof receives relative to the sun’s path throughout the year.
By understanding the day lighting levels, plants can be appropriately selected to match the conditions: full sun, partial sun or
shade tolerant.
250 Hudson is the tallest building within three blocks in all
directions so the analysis clearly indicated that the roof experienced
full sun exposure throughout the day and year. However, Symphony
House was quite different. Located in Midtown Manhattan,
Symphony House is surrounded by equally tall buildings. Therefore,
the 9th floor roof experienced conditions ranging from full
exposure to no direct sunlight at all. Specifically, the alcove
on the north side of the building experienced no direct sunlight.
Based on this understanding, the project focused on the southern
FXFOWLE
Edge of Roof Condition
insulation, drainage mat, paver pedestals and roof pavers. This
added thickness reduced the existing parapet height from 38” to
20” after construction. New guardrails were designed throughout
to meet the 42” code requirement, but the design team had to
first determine how to best attach them to the existing parapet.
The structural engineer determined the parapet was capable
of supporting a new guardrail if anchored to the inside face at
250 Hudson. To limit the number of penetrations through the
waterproofing membrane, it is preferable to anchor railings to
the parapet above the counter flashing rather than to the structural slab below.
Parapet railings can experience high wind loads. At 250 Hudson,
instead of a solid glass wind screen to block the wind, the design
team created frames with a stainless steel mesh infill that allowed
the wind to pass through, adding only minimal loads to the connection at the parapet. At Symphony House, the existing brick parapet
was 42” tall and in excellent condition. Having a code-compliant
railing already in place significantly shortened the length of the
project’s construction schedule.
Daylighting analysis at Symphony House
FXFOWLE
FXFOWLE
Green roof plan 250 Hudson (l), Symphony House (r). Not to scale.
the furniture is used to divide the space into smaller seated areas,
which tenants reorganize to fit their needs. A mix of four-person
tables with individual chairs was provided so they could be moved
independently. Also specified were Adirondack-style chairs made from
100% recycled milk jugs, with wide armrests that support a laptop.
At Symphony House the roof was designed quite differently.
Family gatherings or a dinner party for 10-15 people are the roof’s
primary functions. To create more intimate spaces, the roof’s circulation spine was positioned closest to the building and acts as a
corridor separated from seating areas by vertical planted trellises.
In a few years, the Clematis and Boston Ivy planted trellises will
provide a visual separation between the circulation zone and each
seating area. Furniture is a mix of rectangular dining tables with
full length benches and large armless lounge chairs for reclining.
roof along 56th Street. This analysis informed more than just plant
selection – it determined the scope of the planted areas on the roof.
Design
Once the opportunities and constraints were established, FXFOWLE
worked collaboratively with Plant Fantasies to respond to Jack Resnick
& Sons goals of creating a great amenity for building tenants. As
owner and manager of both buildings, they carefully balanced design
decisions with maintenance requirements throughout the design and
construction process.
In designing each space FXFOWLE utilized the program requirements
in order to develop an organizational diagram for each roof. At
250 Hudson, the focus was to create a large gathering space that
celebrates the building’s panoramic views. By contrast, at Symphony
House the design intent established a series of inwardly oriented
individual spaces within a serene landscape. Below are descriptions
of the key aspects of the design process.
Plant Selection
In both projects, prior to planting the design team sculpted the
beds to give them each their own distinct topography. To create grade
changes, geofoam (expanded polystyrene) was inserted underneath
the drainage mat. Geofoam was introduced because it is very
lightweight, therefore reducing the weight of the growing media.
At 250 Hudson, the planting beds were conceived as a changing
Programming
FXFOWLE
FXFOWLE
250 Hudson’s focus was to create a large gathering space for
office tenants. The largest building tenant has over 300 employees
who come together for company events on the roof. On a daily basis,
Built up roofing for planting at 250 Hudson (l) finished results (r)
FXFOWLE
FXFOWLE
250 Hudson and Symphony House completed projects
element. Therefore, seasonal color was a major consideration in
plant palette selection. To achieve a colorful variety of plants, three
palettes were developed: one comprised of plants blooming or with
vegetation in shades of blue and lavender, one with pink and rose
tones, and one in yellow and golden tones. The areas of intensive
plantings were then composed in large sweeps of each of the three
palettes providing an interlacing of color that would achieve a good
balance of all palettes throughout the seasons.
In addition to color and bloom time, drought tolerance and
sun/shade requirements were important considerations. For
example, the trellis planters wrap around the bulkhead with one
side facing south in full sun and the other facing west with afternoon sun and partial shading. However, it was desirable to have
the appearance of the two sides as consistent as possible. Boston
Ivy and Clematis planting on the trellis was chosen to meet this
requirement with plants that would perform equally well in both
conditions. Though growth rates have differed between the two
faces, in time both have flourished.
At Symphony House, plants were selected based on the
microclimate of the roof and its full exposure to sunlight. Planted
in pairs, multi-stem river birches provide rich texture and mix
of stem and green leaves from top to bottom. Shallow-rooted
perennials and sedums were chosen that could tolerate the
windy rooftop. The flower color palette of primarily yellows
and purples was timed to provide blooms throughout the
growing season. Each of the native species selected for this
rooftop garden was planted in massed swaths, layered within
the slightly bermed planting beds. As each plant grew to maturity,
the gardens have become soft multi-textured meadows that
reflect the natural native landscape.
Maintenance
Jack Resnick & Sons’ building maintenance staff and Plant
Fantasies jointly maintain both green roofs. Responsibilities are
clearly defined — the building staff addresses building elements
such as cleaning roof drains, power washing roof pavers,
removing trash from receptacles and general clean up around
the planted areas. Plant Fantasies is contracted to provide weekly
maintenance of the planted areas throughout the spring, summer
and fall.
Irrigation
All of the planted areas at both 250 Hudson and Symphony
House Street have been installed with an efficient drip irrigation
system. The irrigation system is split into zones so that watering
can be fine-tuned to the needs of the plants in each area, using
as little water as possible. While the trees and raised trellis
plantings are expected to always need additional water during
the summer season, it is hoped that watering of the perennial
and succulent areas of the green roof can be reduced to minimal
supplemental levels once plants have established themselves.
Fertilization
Fertilizer is utilized as little as possible and using only organic
sources where needed. Trees are fertilized twice annually, spring
and fall, using Holly-Tone fertilizer.2 Perennials and grasses have
not been fertilized. The progress of these plants is being monitored
to determine a regimen for fertilization or soil nutrient replacement.
2
olly-tone is derived from: hydrolyzed feather meal, pasteurized poultry manure, cocoa meal, bone meal, alfalfa meal, greensand, humates, sulfate of
H
potash, and sulfate of potash magnesia.
“The bottom line is 250 Hudson is full and all of the major tenants are requesting
additional space. If we could raise the roof and put five more floors on the building,
I think we’d rent them very quickly.”
– Burt Resnick, Chairman and CEO, Jack Resnick & Sons
Weeds and Pests
As needs have arisen, weeds and pests are dealt with as
naturally as possible. No herbicides are used at either location.
Weeding is done by hand and with small hand-held cultivators
weekly during the growing season and on a monthly basis
during the winter. Ladybugs have been introduced to the beds
at 250 Hudson Street when aphids were noticed on rose and
milkweed varieties.
The successes of the green roof retrofits at 250 Hudson and
Symphony House can be attributed to a diligent analytical process
that investigated the existing conditions of the context, building
and roof, identifying opportunities and constraints. Allocating the
additional time and effort to undertake a thorough feasibility study
at the onset helped define the proper parameters that guided the
project through its inception and beyond. A careful consideration
of program, code requirements and plant type was carried out when
developing the design. Finally, as with any living system, a highly
collaborative team was key, particularly the commitment from the
building management to proper ongoing maintenance practices.
Scott Melching is a project architect and associate with FXFOWLE. As the
firm’s green roof expert, he leads the office’s efforts to design and install green
roofs on existing New York City buildings. He is a registered architect, LEED
Accredited Professional and an accredited Green Roof Professional by Green
Roofs for Healthy Cities.
Jonathan D. Resnick joined Jack Resnick & Sons, one of New York City’s
preeminent, family-owned real estate development and management companies, in 1996. He was named President in 2007. Mr. Resnick oversees the firm’s
vast portfolio of approximately six million square feet of commercial office and
retail space, and approximately 900 rental apartments. He is directly involved
with asset management, capital projects, leasing, new development, and the
day-to-day operations of the firm.
Teresa Carleo founded PFI nearly 25 years ago and has over 30 years of experience in horticulture. Her passion for gardens and people has led to the creation
of a design/build company specializing in urban gardens and urban green roofs.
She also provides landscape contracting services for major projects throughout
the Manhattan area. Teresa embraces all types of projects, from private spaces
to large scale construction sites. She personally oversees all aspects of daily
operations, from planning, design, estimating and personnel management,
to sales and company financial requirements.
FXFOWLE
FXFOWLE
Results and Achievements
Office tenants at 250 Hudson use the roof for a variety of
tasks throughout the day. One Human Resources Director conducts
interviews on summer mornings. A prominent architect held his
book signing on the roof. At lunchtime it is difficult to find an
empty chair. The most unexpected result is the overwhelming
number of requests to host private events on the roof. Throughout
the spring, summer and well in to the fall building tenants reserve
the roof space for their own functions.
250 Hudson has been awarded LEED Silver Existing Buildings and
the 2010 Green Roof Award of Excellence from Green Roofs for
Healthy Cities. The building also received a New York State Green
Roof Tax Credit and is Energy Star-rated.
At Symphony House the response has been similarly positive.
Completed in 2011, the roof has been used extensively by residents
for meals and relaxation. The most unforeseen change occurred in
the smoking habits of building tenants overlooking the green roof.
Previously many tenants were accustomed to flicking their cigarette
butts off their balconies onto the defunct jogging track. Now having
seen the roof’s transformation, the quantity of cigarettes requiring
removal from the planting beds is steadily decreasing.
Building tenants aren’t the only occupants on the roofs; they are also
living ecosystems. Insects ranging from grasshoppers to bees inhabit
the spaces. Birds frequent the roof because of the range of insects and
flowering plants. Tenants occasionally witness hawks visiting the roofs.
Symphony House before (l) and after (r)
Tools of t h e t r a d e
Tools of the Trade
A Compendium of
Green Building
Tools and Resources
7group
www.sevengroup.com
7group brings together the expertise of five different firms to
advocate for more sustainable design, construction and operation
of buildings and communities.
•The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building
http://www.sevengroup.com/integrative-design-guide/
The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building focuses on
the “how” of sustainability: how to make the best decisions,
how to work with others to creatively address the issues of
sustainability, how to address complex issues that threaten living
systems, and how to be more and more deeply purposeful in
pursuing what is required of us to achieve these objectives.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
(ACEEE)
www.aceee.org
The ACEEE is dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means
of promoting economic prosperity, energy security, and environ-
mental protection. ACEEE’s key program areas include energy policy,
buildings and equipment, utilities and industry. The ACEEE website
provides a guide to energy efficient commercial equipment, building
performance programs, evaluation tools, case studies and information on emerging energy-saving technologies.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) - Energy
Sustainability Resources
www.engineeringforsustainability.org
ASHRAE standards are used as the basis of most energy codes and
measurements of building performance. This site is a source for
information on high performance buildings, providing access to
ASHRAE standards and references, magazines and guides.
•Energy Efficiency Guide for Existing Commercial Buildings:
The Business Case for Building Owners and Managers:
www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/
Energy-Efficiency-Guides-for-Existing-Commercial-Buildings
This two-book set includes both Energy Efficiency Guides for
Existing Commercial Buildings (EEG-EB). Although a part of the
highly successful Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) series,
the EEG-EB series concentrates solely on existing commercial
buildings. The first in the series provided a business case for
energy efficiency and was targeted to building owners and
managers, and the second is aimed at providing technical
guidance in undertaking existing building renovation programs.
•High Performing Buildings Magazine:
www.hpbmagazine.org
This magazine from ASHRAE helps the building industry learn
about the benefits of high performance design through case
studies of exemplary buildings.
Architectural Record – Green Architecture
archrecord.construction.com/green
The Architectural Record provides information on design ideas
and trends, building science, business and professional strategies,
exploration of key issues, news, products and other topics. The
publication features a green resources section with information
about green building.
•Green Product Guide:
archrecord.construction.com/green/greenProducts
The Architectural Record has compiled a guide of green products
and building materials categorized based on the MasterFormat
2004 Edition.
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
International
www.boma.org
The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International
is an international federation of more than 100 local associations and
affiliated organizations. Founded in 1907, its 16,500-plus members
own or manage more than nine billion square feet of commercial
properties. BOMA International’s mission is to enhance the human,
intellectual and physical assets of the commercial real estate industry
through advocacy, education, research, standards and information.
•Green Education Programming:
www.boma.org/TrainingAndEducation
BOMA’s Strategies for Sustainable Building Operations (SBO) webinars are loaded with case studies of buildings that have successfully
executed a variety of sustainable building operations. BOMA’s
Annual Conference also includes a “Green” Education Track dedicated to sustainability in commercial buildings from the operational,
financial and environmental perspectives.
•BOMA STARS:
www.boma.org/getinvolved/BOMASTARS
BOMA STARS is designed to promote benchmarking of energy
management data using the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Portfolio
Manager and sharing that data with BOMA. To date, more than
3,300 facilities have shared their data with BOMA, representing
nearly 830 million square feet of commercial space.
•BOMA Ever-Green:
www.boma.org/EverGreen
BOMA International’s “Ever-Green” online resource site provides a
step-by-step guide to finding information, training, best practices
and certification programs for commercial buildings and management teams. Information is organized in steps – starting with free
information and resources, such as articles, websites and guides,
and ending with building certification and recognition opportunities.
•BOMA 7-Point Challenge:
www.boma.org/getinvolved/7pointchallenge
BOMA International issued the 7-Point Challenge in July 2007,
calling on the commercial real estate industry to improve energy
efficiency by 30 percent by 2012. BOMA members are answering
the call. The final results of the Challenge will be announced at
BOMA’s Winter Business Meeting in January 2013.
•BOMA 360 Performance Program®:
www.boma.org/GETINVOLVED/BOMA360
The BOMA 360 Performance Program evaluates six major areas
of building operations and management and benchmarks a
building’s performance against industry standards. “Energy” and
“Environmental/Sustainability” are two of the six categories that
applicants must satisfy to earn the BOMA 360 designation, with
requirements that include ENERGY STAR® benchmarking, energy
audits and commissioning and policies on waste management,
indoor air quality, green cleaning, water management and more.
BuildCarbonNeutral
www.buildcarbonneutral.org
The Construction Carbon Calculator is a tool for developers, builders,
architects and land planners to approximate the net embodied carbon
of a project’s structures and sites. The tool estimates the embodied
energy and subsequent carbon amounts released during construction. The measurements account for building materials, processes
and carbon released due to ecosystem degradation or sequestered
through landscape installation or restoration.
BuildingGreen, Inc
www.BuildingGreen.com
BuildingGreen helps building industry professionals broaden their
expertise, improve environmental performance, and streamline
project management with authoritative, independent information
on environmentally responsible design and construction. Their
online and print resources include:
•LEEDuser helps members certify building projects with tips, action
checklists, sample documentation, forums, and templates for the
key commercial and institutional LEED rating systems: LEED-NC,
LEED-CS, LEED-CI, LEED-Schools and LEED-EBOM. LEEDuser also
helps save time and money with frank advice on how to accomplish
each credit requirement.
•Environmental Building News™ is a print and searchable online
resource covering the essential topics related to sustainable building—from renewable energy and recycled-content products, to
land-use planning and indoor air quality. Includes free access to
LEED- and AIA HSW-approved continuing education courses.
•GreenSpec® online database provides fast, in-depth searches
of the greenest 10 percent of building products by keyword,
CSI MasterFormat category, certifications and green attributes.
Members save time and avoid manufacturer greenwashing with
guidance on material selection and hazard assessments, in-depth
analysis to substantiate sourcing decisions, independent expert
opinion, and first-hand peer experiences.
•BuildingGreen Suite™ is a comprehensive online resource offering
instant access to thousands of articles, in-depth features, product
reviews, news and opinions. This information is searchable and
cross-referenced by CSI MasterFormat division, LEED™ credit, and
green topic, and includes a database of over 275 high-performance
building case studies. Includes unlimited access to Environmental
Building News and GreenSpec®.
California Sustainability Alliance
sustainca.org
The California Sustainability Alliance (the Alliance) is designed to help
meet the State’s aggressive energy, climate and other resource and
environmental goals by increasing and accelerating energy efficiency
in combination with complementary green measures and strategies.
•Green Leases Toolkit:
sustainca.org/green_leases_toolkit
The Alliance assembled an expert group of professionals with
substantial experience in commercial real estate to develop and test
strategies to overcome the significant barriers to greening the 90%
of California’s commercial office space that is leased. This effort
focused on “green leasing” (i.e., integrating sustainability practices
into the entire commercial leasing process). This includes service
provider selection; marketing of buildings, development of green
specifications; request for proposal and letter of intent drafting; site
selection and due diligence; and the negotiation and drafting of
realistic and enforceable lease language.
Con Edison – The Power of Green
www.coned.com/thepowerofgreen
Con Edison’s energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses can
help lower energy usage. Offerings include free equipment upgrades,
rebates, recycling programs, and home and business energy surveys.
•Small Business Direct Installation:
www.coned.com/energyefficiency/businessdirect.asp
Con Edison’s Small Business Direct Installation Program sends out
energy professionals to evaluate the lighting, ballasts, fixtures,
HVAC system, and more at businesses. They make custom recommendations for improving energy efficiency that fit the needs and
budget of the business.
•Energy Efficiency Programs for Commercial & Industrial
Customers:
www.coned.com/energyefficiency/ci_program_rebates.asp
To help businesses reduce costs and become more energy efficient,
Con Edison offers commercial and industrial customers incentives
and rebates for installing high-efficiency gas and electric equipment.
•Multi-family Energy Survey & Efficiency Upgrades:
www.coned.com/energyefficiency/residential_multifamily.asp
With Con Edison’s multifamily energy survey, a Green Team energy
professional will come and evaluate building lighting, heating and
cooling equipment, and appliances, and offer energy-saving recommendations. Once a building is enrolled, residents can receive free
CFLs, water saving devices, and smart strips. Building owners are
offered incentives and rebates for certain upgrades, including lighting
fixtures, LED exit signs, chillers, HVAC systems, and more. In some
cases, new ENERGY STAR® refrigerators will be provided at no cost!
•Demand Response:
www.coned.com/energyefficiency/demand_response.asp
Con Edison’s new demand response programs for business and
residential customers provide financial incentives for participation
and help lower the demand for electricity during peak periods
when energy use is at its highest. Programs range from emergency
based to forecast based peak load shaving programs.
•Free Programmable Thermostats for Central AC Systems:
www.coned.com/energyefficiency/free_thermostat.asp
Con Edison is offering a free programmable thermostat that allows
for control of the temperature in your business, even when you’re
not there. You will be able to adjust the temperature manually or
remotely via the internet or your mobile phone, while providing an
efficient use of energy when programming features are used.
•Commercial Energy Calculator:
www.coned.com/customercentral/calculators/EC_bus.html
This site includes calculators that estimate savings resulting from
energy and lighting upgrades.
Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute
www.c2ccertified.org
The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute is a non-profit
organization created to bring about a large-scale transformation
in the way we make the things we make. Rather than focusing on
how industry can become “less bad,” the Institute is set up to be a
resource for those who aspire to do “more good”. They promote an
innovation-oriented model for eliminating toxic chemicals and other
negative environmental impacts.
•Product Certification:
www.c2ccertified.org/product_certification
Cradle to Cradle CertifiedCM Products Program is a 5-criteria protocol that evaluates how safe and healthy a product is for humans
and the environment. This site has information on the steps toward
certification and a registry of certified products.
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency (DSIRE)
www.dsireusa.org
DSIRE is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility,
and federal incentives that promote renewable energy and energy
efficiency. The searchable database allows searches by sector, incentive
type, state, or technology. It also offers a financial incentives summary
list with key contacts and web links.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle)
www.calrecycle.ca.gov
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) brings together the state’s recycling and waste management programs and continues a tradition of environmental stewardship. CalRecycle’s mission is to inspire and challenge Californians to
achieve the highest waste reduction, recycling and reuse goals in the
nation. Their web site includes a number of resources to help businesses, homeowners, and others reduce waste.
Enterprise Green Communities
www.greencommunitiesonline.org
In 2004, Enterprise set out to prove that it was possible to bring the
health, economic and environmental benefits of green building to lowincome communities nationwide. In just five years, the Enterprise Green
Communities initiative invested $700 million to build and preserve
nearly 16,000 green affordable homes – while transforming local,
state and national policies. Enterprise is continuing to lead and build
on this important momentum with the next generation of Enterprise
Green Communities, committing $4 billion over the next five years.
Green Communities provides funds and expertise to enable developers to build and rehabilitate homes that are healthier, more energy
efficient and better for the environment—without compromising
affordability. Funding options available include planning and construction and charette grants, predevelopment and construction loans as
well as low-income housing tax credit equity for building projects that
adhere to their “Green Criteria.”
Environmental Design + Construction (ED+C) Magazine
www.edcmag.com
ED+C is a great source for integrated high-performance building,
dedicated to efficient and sustainable design and construction. The
magazine and web site include valuable information about sustainable building projects and green building products.
Forest Products Association of Canada
www.fpac.ca
The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) is the voice of
Canada’s wood, pulp, and paper producers nationally and internationally in government, trade, and environmental affairs. Canada’s
forest products industry is a $57.1 billion a year industry that represents 2% of Canada’s GDP. FPAC members strive to operate in a
manner which is environmentally responsible, socially desirable, and
economically viable.
GreenBiz
www.greenbiz.com
GreenBiz offers resources on how to align environmental responsibility with business success by providing valuable news and resources
to large and small businesses through a combination of web sites,
workshops, daily news feeds, electronic newsletters, and briefing
papers. Topics include green procurement, facility management,
energy efficiency, waste reduction, renewable energy, green cleaning
and many others. Resources are free to all users.
•Where To Buy Responsible Products:
www.fpac.ca/index.php/en/member-companies
FPAC Member Companies must be certified to one of three internationally recognized certification standards – Canadian Standards
Association (CSA), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) – as a condition of FPAC membership.
This site includes links to product listings from those three certification programs.
•GreenerBuildings:
www.greenerbuildings.com
Produced by GreenBiz.com, this free, content-rich site offers
hundreds of resources on green buildings.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
www.fscus.org
The FSC is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes
the responsible management of the world’s working forests through
the development of standards, a certification system, and trademark
recognition.
•FSC Step-By-Step Guide:
www.fsc.org/download.step-by-step-pocket-guide.25.htm
This is a guide to help managers and owners of small-scale and low
intensity forest operations maintain or improve the management of
biodiversity High Conservation Values (HCVs) within their forests.
This guide is not meant to replace management plans – but to
strengthen them.
Green Lease Library
www.greenleaselibrary.com
The Green Lease Library is the result of a collaboration among several
stakeholders in the green leasing community and is maintained by
the Institute for Market Transformation. It consolidates green leasing
resources to provide a one-stop shop for all audience types – from
building owners and tenants to lawyers and building raters. The
library is organized by resource type and resources are tagged by
relevance to audience and building types.
Green Tenant Toolkit
www.greentenanttoolkit.com
The Business Council on Climate Change’s Green Tenant Toolkit is
designed for use by tenants, occupiers, and owners of all classes and
sizes of commercial buildings, and may be used at all points within
the life cycle of the lease. The toolkit was developed by a diverse
group of real estate and environmental professionals representing
brokers, property management, large tenant groups, attorneys, electrical utilities, and design and construction experts convened by the
Business Council on Climate Change and SF Environment. The toolkit
was designed for San Francisco buildings, but may be adapted for use
in any location.
Greener Greater Buildings Plan
www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/about/ggbp.shtml
Increasing the energy efficiency of the city’s existing buildings is a
central PlaNYC focus. To address the critical area of energy use in
existing buildings, NYC has enacted a set of efficiency requirements
for existing private and public sector buildings. In December 2009,
Mayor Bloomberg signed the four legislative components of the
Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, the most comprehensive set of
efficiency laws in the nation: Benchmarking - Local Law 84; New
York City Energy Code - Local Law 85; Energy Audits and Retrocommissioning - Local Law 87; Lighting Upgrades and Sub-metering
- Local Law 88.
•Energy-Aligned Lease:
www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/energy_
aligned_lease_official_packet.pdf
The split incentive problem has long hampered energy efficiency
investments. It occurs when one party pays for upgrades, but
another party reaps the financial benefits of the energy savings.
Working with the real estate industry, the NYC Mayor’s Office of
Long-Term Planning and Sustainability has developed model lease
language that solves the split incentive problem in commercial gross
modified leases.
•PlaNYC: Green Buildings and Energy Efficiency:
www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/codes/energy.shtml#about
•NYC Energy Code Resources:
– Energy Code – About:
www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/codes_and_reference_materials/nycecc_about.shtml
– Energy Code – What Codes, Rules & Forms Apply When–
www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/codes_and_reference_materials/nycecc_what_applies_when.shtml
– Where to Get Training:
www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/codes_and_reference_materials/nycecc_training_modules.shtml
– Available Financing and Incentive Opportunities:
www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/incentives/incentives.shtml
Green Globes
www.greenglobes.com
The Green Globes system, administered in the U.S. by the Green
Building Initiative (GBI), is a building environmental design and
management tool. It delivers an online assessment protocol, rating
system and guidance for green building design, operation and
management. It awards points across seven credit categories including:
energy, indoor environment, site, water, resources, emissions, and
project/environmental management. The Green Globes suite of tools
is used to integrate sustainability goals into new construction, renovations, and entire building portfolios.
GREENGUARD Environmental Institute (GEI)
www.greenguard.org
The GREENGUARD Environmental Institute (GEI) was founded in
2001 with the mission of improving human health and quality of
life by enhancing indoor air quality and reducing people’s exposure
to chemicals and other pollutants. In keeping with that mission,
GEI certifies products and materials for low chemical emissions and
provides a free resource for choosing healthier products and materials
for indoor environments.
Green Home Guide
www.greenhomeguide.com
The Green Home Guide is a community-based resource that offers a
combination of tips, case studies, expert Q&A, articles and regional
product directories.
Green Seal
www.greenseal.org
Green Seal develops life cycle-based sustainability standards for products, services and companies and offer third-party certification for
those that meet the criteria in the standard. Green Seal specializes in
more than thirty product and service categories, including:
•Household Products
•Construction Materials & Equipment
•Paints & Coatings
•Printing & Writing Paper
•Paper Towels, Napkins & Tissue Paper
•Food Packaging
•Institutional Cleaning Products
•Hand Soaps & Cleaners
•Commercial Cleaning Services
•Hotels and Lodging Properties
GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals
www.cleanproduction.org/Greenscreen.php
The GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals is a method for chemical hazard
assessment to help move our society quickly and effectively toward the
use of greener and safer chemicals. It is the first free, fully transparent
and publicly accessible tool to identify substances that are inherently
less hazardous for humans and the environment. This site has information on how the method works, GreenScreen trainings, and additional
resources.
GreenSource, the Magazine of Sustainable Design
www.Greensourcemag.com
Intended to serve the green design community, GreenSource
educates a broad swath of design professionals, informing them of
projects, design processes, technology, products, and environmental
issues in the rapidly developing sustainable building industry.
Printed on 100 percent post-consumer recycled stock with soy ink,
GreenSource delivers information that is highly technical, in a manner
that is graphically appealing and accessible. Case studies make up the
core of the publication with valuable technical information, weather
charts, plans, illustrations, key project energy performance data,
and green products used. Feature stories highlight design practices,
trends, and technology, while departments focus on green building
policy, profiles of people, current trends, new green products, opinions, and news. Published six times a year, GreenSource has quickly
become the most trusted source of information about green buildings
in the United States.
GreenSource supports the print publication with a full cadre of
social media and community tools. The site features daily news—both
originally reported and news wire—as well as blogs, forums, a video
library, and user-generated photo galleries. Monthly features include
best green houses, LEED-Platinum portfolio, and solution of the
month. The site features a searchable database of all case studies
published in the magazine.
Health Product Declaration Forum
www.hpdworkinggroup.org
The Health Product Declaration (HPD) Forum is the home of the HPD
Open Standard Working Group, a voluntary association of expert
participants from the community of building designers, specifiers,
owners and users. The HPD Open Standard Working Group was
convened in July 2011 by the Materials Research Collaborative, a joint
initiative of Healthy Building Network and BuildingGreen, Inc.
The HPD Open Standard is a format for the reporting of product
content and associated health information for individual building
products and materials. An initial version of the form has been
drafted and is available for viewing here. It was used in a Pilot test
program by 30 manufacturers and reviewed by 50 users. It is now
undergoing revision based on feedback from the Pilot. Version 1.0 for
public use is planned for release in November 2012.
Healthy Building Network (HBN)
www.healthybuilding.net
The HBN is a national network of green building professionals, environmental and health activists, socially responsible investment advocates and others who are interested in promoting healthier building
materials as a means of improving public health and preserving the
global environment.
•Healthy Building News:
www.healthybuilding.net/news/archive.html
This biweekly email update includes insights and analysis on building
materials and environmental health.
Home Depot – Sustainable, LEED friendly product supplier
leed.homedepot.com
This partnership between the U.S. Green Building Council and Home
Depot will launch a line of USBGC-approved green building products
on Home Depot’s site. Although Home Depot already sells a bevy of
green products, the new categorization will make it quick and easy
for customers to find the sustainable products they need online.
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)
www.icsc.org
ICSC is the global trade association of the shopping center industry,
with more than 60,000 members that include shopping center
owners, investors, retailers and other professionals. ICSC organizes
the RetailGreen Conference every year and hosts the Green Zone
at its annual RECON meeting in Las Vegas, showcasing product and
service providers who are committed to the environment.
Kresge Foundation Green Building Initiative
www.kresge.org
The Kresge Foundation is committed to supporting significant
improvements in energy efficiency and the widespread deployment
of renewable-energy technologies which can reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Funded projects in the Environment, Energy
Efficiency, and Renewable Energy category focus on three strategies:
promoting policy reform, bringing energy-efficiency retrofits to scale,
and supporting next-generation approaches.
•The National Housing Quality (NHQ) Program:
www.toolbase.org/Best-Practices/Quality-Management/
nhq-overview
Realizing the importance of quality assurance systems within the
home building industry, the NAHB Research Center developed the
National Housing Quality (NHQ) Program. From training, to product
and quality assurance system certification, to national recognition
through awards programs, the NHQ Program is leading the charge
in quality matters.
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
Research Center
www.nahbrc.org
The NAHB Research Center promotes innovation in housing technology to improve the quality, durability, affordability, and environmental
performance of homes and home building products. Created over
40 years ago, the NAHB Research Center has established itself as the
source for reliable, objective information and research on housing
construction and development issues. The tools available online include:
– NHQ Certified Builder Program:
www.toolbase.org/Best-Practices/Quality-Management/nhqprogram-implementation
National Housing Quality (NHQ) Certification represents a company’s ongoing commitment to continual process improvement and
customer satisfaction in home building.
– NHQ Certified Trade Contractor Program:
asqlv.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/national_housing
_quality.ppt
NHQ Certification represents a trade contractor’s ongoing commitment to continual process improvement and customer satisfaction.
•ToolBase Services:
www.toolbase.org
ToolBase.org is a technical information supersite that provides
comprehensive information on materials, innovative technologies,
business management, and housing systems. The site is designed to
promote the awareness of beneficial new technologies and update
building professionals on industry research. The Research Center is
continuing to refine the selection of online tools available through
ToolBase Services. Some of the site’s specialized resources include:
– Technology Inventory:
www.toolbase.org/techinv
An online listing of nearly 250 advanced technologies and practices that provide reliable, noncommercial technical information for
building professionals and consumers. Many of these categories
include downloadable Computer Assisted Design (CAD) files that
builders and architects can add directly to plans, and online videos
that further explain product benefits and demonstrate installation.
– Field Evaluations:
www.toolbase.org/FieldEvaluations
Field Evaluations are cooperative efforts among builders, remodelers, manufacturers, and the NAHB Research Center that place new
technologies into homes so they can be evaluated in real-world
conditions. This section of the ToolBase website contains the findings of the nearly 40 Field Evaluations that have been completed.
– Tech Sets:
www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level3.
aspx?BucketID=4&CategoryID=53 Tech Sets are a resource to help builders implement innovations in
manageable, systems-based packages. Tech Sets take the guesswork out of choosing cost-effective technologies that can improve
home quality and deliver distinct market advantage.
– Design & Construction Guides:
www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level2.aspx?BucketID=4
This site provides information about innovative products and
processes that can help with building or remodeling homes at
lower cost, with higher quality, energy efficiency, and safety.
•NAHB Education:
www.nahb.org/page.aspx/generic/sectionID=798
The NAHB Research Center offers educational seminars, training
courses and materials for home building professionals.
•Bookstore:
www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level3.
aspx?BucketID=2&CategoryID=17
The NAHB Research Center has authored hundreds of valuable
resources for building professionals - books, design and construction
guides, research reports, videos, product directories, and more.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):
Building Green
www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen
The NRDC Building Green website offers developers, facilities managers and other building professionals practical, tactical advice about
green building. The site includes downloadable tools, case studies,
fact sheets and LEED Certification information.
•Build Your Business Case:
www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/bizcase
This section will help you understand the business rewards of
sustainable construction, and give you the tools you need to make
the case for building green: to your CEO, your investors, or your
prospective tenants.
•Adopt a Whole-Building Approach:
www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/approach
In this section, you’ll find out how to adopt a “whole-building
approach” at the planning stage of your project. Taking steps to
enhance communication and cooperation among team members
will go a long way toward helping you meet your environmental
and certification goals on budget.
•Apply Sustainable Building Strategies:
www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/strategies
In this section, you’ll find brief descriptions of a wide range of
strategies, grouped according to the five areas of sustainability: site,
water, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor
environmental quality.
•Case Studies:
www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/casestudies
This resource includes case studies for several green building projects, and also provides links to other green building data sources.
New Buildings Institute, Inc. (NBI)
www.newbuildings.org
NBI is a non-profit corporation promoting building energy efficiency
through policy development, codes, guidelines and research such as:
•Getting to Fifty™ and Beyond:
www.newbuildings.org/advanced-design/getting-50-beyond
This website includes basic information and links to more than
100 low-energy buildings, and lighting application guidelines that
meet the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) requirements.
(The EPACT provides tax incentives for buildings whose energy
performance reaches or exceeds 50 percent above ASHRAE 90.12001.) This site includes the Building Database, which streamlines
research efforts by providing a central online location for information on buildings that have successfully met this performance test.
The Lighting Guidelines section offers detailed examples of how to
improve lighting efficiency in a variety of building types.
•Advanced Buildings™ (AB):
www.newbuildings.org/advanced-buildings
This suite of technical resources, trainings and information is aimed
at improving the way buildings are designed, built and used. Using
whole building patterns, design process tools and educational
resources, it provides designers with the resources to incorporate
integrated design strategies on their next project to reduce energy
usage and improve indoor environmental quality.
The New York City Department of Design and
Construction (DDC), Office of Sustainable Design (OSD)
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/sustainable_home.shtml
The DDC established this site to disseminate information on sustainable design and provide resources for its managers, consultants, and
client agencies. The resources include detailed descriptions and illustrations for a sampling of DDC sustainable projects, including LEED
projects, and links to relevant documents, publications and forms.
•Projects:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/sustainable.shtml
This database of DDC projects shares strategies for energy
conservation, commissioning, sustainable site/landscape practices,
construction waste management and careful materials selection.
Emphasis has been placed on urban environmental issues such as
energy capacity limitations, urban heat island issues, storm water
management, increasing difficulty of waste disposal, and city occupants who spend significant time indoors.
•Reports and Manuals:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/reports.shtml
This collection of guidelines and manuals explores subjects in depth,
providing both an overview and useful, practical information. Topics
include high performance building, high performance infrastructure, construction and demolition waste management, energy
efficiency, cool and green roofing, and urban site design.
•Training:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/training.shtml
This section includes PowerPoint presentations from DDC’s
training program, focusing on topics such as energy efficiency,
lighting, daylighting, commissioning, material selection,
construction waste management, and others related to New
York City buildings specifically.
•Local Law 86:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/86.shtml
In October of 2005, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local
Law 86, which will require many DDC projects to achieve a LEED
rating of Certified or Silver and use energy and water more efficiently. The resources on this page have been developed to assist
the agency and its consultants in achieving these goals.
•Specifications:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/specifications.shtml
This section includes recommended specification language on
topics such as environmentally preferable materials and construction and demolition waste management. They are easy to download and incorporate into a project specification.
•Forms and Examples:
www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/forms.shtml
This section offers downloadable materials useful for those pursuing
sustainable design strategies. The site focuses specifically on NYC’s
Local Laws 77 and 86, but includes many materials that would be
useful for waste management, energy analysis, thermal comfort,
and other sustainable strategies.
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA)
www.nyserda.org
NYSERDA uses innovation and technology to solve some of New
York’s most difficult energy and environmental problems in ways
that improve the State’s economy. It does so by providing a variety
of energy efficiency programs to commercial, industrial, business,
institutional and residential customers. NYSERDA has many research
and development programs and has produced consumer-oriented
campaigns to educate the public about energy efficiency and its
effect on the environment.
•Commercial and Industrial Programs:
www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Program-Areas/Energy-Efficiencyand-Renewable-Programs/Commercial-and-Industrial.aspx
NYSERDA’s Commercial/Industrial programs provide energy efficiency services for existing buildings, new construction, industrial
facilities, and vehicle fleets.
•Energy Analysis:
www.nyserda.ny.gov/Energy-Data-and-Prices-Planning-andPolicy/Energy-Analysis.aspx
The Energy Analysis Program provides information to help individuals, businesses, and institutions make informed energy decisions.
Energy Analysis staff provide the analysis and data for NYSERDA’s
Strategic Plan.
•FlexTech Program:
www.nyserda.ny.gov/flextech
NYSERDA’s FlexTech Program provides eligible facilities with objective and customized information on a cost-shared basis to help
customers make informed energy decisions.
FlexTech’s goal is to increase productivity and economic competitiveness of participating facilities by identifying and encouraging the
implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency, carbon reduction
measures, peak-load curtailment, and combined heat & power
(CHP) and renewable generation projects.
Eligible applicants include: NYS industrial, commercial, and
institutional facilities, state and local governments, not-for-profit
and private institutions, public and private K-12 schools, colleges
and universities, and health care facilities. Facilities must pay into
the System Benefits Charge as electricity distribution customers
of one of the following utilities: Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation, Consolidated Edison, New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation, National Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
•Research and Development Program:
www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Program-Areas/Energy-Innovationand-Business-Development/Research-and-Development.aspx
NYSERDA’s R&D Program supports the development and commercialization of innovative energy and environmental products,
technologies, and processes that improve the quality of life for New
York’s citizens and help New York businesses to compete and grow
in the global economy. NYSERDA R&D activities are organized into
seven primary program areas:
– Energy Resources
– Transportation and Power Systems
– Energy and Environmental Markets
– Industry
– Buildings
– Transmission and Distribution
– Environmental Research
•Current Funding Opportunities:
www.nyserda.ny.gov/funding
This site lists available funding and incentives available under
NYSERDA programs for energy efficiency projects in homes, multifamily residential buildings, commercial buildings, and many others.
Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)
www.nesea.org
NESEA is the Northeast’s leading organization of professionals and
concerned citizens working in sustainable energy and whole systems
thinking. NESEA facilitates the widespread adoption and use of
sustainable energy by providing support to industry professionals and
by educating and motivating consumers to learn about, ask for, and
adopt sustainable energy and green building practices. NESEA accomplishes this through its BuildingEnergy Conference, an advocacy
network, high-profile public events such as the Green Building Open
House, and its Professional Member Directory – The Green Pages.
Rainforest Alliance
www.rainforest-alliance.org
SmartWood, a program of the Rainforest Alliance, was the world’s
first independent forestry certifier. Today, the Rainforest Alliance is the
world’s leading non-profit forestry certifier completing independent
auditing, certification and the promotion of certified forest products
in all forest types and forest operations. The Rainforest Alliance is
accredited by the FSC. Their web site features tools to find certified
products including food, beverages, groceries, building materials,
energy, home and office, and kitchenware.
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
www.rila.org
The Retail Industry Leaders Association includes nine of the top 10 U.S.
retailers as members. As the retail industry’s advocate in Washington,
RILA is a trusted source dedicated to telling the retail industry’s story.
On the retail operations side, RILA provides a forum where members
can conduct discussions aimed at understanding common operational
practices, areas of concern, and pragmatic solutions to problems. RILA
focuses on five core areas: Supply Chain; Asset Protection; Finance;
Human Resources; and Enterprise Issues (including Sustainability).
•Retail Sustainability Initiative (RSI):
www.rila.org/sustainability
RILA has made a commitment to driving leadership in environmental sustainability. The central force is the Retail Sustainability
Initiative (RSI), which is dedicated to sustainability in business. RILA
has also created a first-of-its-kind annual event for the retail industry
devoted to environmental education and best practices, the Retail
Sustainability Conference. The website contains a number of
resources including news, webinars and reports.
•RILA 2012 Retail Sustainability Report:
www.rila.org/sustainability/sustreport
This report highlights sustainability trends in the retail industry, shedding light on retail’s evolving business practices and the challenges
the industry still faces. The broader objective is to provide the retail
industry and those it serves with a way to act on and engage in
sustainability, through framing the critical issues, anticipating future
trends, recognizing challenges, and sharing examples of how retailers are responding.
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) - Built Environment
Team (BET)
www.bet.rmi.org
The BET works to transform the built environment into a sustainable
and regenerative global ecology. They serve as both consultants and
a conceptual think-tank to enhance collaboration between all aspects
of the built environment and facilitate implementation of sustainable
high performance solutions. Their site includes helpful resources and
case studies on green building projects.
Smart Communities Network
www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/buildings/gbprogrm.shtml
The Smart Communities Network offers a listing of various green
building programs around the nation. Among the listings are
programs sponsored by state and local governments, home building
industry association, and other non-profit groups.
The Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP)
www.energytaxincentives.org
The TIAP, sponsored by a coalition of public interest non-profit
groups, government agencies, and other organizations in the
energy efficiency field, is designed to give consumers and businesses information they need to make use of the federal income
tax incentives for energy efficient products and technologies
passed by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The site includes informational updates for tax incentives that
have expired, incentives that are extended or that remain
ongoing. IRS rulings on deductions and links to IRS forms are
also easily accessible.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
www.energy.gov
www.eere.energy.gov
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy works to
strengthen America’s energy security, environmental quality, and
economic vitality through public-private partnerships that enhance
energy efficiency and productivity; bring clean, reliable and affordable
energy technologies to the marketplace; and make a difference in the
everyday lives of Americans.
•Energy Savers:
www.energysavers.gov
Useful energy saving tips on appliances and electronics, designing
and remodeling, electricity, heating and cooling, insulation and air
sealing, landscaping, lighting and daylighting, water heating, and
windows, doors and skylights.
•Better Buildings Initiative:
www.betterbuildings.energy.gov
The buildings in which we work and live used roughly 40% of the
energy in the U.S. economy at a cost of over $400 billion. Through
a variety of efficiency improvements (e.g. new lighting, greater insulation, more efficient heating and cooling) and proven approaches
(clear information, access to financing, energy efficiency investment
criteria), we can make these buildings more energy efficient and
better places to live and work while creating jobs and building a
stronger economy. The goal of the Better Buildings Initiative is to
make commercial, industrial and residential buildings 20% more
energy efficient by 2020 and accelerate private sector investment in
energy efficiency.
Better Buildings Challenge: www4.eere.energy.gov/challenge
Better Buildings Neighborhood Program: www1.eere.
energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods
•Building America:
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america
Building America is an industry-driven research program working
with national laboratories and building science research teams to
accelerate the development and adoption of advanced building
energy technologies and practices in new and existing homes.
Learn about near- and long-term research goals, research teams
and national laboratories, and access useful publications and analysis tools to improve energy performance of homes.
•Commercial Buildings Energy Alliances:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/cbea.html
Through the Commercial Building Energy Alliances (CBEAs), DOE
is working to transform the way commercial buildings use energy.
DOE invites building owners, managers, and operators to collaborate with DOE and each other to identify and implement best
practices, key decision-making tools, and advanced technologies for
significant energy savings in their portfolios.
•Commercial Buildings Resource Database:
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/resource_
database
Owners and operators can use this centralized collection of materials
produced from DOE’s commercial buildings research to design, build,
and upgrade their facilities. The database offers guides, case studies,
software tools, technical reports, webinars, fact sheets, meeting
summaries, and more. Users can search by topic, delivery phase,
building type, information type, audience, and producing institution.
•Building Energy Data Book:
buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov
The Data Book includes statistics on residential and commercial
building energy consumption. Data tables contain statistics related
to construction, building technologies, energy consumption, and
building characteristics. This resource provides a current and accurate set of comprehensive buildings- and energy-related data. The
Data Book is an evolving document and is updated periodically.
•EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software:
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus
EnergyPlus is DOE’s building energy simulation program for modeling building heating, cooling, lighting, ventilating, and other energy
flows. It goes far beyond the previous generation of simulation
tools. A number of state-of-the-art interfaces are available including
OpenStudio, an open-source, cross-platform middleware, and
Concept 3D’s Simuwatt, a mobile application.
•179D DOE Calculator:
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/179d
The 179D DOE Calculator is a DOE-approved tool that provides
calculations to determine eligibility for the 179D federal tax deduction as a substitute for other modeling software. The 179D DOE
Calculator provides pre-simulated results to determine qualification
for both the partial and interim compliance pathways.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
www.epa.gov
The U.S. EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. In addition to performing environmental research, the EPA
offers financial assistance and works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The
EPA is the umbrella organization for numerous programs including
ENERGY STAR® and Smart Growth.
•EPA’s Green Building Site:
www.epa.gov/greenbuilding
The U.S. EPA Green Building site includes information on green
building issues, as well as resources, funding opportunities, and
links to the EPA’s partner programs.
•ENERGY STAR:
www.energystar.gov
ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping
homes and businesses save money and protect the environment
through energy efficient products and practices.
•Portfolio Manager:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.
bus_portfoliomanager
Portfolio Manager is an interactive energy management tool that
allows you to track and assess energy and water consumption
across your entire portfolio of buildings in a secure online environment. Whether you own, manage, or hold properties for investment, Portfolio Manager can help you set investment priorities,
identify under-performing buildings, verify efficiency improvements,
and receive EPA recognition for superior energy performance.
•Guidelines for Energy Management:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines.guidelines_index
The EPA offers a proven strategy for superior energy management
with tools and resources to help each step of the way. Based on the
successful practices of ENERGY STAR partners, these guidelines for
energy management can assist your organization in improving its
energy and financial performance while distinguishing your organization as an environmental leader.
•Commercial Building Design:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.
new_bldg_design
This site provides information about commercial buildings to help
architects and building owners make informed decisions about
energy efficiency during the design process.
•Tools and Resources Library:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tools_resources.bus_energy_
management_tools_resources
ENERGY STAR provides a broad range of tools in the following
categories: Energy Management Guidance; Assess Building & Plant
Energy Efficiency; Assess Commercial; Building Designs; Improve
Building Performance; Financial Evaluation; Awards & Recognition;
and ENERGY STAR Progress Reports.
•Expert Help:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=expert_help.find_exp_help
This site provides directories to help find ENERGY STAR service and
product providers, professionals such as architects and engineers,
energy efficiency programs, and financial resources.
•Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program (EPP):
www.epa.gov/oppt/epp
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) helps the federal
government “buy green,” and in doing so, uses the federal government’s enormous buying power to stimulate market demand for
green products and services. This site contains many resources
including a guide to finding and evaluating green products and
services that can help green vendors, businesses large and small
and consumers.
•Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers:
www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php
This Guide is developed by the EPA and its partners, the Office of
the Federal Environmental Executive and the multiagency-sponsored Whole Building Design Guide, to help agencies meet various
mandates as established by statutes and Executive Orders, as well as
EPA and DOE program recommendations. It includes resources on
design and building products helpful to all building owners.
•Sustainability Program:
www.epa.gov/sustainability
EPA efforts in the area of sustainability practices and approaches
include labeling green products and promoting green chemistry and
engineering, managing materials rather than creating waste, using
green infrastructure to manage storm water runoff, and supporting
the sustainable design of urban communities.
•Smart Growth Program:
www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
EPA has joined the Partnership for Sustainable Communities with
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the U. S. Department of Transportation to help improve access to
affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities
nationwide. This site includes reports on the benefits of development strategies and sources for grants and funding.
•Urban Water Pollution Prevention Program:
water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
This site provides information on how to reduce the run-off of
pollutants from urban environments into our waters, including
low-impact development strategies.
•Brownfields Program:
epa.gov/brownfields
This program helps public, private and non-profit partners to
sustainably reuse sites whose redevelopment may be complicated
by the real or perceived presence of contaminants. The site includes
information about US EPA’s Brownfields Program including the
Brownfields Law, Brownfields Grants, Land Revitalization
Information, and more.
•Heat Island Reduction Initiative:
www.epa.gov/heatisland
This program provides guidance and resources to communities and
other partners to help reduce the heat island effect caused by urban
patterns of development. The site includes strategies for urban heat
island mitigation.
•Wastes - Resource Conservation, Construction and
Demolition (C&D) Materials:
www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/imr/cdm/index.htm
Reducing and recycling C&D materials conserves landfill space,
reduces the environmental impact of producing new materials,
creates jobs, and can reduce overall building project expenses
through avoided purchase/disposal costs. This section provides
information on EPA’s efforts and other opportunities to reduce
C&D materials
•GreenScapes Program:
www.epa.gov/greenscapes
This program provides cost-efficient and environmentally friendly
solutions for large-scale landscaping that are designed to help
preserve natural resources and prevent waste and pollution.
•WaterSense Program:
www.epa.gov/watersense
WaterSense, a partnership program by the EPA, seeks to protect
the future of our nation’s water supply by offering people a simple
way to use less water with water-efficient products. Products and
services that have earned the WaterSense label have been certified
to be at least 20% more efficient without sacrificing performance.
The site includes a database of approved fixtures searchable by
category, brand, model name, and/or model number.
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Strategically Sustainable
www.gsa.gov/portal/category/26433
The GSA leads federal agencies in the economical and efficient
management of federal assets by spearheading effective policy
development and by the exemplary management of the buildings
and other resources of the federal government. The GSA has shown
strong leadership in sustainable building design and operations. Their
website provides many valuable green building resources, including:
•Sustainable Facilities Tool:
www.sftool.org
This interface, created by the GSA, helps building owners to plan
for and implement sustainable design principles at all stages of a
building project. The site includes tools to help identify and prioritize
cost-effective green building strategies, learn how to select sustainable materials, incorporate daylighting strategies, educate your
occupants, save on water, conserve energy and reference relevant
regulations, and compare materials and systems, access design
guidance, ask questions and even share your knowledge to help
others “green” their projects as well.
•Sustainability Matters:
www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Sustainability_Matters_508.pdf
The GSA presents this resource as an aid to improve practices and
to encourage continuing innovations in sustainable building. The
content is illustrated by case studies of GSA facilities that emphasize
the knowledge and strategies presented.
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
www.usgbc.org
The USGBC is the nation’s foremost coalition of leaders from across
the building industry who have developed the LEED® (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System.
The USGBC website has links to the LEED website, green building
resources, industry news, events and membership information.
•Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System™:
www.usgbc.org/LEED
The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensusbased national standard for developing high performance, sustainable buildings and communities. The LEED website is extensive and
includes links to information about the various rating systems, LEED
training workshops, LEED publications, a certified building project
directory, and other resources:
– LEED Rating Systems:
new.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems
These include: New Construction (NC); Existing Buildings:
Operations & Maintenance (EB: O&M); Commercial Interiors (CI);
Core & Shell (CS); Schools (SCH); Retail; Healthcare (HC); Homes;
and Neighborhood Development (ND).
– Certification Process:
new.usgbc.org/leed/certification
This section includes resources useful to those working to attain
LEED certification for their project. The site features a LEED Project
Directory, Regional Priority Credit Viewer, Credit Templates and
Forms, Addenda and Errata for LEED Reference Guides, LEED
Interpretations, and LEED Online, the primary resource for managing the LEED documentation process.
•Green Building Certification Institute:
www.gbci.org
The Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) is a third-party
organization that provides independent oversight of professional
credentialing and project certification programs related to the U.S.
Green Building Council’s LEED® Green Building Rating Systems™.
Whole Building Design Guide
www.wbdg.org
The Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) is a web-based portal
providing government and industry practitioners with access to up-todate information on a wide range of building-related guidance, criteria and technology from a “whole buildings” perspective. The WBDG
is organized into three major categories: Design Guidance, Project
Management and Operations & Maintenance.
•Design Guidance: Architects, engineers, and project managers
can improve the performance and quality of their buildings by
following the guidance and recommendations provided within
the following categories:
– Design Objectives: The following design objectives are described
in this section: accessibility, aesthetics, cost efficacy, functionality,
historic preservation, productivity, security, and sustainability.
– Building Types: For each general Building Type there is a discussion of the attributes and requirements of the type as well as links
to information on more specific uses. Each of the specific building
types is then linked to a series of Resource Pages explaining standards, technologies and emerging issues relevant to that specific
use topic.
– Space Types: For each Space Types page there is a discussion of
the general attributes and requirements of the space as well as
example configurations and layouts. Space Types pages are also
linked to related Building Types pages and Resource Pages that
explain strategies, technologies and emerging issues relevant to
that specific Space Type.
– Design Principles: This Branch of the WBDG has been developed to assist participants in planning, design, and construction
programs understand how building design disciplines are organized and practice. This Branch also offers insight into creating
opportunities for successful project delivery through a coordinated, integrated design, construction, and management process.
Each Design Discipline page provides information and guidance
from a ‘whole building’ perspective.
– Products & Systems: A concise listing of products and
systems is offered and in the near future, the website will
provide access to information on specific products and
systems based on CSI MasterFormat™ Division or ASTM
UNIFORMAT II Major Group Element.
•Project Management: The Project Management section offers
guidance for the entire team to successfully and effectively carry out
a high performance building project.
– Strategic Project Planning and Development: How to plan,
manage and deliver a project from the beginning of the planning
state through occupancy.
– Project Delivery Teams: How to assemble and effectively
manage the project team.
– Building Commissioning: Provides an overview of commissioning
drivers, benefits, goals, and principles for improving building quality.
– Project Delivery and Controls: Procedures and practices used to
manage project scope, budget, and schedule.
•Operations & Maintenance: The Facilities O&M section offers
guidance in the following areas:
– Real Property Inventory (RPI): Provides an overview on the
type of system needed to maintain an inventory of an organization’s assets and manage those assets.
– Computerized Maintenance Management Systems
(CMMS): Contains descriptions of procedures and practices
used to track the maintenance of an organization’s assets
and associated costs.
– Computer Aided Facilities Management: is an approach
in Facilities Management that includes creation and utilization
of Information Technology (IT)-based systems in FM practice.
LISTINGS
Arup
Fiona Cousins
Principal
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
T: 212-896-3000
F: 212-299-1057
fiona.cousins@arup.com
www.arup.com
(35)
e4, inc.
Pamela Lippe, LEED AP
President and CEO
201 East 42nd Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10017
T: 212-922-1965
F: 212-922-1936
info@e4inc.com
www.e4inc.com
(20)
Tishman Speyer
Jonathan Flaherty
Director of Sustainability
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
T: 212-715-0300
F: 212-319-1745
info@tishmanspeyer.com
www.tishmanspeyer.com
Avenue C Productions
Jeff Williamson
Vice President, Creative Director
285 Avenue C, Ste. MH
New York, NY 10009
T: 212-252-9288
F: 646-365-3286
jwill@avenue-c.com
www.avenue-c.com
(51)
Earth Day New York
Pamela Lippe
President and Executive Director
New York, NY 10017
T: 212-922-0048
F: 212-922-1936
info@earthdayny.org
www.earthdayny.org
(23)
Stuyvesant Press, Inc.
Michael Roesch, President/CEO
199 Coit Street
Irvington, NJ 07111
T: 973-399-3880
F: 973-399-9696
mroesch@stuyvesantpress.com
www.stuyvesantpress.com
Nicholas Haines
Co-President
120 Fifth Avenue, 11th floor
New York, NY 10011
T: 212-807-7744
F: 212-675-3394
nhaines@bromco.com
www.bromleycompanies.com
(4)
Jody Durst
President
Douglas Durst
Chairman
One Bryant Park
New York, NY 10036
T: 212-257-6600
jbarowitz@durst.org
www.durst.org
(1)
(29)
Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
Jon Ratner
Vice President of Sustainability Initiatives
50 Public Square, Suite 1060
Cleveland, OH 44113
T: 216-416-3238
jonratner@forestcity.net
www.forestcity.net
FXFOWLE
Karen Bookatz
Public Relations Manager
22 West 19th Street
New York, NY 10011
D: 646-292-8111
T: 212-627-1700
kbookatz@fxfowle.com
www.fxfowle.com
National Multi Housing Council
Jim Lapides
Director of Public Relations
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20036
T: 202-974-2300
F: 202-775-0112
elee@nmhc.org
www.nmhc.org
(39)
(6)
Sungevity
Earth Day New York
New York, NY 10017
T: 212-922-0048
F: 212-922-1936
info@earthdayny.org
www.earthdayny.org
(2)
(25)
(42)
Maria Tikoff Vargas
Director, Better Buildings Challenge
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585
T: 202-586-7899
F: 202-586-8177
maria.vargas@ee.doe.gov
www4.eere.energy.gov/challenge/
2101 L Street NW, Suite 500
Washington DC, 20037
T: 202-828-7422
www.usgbc.org/contactus
www.usgbc.org
(12)
New York State Energy Research (BC)
and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) Tom Barone
Program Director
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203
T: 866-NYSERDA
info@nyserda.ny.gov
www.nyserda.ny.gov
L I ST I N G S / I N D E X
Index
Organizations in black
can be found in the
Listings and those in
green can be found
in the Tools of the Trade
section.
Advocacy
Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation
Institute
Earth Day New York
(23)
Healthy Building Network
New Buildings Initiative, Inc.
Rainforest Alliance
Smart Communities Network
Sungevity
(42)
U.S. Green Building Council (12)
Architects
FXFOWLE
Asset Manager
The Durst Organization, Inc. (39)
(1)
Building Research
Architectural Record
Build Carbon Neutral
BuildingGreen
Association
Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation
Institute
Environmental Design + Construction
Magazine
Forest Products Association of Canada
Forest Stewardship Council
Green Home Guide
Green Seal
GREENGUARD Environmental Institute
GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals
Health Product Declaration Forum
Home Depot
National Association of Home Builders
Research Center
(BC)
NYSERDA Rainforest Alliance
Rocky Mountain Institute Built Environment Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building Systems
Consultants
Arup
NYSERDA
(35)
(BC)
Consulting
e4, inc.
(20)
Development Management
Tishman Speyer
(2)
Energy Efficiency
American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers
Building Owners and Managers Association
Con Edison
Database of State Incentives for Renewables
and Efficiency
GreenBiz
Kresge Foundation Green Building Initiative
New York City Department of Design and
Construction - Office of Sustainable Design
NYSERDA
(BC)
Tax Incentives Assistance Project
U.S. General Services Administration
Energy Systems
NYSERDA
Sungevity
(BC)
(42)
Engineers
Arup
(35)
L I ST I N G S / I N D E X
Green Design
7group
Architectural Record
Arup (35)
Environmental Design +
Construction Magazine
Green Globes
GreenSource
National Association of Home Builders
Research Center
NYSERDA
(BC)
Rocky Mountain Institute Built Environment Team
Whole Building Design Guide
Green Leases
Green Lease Library
Green Tenant Toolkit
Incentives & Rebates
Con Edison
Database of State Incentives for
Renewables and Efficiency
(BC)
NYSERDA Tax Incentives Assistance Project
Interior Design
FXFOWLE
LEED Consulting
e4, inc. BuildingGreen
(39)
(20)
Multifamily Reseach
National Multi Housing Council (6)
Non-Profit
Earth Day New York
(23)
(12)
Planning
FXFOWLE
(39)
Technical Assistance
Con Edison
NYSERDA
(BC)
Professional Training
National Association of Home
Builders Research Center
Trade Association
International Council of Shopping Centers
National Multi Housing Council(6)
Property Management
(4)
(29)
(2)
Tishman Speyer
Real Estate Development
(4)
(29)
Tishman Speyer
(2)
Waste Management &
Recycling
Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
GreenBiz
Renewable Energy
BuildingGreen
Database of State Incentives for
Renewables and Efficiency
GreenBiz
Kresge Foundation Green Building
Initiative
NYSERDA
(BC)
Northeast Sustainable Energy Association
Sungevity
(42)
Site Developer
Tishman Speyer
(4)
(1)
(2)
Site Manager
(4)
Sustainability Consulting
(20)
e4, inc. Rocky Mountain Institute Built Environment Team
Coo p e r at i n g O rg an i z at i ons
American Institute of Architects, New York Chapter is a professional society with nearly 5,000
practicing architects, allied professionals, students, and public members in Manhattan dedicated to
design excellence, public outreach and professional development. AIANY is the founding Chapter of
the American Institute of Architects, which dates back to 1857. The New York Chapter endeavors to
speak to the broader AIA’s interest in the intersection of design quality, environmental consciousness
and public benefit in the built environment. For more information, please visit www.aiany.org
BuildingGreen, Inc. Combining information with insight to inform design and create community.
Since 1992 building professionals have gathered around BuildingGreen’s rich array of media
and information resources, including the award-winning Environmental Building News,
BuildingGreen Suite of online tools, GreenSpec directory of products, and LEEDuser web tool, so
they can work smarter. Not harder. For more information, please visit www.buildinggreen.com.
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International is an international federation of more than 100 local associations and affiliated organizations. The 16,500-plus members of
BOMA International own or manage more than nine billion square feet of commercial properties.
BOMA’s mission is to enhance the human, intellectual and physical assets of the commercial real
estate industry through advocacy, education, research, standards and information. Energy efficiency
and sustainable building operations are at the core of BOMA’s mission and are integrated throughout
BOMA’s initiatives in education, benchmarking, advocacy and best practices. For more information,
please visit www.boma.org.
Building Owners and Managers Association,New York (BOMA/NY) was founded in 1967.
BOMA/NY membership represents over 400 million square feet of commercial properties, three
million office occupants and $1.5 billion in annual tax revenue. BOMA/NY’s mission is to promote
programs and services, while serving as a resource for the advancement of the real estate industry.
For more information, please visit www.bomany.org.
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) Founded in 1957, ICSC is the premier global
trade association of the shopping center industry. Its more than 55,000 members in over 90 countries
include shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing specialists, investors, retailers and
brokers, as well as academics and public officials. As the global industry trade association, ICSC links
with more than 25 national and regional shopping center councils throughout the world. For more
information, visit www.icsc.org.
National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) is a national association representing the interestsof the
larger and most prominent apartment firms in the U.S. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental housing,
conducts apartment-related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and
promotes the desirability of apartment living. For more information, please visit www.nmhc.org.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental
organization with more than 1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers,
scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources,
public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us
on Twitter@NRDC.
Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) consists of approximately 12,000 owners, builders, brokers,
managers, and other individuals and institutions professionally involved in New York real estate. The
Board also speaks for the industry before government bodies and in the arena of public opinion to
expand New York’s economy, encourage the development and renovation of real property, enhance
the city’s appeal to investors, and facilitate building management. REBNY conducts a variety of education courses and seminars for its members and undertakes a wide variety of research projects. For
more information, please visit www.rebny.com.
Coo p e r at i n g O rg an i z at i ons
The Real Estate Roundtable brings together leaders of the nation’s top public and privately held
real estate ownership, development, lending and management firms with the leaders of major national
real estate trade associations to jointly address key national policy issues relating to real estate and
the overall economy. Collectively, Roundtable members’ portfolios contain over 5 billion square feet
of office, retail and industrial properties valued at more than $1 trillion; over 1.5 million apartment
units; and in excess of 1.3 million hotel rooms. For more information, visit www.rer.org.
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) represents leading retailers, including nine of the top ten
U.S. retailers. RILA has made a commitment to leadership in environmental sustainability and produces
an annual retail sustainability report. The central force is the Retail Sustainability Initiative (RSI), which is
dedicated to sustainability in business. RILA has also created a first-of-its-kind annual event for the retail
industry devoted to environmental education and best practices, the Retail Sustainability Conference.
For more information, visit www.rila.org.
Urban Green Council is the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Urban Green’s
mission is to advance sustainability in urban buildings through education, advocacy, and research.
Established in 2002, Urban Green is supported by contributions from members and sponsors, as well as
foundation and government grants. In-house experts in environmental law, architecture, and engineering
work with a dedicated network of volunteers to realize a common vision: cities that function in harmony
with the natural environment and contribute to the health and well-being of all. For more information,
please visit www.urbangreencouncil.org.
Urban Land Institute (ULI) The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in
the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI is
committed to bringing together leaders from across the fields of real estate and land use policy to
exchange best practices and serve community needs:
• Fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI’s membership through mentoring, dialogue,
and problem solving;
• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation, regeneration, land use, capital formation,
and sustainable development;
• Advancing land use policies and design practices that respect the uniqueness of both built
and natural environments;
• Sharing knowledge through education, applied research, publishing, and electronic media; and
• Sustaining a diverse global network of local practice and advisory efforts that address current
and future challenges.
Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 30,000 members worldwide, representing the
entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. ULI relies heavily on the experience of its
members. It is through member involvement and information resources that ULI has been able to set
standards of excellence in development practice. The Institute has long been recognized as one of the
world’s most respected and widely quoted sources of objective information on urban planning, growth,
and development. For more information, please find us at www.uli.org.
Urban Land Institute – New York serves as the principal forum of real estate professionals in the New York
metropolitan area, reflecting the Urban Land Institute’s best practices in leadership development, community
service, and enrichment of land use policy and practice, to provide to our members outstanding educational
and informational forums and unique professional networking opportunities. A strategic initiative of the
New York District Council is the “Sustainable Building Council” which is focused on the ‘greening’ of existing
building portfolios in New York. For more information, please visit www.newyork.uli.org.
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is committed to a prosperous and sustainable future for
our nation through cost-efficient and energy-saving green buildings. USGBC’s community is comprised
of 78 local affiliates, nearly 13,000 member organizations, and 180,000+ LEED Professional Credential
holders. For more information, visit www.usgbc.org.
Add more energy savings and reliability
to your processing power.
Your data center consumes an intense amount of energy per square foot to power and cool information
technology equipment compared to traditional office space. The good news: data centers also represent a
significant cost savings opportunity. NYSERDA can help you identify and implement efficiency improvements
anywhere from your servers and storage equipment to power and cooling systems. NYSERDA financial
incentives help you minimize project costs while you maximize savings, uptime and future
business performance.
To request a free Solutions Kit, visit nyserdasolutions.org/lessonslearned2012
or call 866-NYSERDA.
EES-CI-lessonsevent-ad-1-v1

Lessons Learned publication for 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

20.1.2015 Dr. Duygu Erten, PE LEED Faculty Member of

Catch Of The Month Graceland Portable Buildings

jaarboek 2007-2008 - Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Heritage Category: Listing List Entry No : 1227165 Grade: II County

2014 October - morningsidecondos.com

Belstone - Dartmoor National Park

GREEN MOVEMENT IN TURKEY

EPA Energy Star

technologie a materiály zedník 3 jazykové verze

llroclamatfon