High Performance Green Buildings: An Overview

1
High Performance Green Buildings An Overview
Belmont Vision 21 Implementation Committee and
Sustainable Belmont June 14, 2006 Presented by
Donald Fudge, Director of Training and
Education High Performance Schools Exchange
of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
2
The High Performance Schools Exchange

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

3
The Mission of the Exchange Market
Transformation

• By 2010, the majority of new and
• renovated K-12 schools in the
• Northeast will be built using High
• Performance School principles of
• design and construction

4
My Unique Position

• Under Contract to Massachusetts Technology
  Collaborative to provide educational outreach to
  Massachusetts communities
• General education
• School building committee support

5
A High Performance Building

• Is designed, constructed and operated to
• use a minimum of 25 less energy than building
  energy code requires
• provide superior indoor environmental quality

6
A High Performance Green (or Sustainable)
Building

• Is designed to include high performance
  characteristics plus address broader resource
  issues
• Greenspace, Transportation, stormwater management
• Water use reduction
• Materials and recycling issues
• To reduce the buildings impact on the
  environment

7
High Performance Design Strategies

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

8
An Inclusive Design Process

• Multidisciplinary Teamwork
• Communication
• Team Meetings
• Website
• Community Participation
• Partnerships
• Funding sources utilities, foundations,
  manufacturers
• Users
• Community organizations

9
Performance Standards Rating Systems and Design
Guides

• US GBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental
  Design (LEED-NC and EB) the first green
  building Design Rating System
• Advanced Buildings Benchmark
• Based on Performance, not just design
• Highly prescriptive
• Energy and IAQ only
• DOE EnergyStar Buildings Rank buildings based on
  energy usea score of 75 or above qualifies the
  building

10
Performance Standards school buildings in
Massachusetts

• Regulations from Massachusetts School Building
  Authority (hearings began Monday)
• Massachusetts High Performance Green Schools
  Guidelines (MA-CHPS)
• Developed by Massachusetts Technology
  Collaborative Green Schools Initiative and
  Massachusetts Department of Education
• Included a task force of stakeholders
• Meeting the MA-CHPS Criteria can bring a 2
  addition to school funding formula

Caveat regulations currently under review
11
MA-CHPS and LEED-NC

• Based on best practices covering
• Site Design
• Water Efficiency
• Energy Atmosphere
• Materials and Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality
• District Resolutions/Innovation in Design

12
A More Sustainable Site

• Site selection and reduced site disturbance
  (renovation)
• Urban or Brownfield Redevelopment (not schools)
• Orientation Stormwater management
• Plant selection for low water and pesticide needs

• Retention of landscaping and natural features
• Transportation
• Heat Island/ Light pollution reduction

13
Water Efficiency reduce usage by 30

• Advanced water conserving fixtures
• using recycled water
• Re-circulating systems for centralized hot water
  distribution
• Rainwater recovery system

14
Energy and Atmosphere reduce energy use by
20-50

• Energy performance
• Building envelope
• High efficiency lighting
• Occupancy and dimming sensors
• Use of Task lighting
• High efficiency right-sized HVAC systems
• Renewable technologies
• Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

15
Designed Energy Use Reduction at Pilot Schools

• Ashland HS 30
• Berkshire Hills 33.7
• Centerville Elem 17.8
• Blackstone Valley 41.1
• N. Quincy Elem 44.5
• Dedham MS 30.3
• Turners Falls 31.2

• Newton South 35.4
• Carlton Elem 20.6
• Michael Capuano 38.8
• Stanley Elem 26.8
• Whitman Hanson 38.6
• Williamstown 35.8
• Woburn 25.1

16
Materials Resources reduce cost and energy to
produce

• Recyclables collection and Storage
• construction waste management
• Locally produced materials
• Recycled content - materials
• Rapidly renewable materials

17
Indoor Environmental Quality improved health
and productivity

• Daylighting and Views
• Ventilation effectiveness
• Thermal comfort
• Low-Emitting materials
• Controllable systems
• Indoor air quality monitors
• CO2 monitors

18
When Daylighting is a Priority Building
Orientation is critical

• Classrooms should face North/ South for maximum
  Daylighting possibilities
• Multiple stories may require toplighting
• Effects HVAC as well

N
19
Daylighting requires careful design
20
Skylights/Toplights
Spread light throughout the space
21
Effective, Energy Efficient lighting is Indirect,
Diffuse Lighting
Bounces light off the ceiling reducing glare and
shadows
High illumination, low wattage
22
Integrated Design Design Team Solutions
B

• The decision making process
• Each design professional takes one action that
  requires other actions to resolve conflicts,
  issues or problems
• The Design Team takes one action to resolve
  multiple issues, generating an integrated
  solution

A
C
A
C
B
23
Example Integrated Design
If Daylighting a priority
Daylighting solutions must integrate structural,
mechanical, energy, occupancy design criteria
24
Integrated, whole building approach
Install High Efficiency Lighting

• Much greater cost savings are realized when high
  performance design elements are considered from
  the beginning

25
Does a high performance green building cost
more? Maybe

• First Cost of building green varies just as costs
  of non-green buildings vary
• Major Differences in cost between buildings
  related to
• Program
• Site costs
• Location
• Not sustainable objectives

26
Looking at Cost Using the life cycle cost method

• Incorporate All Measurable Costs Over the funding
  cycle
• Initial Capital Expenditures (Design
  Construction)
• Projected Utility Costs
• Maintenance Costs
• Measurable Health Productivity Costs
• Cost of money

27
Incremental Costs

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

28
Life Cycle Cost Benefit can be eight times the
first cost!

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

29
Incremental cost-benefit model
30
Energy modeling

• Determines a base case
• Compares base with efficient case
• Individual measures vs. combined effects
• Tools Spreadsheets

• Manufacturers software used to size equipment
• Trane Trace
• CarrierwareInteractive software
• DOE-2, PowerDOE

31
Energy Efficiency Measures Chart

32
Commissioning

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

33
Commissioning savings
34
Incremental Design Fees from HMFH/VEIC Study

• Typically 130,000 due to MTC Green School
  program subsidy
• Non-MTC projects paid less - 76,000 50,000
• Teams actually spent an average of 170,000 up
  to 300,000

35
Characteristics of a high performance green
school/building

• An Enhanced Learning and working Environment
• Reduced Operating Expenses
• Reduced Impact on the Environment
• A Community Asset

36
Case Study Newton South High School

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

37
Look what they achieved!

• Over 30 energy reduction
• Annual cost savings of over 200,000
• Reduced energy consumption
• Reduced operation and maintenance
• Reduced water use

38
City Hall Annex, Cambridge, MA A LEED Certified
Building

• A More Sustainable Site 6 points
• renovated historic building
• water-efficient landscaping
• bicycle room with shower
• reflective roof

39
Reduced Energy Consumption by almost 50

• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies 15
  points
• Insulated walls
• Maximized Daylighting
• Energy efficient windows,
• lighting systems and sensors
• ground-source heat pump instead of furnace or
  boiler
• Energy Star reflective roof
• Displacement Ventilation and heat recovery system
• Solar panels for 10 of
• buildings energy needs

40
Took building from a sick building to a provide
high Indoor Air Quality

• Indoor Environmental Quality7 Points
• construction management plan
• Low-emitting materials
• Controllable systems
• Thermal comfort compliance

41
Reused an Historic Building - 1871

• Materials, Waste and Resource Management 7
  points
• Building reuse
• Construction waste management
• Recycled content
• Local/regional materials
• Certified wood

42
Saved money during Construction

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

43
In conclusion High performance green buildings
impact community infrastructure

• Public health
• Education
• Environmental quality
• Property values
• City revenues (and tax base)
• Job creation
• Economic growth

From a class at Tufts Graduate School, Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning Ela Chapin,
Minona Heaviland, Ellen Minzner, Stephanie Young
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51


52



53



54


55
A Smart Choice for Belmont

• Fiscally Responsible
• Minimizes lifetime cost and resource consumption
• Financially Risk Averse
• Reduces the exposure and vulnerability toward
  ever increasing costs of resources
• Enhanced Educational/working Environment
• Natural light and air quality
• Increased Health, Comfort, and Productivity
• Longer Lasting Building

56
High Performance Schools Exchange

• Contacts
• Don Fudge, Training and Education
• Phone [phone] ext 20
• Email dfudge_at_neep.org
• Carolyn Sarno, Exchange Program Manager
• Phone [phone] ext 19
• Email csarno_at_neep.org

57
Resources

• Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership
• www.neep.org
• Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
• www.masstech.org
• US Green Building Council
• www.usgbc.org
• US Department of Energy
• www.energy.gov
• The Collaborative for High Performance Schools,
  California
• www.chps.net