Building Capacity

Water Conservation: Hidden Benefit of Energy Efficiency

Some time ago, we in the green building world realized that while energy efficiency is a critically important aspect of sustainability, water conservation merits equal attention. Without energy, we might get cold and be inconvenienced. Without water, we die in a matter of hours or days.

In the US, water has been seen as universal, ubiquitous – an infinitely available, low cost commodity. Yet the politics of water supply define the development of the western US. You need only look at the sad reality of the Colorado River, the energy intensity of the California Aqueduct system or the ecosystem politics of the Columbia River Basin to see that the storage and distribution of water is far from low cost or infinitely available. Read or watch “The Cadillac Desert” for a quick, if slightly dated, education.

The consumer’s perception that water is inexpensive, however, has led to a lack of interest in water conservation, particularly when compared to the current focus on energy conservation. News Flash! – while we’ve been staring at our insulation levels and measuring our building air changes, things have changed in the world of water – market forces are at work.

I’d like to use the work we’re doing with Quadrant Homes as an illustrative example. In 2008, we started working with Quadrant Homes and the Northwest Energy Star program to develop an energy upgrade path for Quadrant’s homebuyers to meet the Federal Energy Efficiency Tax Credit. This meant a 50% reduction in space conditioning energy below the IECC 2005 model code; perhaps a 25% improvement over our Washington Energy Code (WSEC)of 2006. Over time, they have continued to evolve their designs, equipment efficiencies, and construction quality to keep their energy performance substantially ahead of our local codes, which already set a high bar.

While this attention to detail has led to comfort and durability benefits for their customers, the already high code threshold, our moderate climate and the low cost of energy in the region, means that the achieved energy conservation of a Quadrant Home, compared to a WSEC 2009 code home, converts to roughly $250 in savings to the homeowner each year .

In compliance with the new Energy Star requirements, Quadrant is installing water conserving fixtures in kitchen (1.5 gpm) and bathroom (1.0 gpm) faucets, and shower heads (1.75 gpm). The intent of this, from the Energy Star perspective, is to reduce the demand for domestic hot water – that’s where a good chunk of the energy savings come from.

What has surprised us is the economic benefit to the homeowner of the water conservation measures. Using standardized consumption calculations and code-required fixtures to calculate a baseline for comparison, we’re seeing a savings of roughly 19,000 gallons (25.6 hundred cubic feet – CCF) of potable water per year. In a typical example suburban neighborhood with water metering, homeowners are paying $4.97/CCF for water and $5.31/CCF for sewer – that’s a savings of $263 per year – equivalent to the energy savings from the Energy Star certification. So a new Quadrant home saves you about $50/month in combined energy and water savings. That’s significant!

If you were to add a 1.1 gallon average flush toilet and Energy Star clothes washer and dishwasher (which both use less water than standard models) the savings increase to 27,200 gallons or 36.4 CCF, bringing another $10 per month in savings.

Green building is best seen a whole systems approach – by focusing on all the resources consumed in a building, developers, owners, and our society in general can realize fortuitous but often hidden synergies such those illustrated in the Quadrant example.

Alistair Jackson, CSBA is a Principal at O’Brien & Company. He was involved in the development of the original LEED for Homes Pilot Rating System and is, among other things, the Quality Assurance Designee (QAD) for O’Brien & Company’s role as LEED for Homes Provider. He is a strong advocate for market-led innovation and market transformation towards sustainability. He is also a father of two – and impatient for change towards a better future.

Is Training the Answer? Not always, says Kelly Kirkland, CSBA, LEED AP O+M

The green building industry is slowly coming to realize that the most efficiently designed buildings in the world won’t operate at peak efficiency without well-trained building operators, managers and occupants. With technology evolving and people turning over, ongoing training is generally required to achieve peak efficiency and comfort.

But when faced with a building performance or comfort problem, throwing a training at it mindlessly could end up as money wasted. Experienced trainers can crank out PowerPoint slides on any topic at a moments notice to be delivered to warm bodies in a dark room. A friend, who is the training manager at a large company, refers to this as the “magical training factory.” But will anything this factory spits out result in real learning, or provide a solution to the problem?

Here are a few real examples of green building problems that may or may not have a training solution:

The Scene: A small, remote building that operates 24 hours a day to serve military personnel. Individual staff members rotate through this location every few years, and the person put in charge of building operations is likely to have had little to no previous experience—plus a slate of many other duties related to their “primary mission.” The complex building DDS system is something no one really understands. When something in the building goes wrong, a huge amount of the maintenance budget must be spent to fly in an outside expert.

Is Training the Answer? Probably not—at least not at first. When I talked to the staff members all they really wanted was something simple and intuitive that they could operate themselves. Making a change to the equipment with the next building upgrade would likely save a lot more energy and maintenance budget in the future. If the new system came with intuitive documentation, a simple recorded training could ensure that all new staff could be oriented to their role as building manager quickly and without taking time away from their other duties. Another option would be to reevaluate staffing structure to allow for a dedicated building manager—what a great skill that would be to take home to the civilian workforce!

The Scene: A governmental organization adopts a new green policy mandate that all project managers need to follow. The staff in charge of ensuring adoption with the policy are worried that PMs will be resistant due to concerns that it’s too complicated or expensive to implement. In addition, staff have been resistant to training in the past when they feel it’s not a good use of their time.

Is Training the Answer? In the case of staff resistance to implementing the policy, no. You can’t train motivation but you can remove barriers (like reducing the paperwork burden) and add incentives (like individual and departmental recognition). Both of these were done. In addition, staff tapped green advocates at each department to organize a brief “training” for PMs. The content of this training covered the basic policy requirements  and showed how these were relevant to the specific types of projects the PMs managed. These concise trainings highlighted case studies from the relevant department to provide concrete examples to assuage fears about the complexity or limitations the policy might impose on projects. Even better, these sessions provided an opportunity to determine which kind of additional technical trainings would be needed to support project managers moving forward. PMs reported  they appreciated the concise initial training and were much more eager to get additional technical training once they understood the opportunities.

The Scene: A K-12 school with a highly interactive natural ventilation strategy that made buttons on the wall glow: green, when windows could be open for ventilation, or red, when they should be shut while the building was in heating mode. In this case, I don’t know that the building managers were aware of the problem. On green building tours I like to sneak away and talk to occupants to see how a building is really performing for them. None of the teachers I spoke to had any idea what those glowing lights were for and they complained of stuffy spaces.

Is Training the Answer? In this case, yes! The teachers were motivated to make their classrooms more comfortable and had everything they needed to fix their problem—except the know-how. In fact, when the building opened all teachers did receive training. The problem was that in three years the teachers no longer had that information, either due to being new or not understanding or remembering it from the first training. A short module as part of new staff training (or, better yet, as part of an in-service training day for all staff!) would be a great way to help teachers be more comfortable and get the desired energy performance. A quick reference sheet for each classroom, and better signage on the lights would be great training follow-ups.

You don’t need a training on adult learning theory to know that adults will be learn better with information that they need to know (to do their jobs or to be comfortable) presented in a straightforward, practical way that involves some engagement or interaction. Before throwing a training at a problem, however,  make sure that the issue isn’t with equipment, policy barriers, lack of motivation, or another issue. Your time and resources might be better spent by providing better equipment, processes,  incentives, individual coaching or something else. We have had experience where training has had  the opposite of the desired effect, because it simply wasn't the right solution to the problem. Participants left the training frustrated, as they were still left with the same problem, and had (in their minds) less time to manage it.  On the other hand, if lack of know-how is the problem, training is absolutely the right way to go.

Kelly Kirkland is O’Brien & Company’s Education Coordinator. She has developed and delivered dozens of courses on a variety of green building topics. She recently completed a three-day course on training assessment, development, delivery and evaluation and holds a Training Certificate from the American Society for Training and Development.

Seven years in, does LEED's tool for LEED for multiple buildings and on-campus building projects meet the market's needs? Elizabeth Powers, CSBA, LEED AP BD+C, ID+C Responds.

Since LEED was launched by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) our firm has encountered many projects interested in using the LEED Rating System but not quite fitting into the LEED mold. Over time O'Brien & Company has worked with our clients to ease these projects through the LEED process. Although some of the solutions we came up with could be deemed "elegant," there were a few project types that required quite a bit of heavy lifting, and where frankly, it felt like we were using the proverbial shoe-horn.

Of the latter, the most common situation we faced was a project that included multiple buildings or was a single building on some sort of larger site with a shared management or ownership structure.

First Generation Solution

The first tool that came out to help with these situations was the LEED Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC), 2005 version, generally referred to as the LEED for Campus' guide. This tool didn’t have much infrastructure behind it and it was unclear how to implement the structures provided within it. Thus it was not widely used. However, along with some Credit Interpretation Rulings, the AGMBC did set up some basic ground rules on how to deal with multiple building and buildings within campus settings.

Teams were able to use these concepts to certify multiple building projects under a single certification, or to apply campus wide resources, such as a central stormwater management system, or shared parking to a single building project. For example, the North Seattle Thornton Place project, which consisted of an apartment building, a condo building, and some retail, all over a single subterranean parking podium, was certified LEED-NC Silver under a single certification. (This project is also completing a LEED ND application under the pilot program.) And we recently dealt with a new building on a campus where they had just recently built a new parking garage. We allocated the campus parking across all the buildings on campus, including the new one and then added enough low-emitting parking stalls to earn a point for providing 5% of the parking for the new building (the campus actually added more, but we left the additional stalls available for other LEED projects on campus.

Getting Closer

The launch of LEEDv3 in 2009 promised a new version of the AGMBC and rolled a new series of minimum program requirements (MPRs) that resulted in defining LEED as applicable to only one building, unless you follow the AGMBC. Not many people realize this yet, but it has come up on many projects. If we did Thornton Place today, it would have been certified as 3 projects in a multiple building complex. The details of how this was to work were to be spelled out in the new AGMBC. Part 1 of the updated AGMBC came out in the fall of 2010 with an extensive new infrastructure in LEED Online v3 (LOV3) to support it.

Part 1 addressed situations where one had several different buildings on a campus setting and wanted to apply some campus-wide programs and resources such as parking, stormwater, purchasing or cleaning programs to each building. Although the system made a new bucket for all these campus credits to be reviewed simultaneously, it also resulted in additional process steps and fees. For campuses with lots of buildings and many shared resources this is a great option and actually save money even with the added fees. It allows a school itself to document, all at once and in advance, a good number of points for all future LEED projects (within the same rating system version, e.g. 2009). The project teams for those LEED projects can take credit for those credits and receive a discount on review of their project. This summer, the University of Washington compiled a set of campus credits for all the upcoming LEED 2009 projects and has submitted them for review. (In a side note, Huskies can be proud the UW was named #1 in “America’s Coolest Schools” in 2011 by the Sierra Club -- in part because of the number of LEED certified buildings.) For organizations like the UW, Part 1 of the AGMBC provides a great new tool.

On the other hand, for our projects with a few distinct buildings being built all at once on a single larger site, the new rules and the AGMBC process have mostly provided an added set of complications by requiring each building to earn its own certification and complete a new process if they want to take credit for comprehensive project planning. To illustrate, clients for a new small school campus we are working with have been frustrated because the campus hasn't been able to earn a single plaque for their project. And LEED for Neighborhood developments doesn’t offer a solution, as it doesn’t substantially address building design or really these types of campuses as they lack typical features of a neighborhood, such as housing and community amenities.

Part 2 of the AGMBC promised a pathway for a single certification: “Part 2 will contain guidance to help project teams certify a group of projects as a package where the entire project set will receive a single rating. These projects may constitute an entire campus or be a subset of an existing campus.” Part 2 was due out in 2011. O’Brien & Company and several of our projects waited patiently throughout the year to see if it could ease what seemed a burdensome new pathway.

Closer Still, But A Ways to Go

Finally, Part 2 came out almost the last day in October 2011, and, in my opinion, fell flat. The much anticipated innovation is the group certification, which basically allows a project with a number of identical buildings to receive certification for that group. In our experience, projects hoping for a single certification may have some buildings that are identical, such as two or three high-rise residential buildings, but always have several other buildings that are substantially different, such as a conference center or a fitness facility. It is also unclear just how different buildings can be and still be in a group. If similar buildings pursue divergent pathways for a prerequisite or credit, such as having central mechanical ventilation in one, and individual room natural ventilation in the other, it still seems multiple certifications will be needed. We have an administrative request into the GBCI on behalf of our clients, so we may learn things are bit better than we are currently interpreting.

Another challenge is that no infrastructure or fee structure was launched with Part 2 for group certification– that’s due in 2012. For projects that the group certification significantly benefits, that means it will have been three years since the launch of LEED 2009 and seven years since the launch of the AGMBC before the best tools for their projects are available.

There are many good reasons for the changes and tools that the USGBC has introduced for certifying multiple buildings and campuses. Some of those primarily benefit the organization in ease of administration and cost control (which could be seen to benefit USGBC members), others provide clarity and consistency in the application of the LEED Rating System which will be helpful to the market and projects considering LEED in the future. Therefore, I’m not disappointed to see the USGBC actively addressing the issue of multiple buildings and campuses, but I believe that there is still a fair sized gap in best servicing this significant building project type. I’ll keep you posted if we unearth some hidden benefits of the new AGMBC systems that change my mind.

Elizabeth Powers, CSBA and LEED AP (multiple specialties) is principal and part owner of O'Brien & Company, the oldest green building consultancy in the Northwest. She leads the firm's consulting team serving non-residential green building projects and is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity Blog.

Another Tool for Building Capacity: Newsletter Reports Trend Observations

Thank you faithful readers! After two years at Building Capacity Blog, our (nearly weekly) posts have garnered interest from multiple time zones and continents. As promised the blog has focused on issues you face every day in your sustainable building projects and programs, providing lessons learned straight from those who have applied them. The more practical the post, the higher the hits spike. We know what you like.

There's another tool, however, which I think you’ll find practical, timely and valuable. The O'Brien & Company newsletter, released bi-monthly, offers announcements about upcoming events and shines a spotlight on recently completed green buildings. Last, but not least, each issue features an article written by a staff expert at O’Brien & Company who shares his or her insights gained by working with many projects struggling to achieve the latest and greatest in sustainability.

In the December issue, Elizabeth Powers, Principal-Owner of O'Brien & Company, offered her observations on trends in 2011. Some of these will likely coincide with other "trend" articles you will read in industry publications, but a few are uniquely from the position of a long-time green building consultant who has watched the ups and downs, curves, tsunamis, and windfalls of the last several years. The newsletter's project spotlight actually focuses on two high performance projects celebrating LEED recognition in 2012 and representing two very different climates: a LEED NC Gold Fire Station in Seattle; and a LEED Home Platinum single family residence in Hawaii.

Check out Elizabeth's Trends piece and share your thoughts here on the Building Capacity Blog about what you've seen in 2011 and think you'll see in 2012.

Kathleen O'Brien, Founder of O'Brien & Company, the oldest green building consultancy in the Northwest, edits the Building Capacity Blog. Elizabeth Powers, CSBA and LEED AP (multiple specialties) is a regular contributor to the blog.

Institutionalizing Building Performance: A Collaborative Experience

The installation of building envelope components or HVAC equipment happens in a fleeting moment in the life of a building, yet is so important to long-term durability, performance, and occupant health. Installation failures do happen. With buildings, the key is to catch a potential failure or problem early to head off more complicated issues and fixes in the future. One of the benefits of 3rd party verified green building programs like LEED, Built Green, and Energy Star  is that they put a different pair of eyes on the project, focusing specifically on the details that contribute to better long-term outcomes.

Ideally, when a failure is identified in the field by a verifier, it is communicated with a side of education to the installer, and fixed. Sometimes the installer is not present and that poorly installed detail incurs cost for a return trip of both installer and verifier. When failures are repeated, they point to a deeper issue – the need for root cause analysis to understand why the same error is being repeated. Sometimes the answer is a physical or logistical one (“we can’t do it that way because piece A won’t fit into piece B”). Often, however, it’s about divergent priorities and perspectives: Contractor is rightly focused on delivering their service according to how they understand the scope, and the verifier is, also rightly, looking for compliance with the scope but has a different (we like to think better) understanding of it. When the contractor at the head office receives repeated non-compliance reports from the verifier in the field, they can begin to feel frustrated – They “know” the installers are doing what they are supposed to do and the verifiers “are just being picky” and “not understanding the real world.” Without careful (as in “care-full”) communications, things can sometimes get tricky.

After one such spree of non-compliance reports, I was surprised one morning when three managers from an insulation company showed up and asked to shadow me for a day of four inspections. Ok. I was tempted to get defensive! Instead, I went into uber-educational mode and I showed them my inspection process. What I am looking for and why; the building science behind the requirements. My capacity-building trap was sprung.

Picture the scene. Me and three guys hanging from the attic rafters above a white sea of blown attic insulation, careful not to disturb the loft, with an assortment of personal lighting devices and measuring tapes in hand. The scene shifts to the crawl space. Same lighting, now we’re on our backs, inspecting floor insulation. The dialogue of the day boils down to… This is what I am looking for, I say. This is how we could improve our process to make it easier for our installer, they say. Through this trading of understanding each other’s expectations and limitations, a common ground was being formed. A better product for our client would be delivered.

Verification work is part of our day to day to work. Rarely, though, do we have the opportunity to work in the field (literally) with managers to identify problems and solutions in this collaborative manner. At the end of the day, these guys were not a threat, they were allies and their showing up became an opportunity. They admitted they had arrived with some resistance, with the idea that we were being picky in our inspections. It wasn’t until we established an understanding of where each of us were coming from and the reasoning behind it that a level of trust formed. This allowed easier communication to flow.

But the story is not over. The dual benefit of an effective verification process is not just those realized within buildings themselves (such as demonstrated by the excellent installation in the photo) but also increased awareness and skills among the trades who work on them. To reap these fruits, the solutions discovered in our collaborative exploration have to be institutionalized at both company leadership and practitioner levels. I look forward to the next step, in which these lessons will be transferred across the board to installation crews. And not just technique, proper sizing and placement, but the "why." The "why" energizes tradespersons with pride in their craft to do the job the right way. I've seen it, with field installers signing their work after successfully passing a verification inspection. Imagine that!

Chris Edlin, CSBA, LEED AP Homes and LEED for Homes Rater, Energy Star Northwest Verifier and Performance Tester, and LEED AP BD+C is Project Associate with O'Brien & Company, Inc. and a regular contributor to Building Capacity Blog. Chris provides technical assistance, plan reviews, and performance testing on a number of sustainable building projects ranging from single-family residential to high-rise commercial buildings.

LEED HC – A Sensible Leap Into Sustainable Health Care

Have you ever been in a hospital or medical clinic, observed the humming machinery, the constant overhead lights, the busy staff, the patients in varying degrees of distress, the human drama, but your first thought is “How much energy is this place consuming?” Congratulations, you are a building science geek. Welcome, you are among friends.

Pacific Northwest Health Care Provider Leaps Forward: I worked in healthcare, clinics and hospitals for many years as a Registered Nurse, then a Nurse Practitioner. My career change to Green Building Consultant felt pretty natural to me as I was always renovating houses on the side. And I have watched with special interest the emergence of LEED© for Healthcare (LEED-HC). So I was delighted to start work on a local LEED-HC project for a great organization where I used to work as a Nurse Practitioner. Group Health Cooperative has committed to LEED-HC Certification for two new or replacement clinics in Washington -- one in Puyallup (see rendering) and one in Burien. These will be among the first in the country to certify under this new Rating System. Along with the owner, CollinsWoerman, University Mechanical, and GLY Construction, are enthusiastically committed to the projects' sustainability goals, and in particular achieving the target for LEED-HC Gold and achieving a 30% energy efficiency improvement over a similar baseline building.

A Little History on LEED-HC:  It grew from the Green Guide for Healthcare (GGHC), a sustainable design “Toolkit” that integrates environmental and health principles into the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of healthcare facilities. GGHC originated in 2004 as a joint venture between the Center for Maximum Potential Building systems and Health Care Without Harm, aligning itself with the structure of LEED for New Construction. GGHC piloted 100 facilities, enabling LEED-HC to bypass the US Green Building Council's LEED pilot process. The first draft for LEED-HC  was released in November 2007, and projects began registering in November 2010. To date, there are 26 registered projects in the US ranging from medical clinics and Veterans homes to hospitals and cancer centers.

The Problem: Hospitals, open 24/7, use enormous amounts of energy. There are rigorous ventilation and pressurization needs; heating and cooling demands that vary from the OR to the ER and contribute significant mechanical loads; and intensive water needs. According to Energy Star, the average EUI of a hospital is 468 kBtu/ft2 while the average EUI of an office building is 193 kBtu/ft2. The healthcare sector is reported to contribute 8% of total US Green House Gas Emissions (JAMA, Nov 11, 2009). How can hospitals and medical clinics become high performance buildings, better neighbors and a healthy part of the community where they are located?

A Problem-Solving Tool: Despite the fact that LEED for Healthcare requires a mere 10% energy performance improvement over the baseline (like LEED NC, but its not enough), it  addresses several key aspects of the problem, with several new Prerequisites and Credits that make sense for these massively consumptive facilities, such as:

• Integrated Design: Integrated Project Planning and Design is a Prerequisite. 
• Energy: In Energy & Atmosphere there is a credit for buildings that limit products of combustion, a sure way to become a better member of the community and the planet.
• Daylight: Articulated floor plates that allow more daylight and views for patients and staff earn credit.
• Water: Medical equipment process water must be non-potable -- it's a Prerequisite. New credits for water use measurement and verification (you can’t manage what you can’t measure); and water use reduction for medical equipment, cooling towers and food waste systems.
•  IEQ: In Materials & Resources there is a credit for medical furnishings and mattresses that do not contain harmful chemicals or VOC’s.
• IEQ: While sustainably sourced materials garner credit, they are also required to meet the low emitting requirements in IEQ.
• IEQ: The bar for the low emitting materials credit is raised with the addition of carcinogenic limits for adhesives and sealants; and credit for limiting VOC content for exterior applied products safeguards construction workers and the community.

Respite Care: In addition there are credits for Places of Respite for patients and visitors, a place to heal and recuperate from ongoing treatment. Don’t you feel better already? For in-patients or patients with long wait times, for families waiting even longer for their loved ones, this is a place to rest the eyes, have a view, appreciate some nature and smell some flowers. This is evidence-based design, referencing research indicating improved outcomes for patients with a view of nature rather than a brick wall. Additionally this LEED-HC credit has a requirement for a private outdoor area for staff to take a break, away from patient care. This allows hard working medical staff some time and space to find balance in a stressful workplace. Group Health’s Puyallup Clinic has a green roof and rooftop staff area planned, incorporating shelter, access to nature and privacy. The project design also incorporates a respite area for patients and families adjacent to the ground floor clinics.

Existing Buildings, When a Problem is an Opportunity: Retrofitting existing hospitals and clinics offers tremendous opportunity for reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and CO2. The Community Power Works program is working with all the major local hospitals in the Seattle area to conduct energy upgrades as part of $20 million in federal stimulus grant funding to energy retrofit hospitals, municipal and large commercial buildings. Puget Sound Energy offers customized grants to hospitals for energy retrofits and existing building commissioning. Environmental Purchasing Policies for hospitals such as mercury-free purchasing; buying products with recycled content; requesting reduced packaging; and purchasing reusable products  help reduce their environmental impact. Remember the old days when that bedpan was metal and cold?  It  was cleaned in an autoclave and reused for years. This is much more sustainable than the plastic ones that are often single use in emergency rooms. But I digress. Stay tuned for more postings on Hospitals and Sustainability. 

Colleen Groll, CSBA and Senior Project Associate for O'Brien & Company, Inc.  is consulting on GHC's Puyallup and Burien Projects . In addition to her green building expertise, she brings more than 15 years experience in the health care services sector. She is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity Blog. Colleen recommends additional resources including Practice Green Health, The Healthier Hospitals Initiative, and The Department of Energy’s Hospital Energy Alliance.

Vision 2050: When Business As Usual Will Be Sustainable

For those of us in the sustainable building world, we are most familiar with The World Business Council on Sustainable Development WBCSD through its definition of sustainability in the Brundtland Commission Report (1993): "Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

Now the WBCSD has gifted the global community with a set of tools that expand on that vision. In 2008, the CEOs of 29 global companies from 14 industries led an 18-month consensus effort to lay out a pathway to a 2050 world in which the anticipated nine billion population of the world live well. The effort involved dialogues with more than 200 companies and other stakeholders in some 20 countries. The tool set includes the Vision 2050 Report, generic presentations for public outreach, a poster showing the 22 dimensions of the projects within the larger realms of people, economy, governance, energy and resources, and ecosystem,  and a 14-foot mural displaying the pathway in more detail.

Vision 2050's Executive Summary explicitly declares that Vision 2050 is not prescriptive, but meant to spur dialogue. However, I found the Vision 2050 Mural displayed at a recent event sponsored by the Bainbridge Graduate Institute (BGI) looking very much  like a plan. It has dates by which certain conditions must be met in order to achieve the Vision of one-planet living. Like a true business plan, it also qualifies the Vision with risks that can be anticipated, and wild cards that can not.

Of course, the first thing I looked for on the mural was the building track. The organization  isn't perfect. When I noted that the end goal for the building track makes achieving "energy efficient appliances" (we have to wait for 2050 for this?) equally as difficult  as achieving net zero energy in the majority of new structures,  I reminded myself that the Vision was developed by corporations, some of which manufacture and distribute appliances. So from their perspective, the challenge might loom large. Not sure I agree. From my perspective this is an easy one, with great benefit -- think plug loads.

In addition, the mural suffers from the age-old problem of slicing up the pie of sustainability. Everything overlaps. In addition to the building track there are separate energy, forest, mobility and material tracks, which obviously interface with infrastructure development, i.e. building. Even if imperfect,  it seems a good first step at offering businesses a concrete set of milestones, characterized by some attendees as a veritable "chutes and ladders" scenario complete with "must haves" (ladders up) as well as "wild cards" (chutes down).

The report itself provides an excellent description contrasting business-as-usual and the idealistic vision depicted on the mural and report narrative. Businesses have their work cut out for them. Stanford University's Bob Horn, the fellow who specializes in mind messes (a play on mind maps) and other visualization products, and produced the Vision 2050 mural, keynoted the BGI event. He described  the project's historic process, as well as progress toward "must haves" for this decade. According to Horn, who presented his workproduct with a neutrality I admired, progress is mixed, with the building and energy & power tracks faring pretty well. Not surprising given the energy invested over the last twenty decades on green building awareness, building standards, renewable production and more stringent energy codes. There are other areas, such as carbon neutrality where the observer has to look harder to detect any movement of the needle. Horn was careful to note that  wild cards (war and natural disaster for example) could continue to play havoc with our plans if we aren't prepared to deal with them effectively and sustainably.

Gifford Pinchot III, founder of BGI, spoke as well.  Pinchot reported that, with the emergence of Vision 2050, the Institute has worked with its entire faculty to ensure the scenario(s) envisioned in the tool are integrated into course dialogue. I find this very exciting. I have several colleagues and former students who have completed BGI's program, the first MBA in the nation focused on sustainable business,  and I have nothing but praise for the thought leadership it encourages. I have even more respect however, for BGI's willingness to "try out" this tool, and to ask its faculty to "shake things up" a bit. It is modeling "being teachable" at the institutional level, not easy to do, but very necessary.

For those of us taking the larger view of sustainability, corporate progress toward the historic vision industry leaders have set down on paper  in Vision 2050 will be important to watch. Stay tuned.

Kathleen O'Brien, Editor of Building Capacity Blog and founder of O'Brien & Company, remains as a special consultant to the nationally recognized green building consultancy. She recently launched The Emerge Leadership Project and anticipates the Emerge: Leadership for a more sustainable society Workshop will include discussions of Vision 2050. The photo includes Gifford Pinchot III and John S. Adams, CFP, and leader of The Arbor Group, a team at UBS Financial Services.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Emerge: Leadership for a more sustainable society
Cool Factor: Youth Green Building Careers Symposia Inspires

Green Schools From Top to Bottom: Interview with Kim Armstrong Co-Executive Director for Washington Green Schools

Washington Green Schools (WAGS) engages students and staff in K-12 schools throughout Washington State in recycling, saving energy, and other “green” actions. O'Brien & Company helped develop, pilot and launch the program under contract with the Clark County Solid Waste Division in 2008-2009. Kelly Kirkland of O'Brien & Company recently met with Kim Armstrong, WAGS Co-Executive Director,  to see how things are going.

Kelly: When we were launching the program we really wanted to make sure the program worked for schools and would be adopted. At the end of 2009 we had about 100 schools participating. How is participation now? Kim: We currently have 185 schools, representing nearly 95,000 students. Perhaps even more importantly, we have 63 school districts in 22 counties participating, so the program definitely has traction around the state. The higher the level of participation, the more new students are getting to know how school operations impact the environment, and how they can improve on that.

You mention nearly 95,000 students. How are teachers involved? Each school is required to have a green team that includes at least one teacher. We’ve also had hundreds of teachers participate in trainings that we've held around the state. Back on campus, sometimes the teachers are the main facilitator, but sometimes it’s a parent volunteer, school staff member, or the students themselves. Each green team gets to decide how their team will work together.

So it sounds like the program touches people at all levels in a school. Are you seeing improvements as a result? We are hearing from teachers that WA Green Schools gives context for students to get excited about learning math, science or writing a letter to the superintendent. Additionally, we are seeing real results through cost savings in a number of schools. For example, one school reported a reduction of $450/month in their energy bill. Another is saving almost $6000 by implementing a composting program that reduces their garbage pick-up from 5 to 3 days a week.

Wow, that's pretty significant news. Are you getting that kind of information from all the schools? Up to now, data like this not been systematically captured, but reported on a case by case basis from some of the schools as part of key findings. To remedy this, we've worked with a stakeholder group to come up with a new step in the process: "Verify and Reflect." Cost savings will be a metric common to most categories. For energy and water, data gathered will include consumption. For waste and recycling, data gathered will include generation and landfill diversion. We are still working on metrics for transportation and toxics, the two remaining environmental categories. Ultimately, we would like to aggregate data and add a carbon calculator to our website.

Have you found that the program really meets the needs of such a diverse age range of students? Definitely. We have all types of schools participating. Each green team tends to execute the program differently based on what’s appropriate for their students. One area where we have made some changes was originally called the “toxics” category. Few schools had chosen to pursue that category so we have created a new category called Healthy School Buildings, which has some elements of the previous toxics category.

It sounds like you continue to look for ways to improve the program. That's true. If you recall, something we heard even in the pilot stage, was the desire for alignment of the program with grade level standards and requirements. We recently received grant funding from WA STEM to align the waste and recycling activities with math standards for 4th grade math. This is a very exciting development.

Do you anticipate more alignments between subject areas in the program to grade level standards? Yes. We will continue to align with existing standards for the grade levels wherever we can. Besides the obvious educational benefit, this may be appealing for school districts that are not as interested in sustainability per se but interested in the experiential, hands-on nature of the activities associated with WA Green Schools. And it will make it easier for local advocates to get the attention of District decision makers.

What other improvements are you planning? Programmatically, we are considering a redesign of the certification program to include more rigor as schools move through the certification levels. Organizationally, we have a lot of work to do developing the Board and updating the strategic plan.

Any tips you'd like to share with other states trying to start similar programs? I would suggest taking the time to clearly define long term goals. Is education or resource conservation/operational efficiency the main goal? A program focused on resource-efficiency might put more emphasis on the measurement and verification of data. A program focused on engaging students might align with state learning requirements or offer a robust curriculum.. Then, develop a long term funding, strategic plan, and a program plan that enables you to meet the state’s educational structure. And, of course, use other state programs as a model and study best practices in learn from others! We benefited from looking at the Oregon Green Schools program  and the international Eco-Schools program.

In addition to leading WAGS, Kim Armstrong is the co-founder of Sound Footprint, a sustainability consulting firm serving schools and organizations in the Pacific Northwest. Kelly Kirkland, Project Associate, was on the original team at O'Brien & Company helping to develop and pilot the program.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
LEED EB: O+M's Energy Threshold
Maier Hall at Peninsula College: Early Collaborative Process
Cool Factor: Youth Green Building Careers Symposia Inspires

Continuous Air Barriers in Multi-family Buildings

Alistair Jackson, CSBA and LEED for Homes QAD discusses a recent development in multi-family building performance.

With the implementation of the Washington State Energy Code of 2009 came the requirements (Section 1314.6) that multi-family buildings in Washington State include a continuous air barrier in the building envelope and, more challengingly, test that envelope for infiltration performance.  Projects that chose to pursue certification under the LEED for Homes Midrise Pilot ran into a similar requirement in that program a year or more before the WSEC implementation and so got a head start on the process.

The value of a tight building envelope has been broadly accepted in the world of single family construction for several years, supported by sound building science, as an effective way to reduce space conditioning energy, improve thermal comfort and improve moisture management.

In multi-family buildings, this broad acceptance has not yet occurred.  Part of the reason for this is the common assumption that multi-family buildings are dominated more by internal loads than by envelope loads (because of the skin to volume ratio), so the thermal and air-exchange loads of the envelope have tended to take a back seat to mechanical conditioning, ventilation and lighting issues.  In reality, however, the taller form of these buildings leads to significant pressure differences from bottom to top that can drive much greater air exchange across the building envelope for a given surface due to stack effect.   This must be countered by larger mechanical systems to keep the building balanced and comfortable. 

By improving air barrier continuity and hence controlling the leakage through the envelope, we tip the first in a line of dominoes that topple, one by one, towards better overall building performance.

Generally speaking, there are two approaches to creating a continuous air barrier in a building envelope.  The more “conventional” approach, originating in single family construction and long supported by Energy Star, RESNET and others, is to use rigid, self-supporting components of the building assembly – such as sheathing, framing, gypsum board, – to form the air barrier, ensuring continuity by sealing them together with resilient and often flexible materials (glues, caulks, foams) to form an air tight box.  This is a reliable approach as long as the craftspeople assembling the building understand the intent of the details and install them carefully.

On the scale of a six story midrise building, however, with 300 residential units in it and multiple transitions between wall assembly types, across floor plates, and so forth, this approach can prove challenging to manage and implement.

More recently, the availability of high-performance building wraps or membranes, designed originally as weather resistive barriers, has led to the exploration of using these products to also serve as a continuous air barrier – we’ll call this an “exterior membrane air barrier” system.  Manufacturers are providing installation guidelines for their products as an “Air Barrier System” with additional details that go beyond weather barrier requirements – notably addressing sealing to the structure, sealing of lap seams and fastening systems. 

This “exterior membrane air barrier” approach is attracting a lot of attention among the current raft of multi-family projects pursuing LEED for Homes Midrise certification. We’ve seen systems using Vaproshield and Tyvek CommercialWrap D on recent project specifications. With many of these projects using a qualified envelope durability consultant, there’s good confidence of a successful implementation. 

To date, we have been cautious about this approach because we’ve seen, first hand, that efforts to properly seal lap seams between sheets and at openings can be challenging and that the typical, liberal application of regular staples to fasten the wrap to the sheathing results in an equally liberal distribution of torn perforations in the wrap rendering it useless as an air barrier.  Furthermore, some wrap products can degrade with prolonged exposure to sun and wind, resulting in reduced performance over the long term.

So adapting this material and system requires some changes in approach and in understanding of the intent.  As we have seen in the past with changes of construction practice, adoption follows the typical bell curve – early adopters jump in and figure it out, then practice percolates into the mainstream.  Both the rigid air barrier approach and the exterior membrane approach demand attention to detailing to be effective. What remains to be seen is how quickly the construction sector will build the capacity to properly implement the details to a standard that will deliver performance. 

The good news is that the addition of a performance testing requirement means we'll see real measurements of the effectiveness of this new approach.  Assuming that the market place can actually deliver the capacity for large building infiltration testing (another story) by the time these buildings are completed, we should get good empirical data on the various approaches to creating a continuous air barrier fairly quickly as buildings are completed.  I’m on the edge of my seat . . .

Alistair Jackson, CSBA is a Principal at O’Brien & Company. He was involved in the development of the original LEED for Homes Pilot Rating System and is, among other things, the Quality Assurance Designee (QAD) for O’Brien & Company’s role as LEED for Homes Provider. He is a strong advocate for market-led innovation and market transformation towards sustainability. He is also a father of two – and impatient for change towards a better future.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Mechanical Systems and Fuel Choices for the Warming World
Cracking the Energy Code: What Will It Cost?

Cool Factor: Youth Green Building Careers Symposia Inspires

When teens report that they'd change "nothing" when asked about the usefulness of an educational event, you know you've done something right! And that's exactly what most students participating in Built Green Santa Barbara's Youth Green Building Careers Symposia said on anonymous evaluation forms. 45 youth and six instructors from local schools and the Youth Corps attended the symposia, which offered inspirational stories, useful career building information, and a tour of the Built Green Resource Center, a historic green remodel located in the Presidio in downtown Santa Barbara.

 A roughly three-hour session (repeated in the afternoon), offered panels of designers, builders, and associated businesses (such as solar installers and window forensic specialists) who used show and tell to describe what they do, shared their personal stories about how and why they came to green building, and discussed what they do to succeed in the field. It was the personal stories that really inspired. One student wrote in his evaluation: "I liked how [the contractor] shared how he started with nothing, and now has a successful business." At the conclusion of the morning and afternoon sessions, participants completed a "job shadow" application identifying their top three choices among the panelists they heard from for a one-hour on-the-job visit.

For those planning a similar event, several elements factored into its success. Perhaps the most important was the element of partnership. Without youth participants, the event would have been a bust. We needn't have worried. Tradart, SBC Workforce Investment Board (WIB), and perhaps most importantly Partners in Education (PIE) provided the youth side of the equation. Michelle Magnusson, Program Development and Accountability Manager for PIE, a Santa Barbara County Education Office Program, performed yeoman's work getting the word out to school career centers and coordinating with schools to get students to the event. And WIB provided reimbursement funding and a van to support Youth Corps participation. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this side of the equation was the fact that capacity was limited to 30 for each session. The plus side to this limitation was that only youth who really wanted to be there were there. You could have heard a pin drop during presentations! No fidgeting, no secretive texting. Not your average high school classroom experience!

The second half of the equation -- professionals with green building careers -- was fulfilled through Built Green's partnership with the Santa Barbara Contractors Association (SBCA). Karin Perissinotto, Executive Director of the SBCA reports she "had no problem filling the panels. We have a very active membership willing to give of themselves for the benefit of Built Green and youth considering green building careers. I wasn't really surprised at the level of interest. We just had to call and they were there!" Further support for the event was provided for the event through a grant from the California Coalition for Construction in the Classroom which is in the sunsetting.

Often, contractors are invited to schools to talk in assemblies and classrooms. Holding the symposia in the Built Green Resource Center, where green building is on display, provided an energizing background to the professionals' personal stories. Green building can be an abstract concept; the Resource Center provided physicality. When Dan George, Vice President of the Built Green Board of Directors and long time green contractor, discussed how the building was insulated and protected against infiltration, he was able to direct participants to the truth window revealing a behind-the-wall look at insulation used in the building, and to turn on a display showing how various insulations protect (or don't) against infiltration.

Panelists were also able to build on each other's experiences, creating themes such as "getting trained, and staying trained" to succeed, and "earning a paycheck for doing work that contributes to the community feels good." What became very clear from the stories panelists shared is that green building careers are not for people who like to stand still! Over and over, panelists shared how keeping abreast of what's changing in the green building world is critical for success, and this learning keeps them excited about showing up in the morning!

In addition to Built Green, PIE, and SBCA representatives, panelists represented 13 organizations, including four design firms: Thompson Naylor, Paul Poirier + Associates, Kent Mixon, and Keeping Interiors; four general contractors: Allen Associates, DL George, and Campanelli; three specialty contractors: SBWindow Forensics, Maverick Windows, and California Solar Electric; retailer Livingreen; trainer Santa Barbara City College Construction Academy; and utility program Energy Upgrade California.

Kathleen O'Brien, Editor of the Building Capacity Blog, recently completed her term as Built Green's Interim Program Director and was the main convener of the Youth Green Building Careers Symposia. Kathleen has a special interest in inspiring youth to enter the green building arena and was featured in "Green Building: Jobs for the Future." She recently celebrated her 20th year as founder of O'Brien & Company, which played an instrumental role in developing Built Green Santa Barbara as well as other Built Green programs in Washington and Hawaii.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Maier Hall at Peninsula College: Early Collaborative Process
Living Building Challenge: Bertschi School’s New Science Wing
CEFPI Award Celebrates Synergy Between Learning and Learning Facilities