Building Capacity

Don’t Touch My Building: Yvonne Kraus, LEED AP balances energy efficient adaptive reuse with historic preservation

As the green building industry’s focus has shifted toward adaptive reuse and retrofitting the existing building stock, the debate about balancing retrofit needs with historic preservation guidelines has moved to the forefront.

In our current work developing an Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategy with the City of Ellensburg, this issue is salient. Ellensburg has a historic downtown with an active historic preservation interest group, but this real estate is significantly underutilized. Although street level spaces in the downtown are mostly maintained and leased, upper stories are virtually abandoned. Retrofits could improve energy performance and make these spaces more desirable for tenants who now look for space in modern developments outside of the City core. At the mere mention of revising building codes to allow for incorporation of renewables on existing buildings, however, a protest arose at the thought of installing PV panels on historic buildings.

So do we touch historic buildings to make them more efficient? What can we do, and how do we best balance historic preservation needs with adaptive reuse and energy efficiency goals? These questions have been on my mind for several months now. During a recent trip to The Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, I kept my eyes open to see how these countries are addressing this issue. There’s a visible juxtaposition of old rural villages and brand new renewable energy technology in much of the countryside(s) I visited. In The Netherlands, old wooden windmills sit next to sleek new wind farms and historic straw roof farms have incorporated on-site solar. In Germany, PV blankets the roofs of old barns and farms, and Germany’s solar incentive program has been so successful that the government has had to place it on hold to catch up with demand. In Austria, the roofs of many farms and inns in the 1,000 year old village of Soelden are dotted with solar hot water and PV panels. In my opinion, there is a true beauty in this mix of old and new. Not to mention efficiency and excitement for the future.

Adaptive Reuse is conventionally defined as the process of adapting old structures for new purposes. Much of the debate surrounding adaptive reuse pertains to whether it makes sense to keep the building and retrofit it, or tear down and build new, but that’s another issue that we’ll explore in a future article. New buildings are now designed with rigid and strong exteriors, yet flexible floor plans interiors making adaptive reuse in the future more likely.

Historic Preservation is part of a national movement to protect buildings that are least 50 years old and are associated with, or significant for, historic people or events, architecture, craftsmanship, or design; or are valuable for historical research. At the federal level, the National Park Service (NPS), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, oversees the National Register of Historic Places which is an official federal list of districts, sites, structures, buildings, and objects that are deemed worthy of preservation. It’s important to know that the National Register is primarily a tool to recognize historic properties - it does not mandate how they must be treated. A listing thus helps to protect a property but it does not restrict property owners. This is where the state and City regulations come in: they can add restrictions to a listed property, and they do this through State Historic Preservation Offices (“shippoes”). Shippoes were federally mandated to carry out provisions of the Act of 1966 and their role is to locate and record historic resources, nominating these resources to the National Register, and providing technical assistance and consultation. There are also some State Historic Registers (Washington State has one: the Dept of Archeology & Historic Preservation) as well as municipal programs that recognize local historic sites or districts, and these come with their own sets of regulations that often go beyond federal regulation in restricting what private property owners can do.

When sustainability planners ponder adaptive reuse, both on old buildings and those on the historic register, the issue of embodied energy comes up. According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, about 80 billion BTUs of energy are embodied in a typical 50,000-square-foot commercial building. That’s equivalent to 640,000 gallons of gasoline, which is wasted if you tear the building down. On top of that, demolishing that same 50,000-square-foot building creates about 4,000 tons of waste. Construction of the replacement building will take additional energy in construction, natural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. Preservation Green Lab (see resources) is conducting a study that will provide more information on this topic, and we’ll report on this study in the near future.

According to Patrice Frey’s research for “Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American Climate Policy Agendas,” Older buildings can actually be remarkably energy efficient because of their quality of construction, their downtown or central locations, and their use of passive heating and cooling methods. When the GSA examined its buildings inventory in 1999, it found that utility costs for historic buildings were 27% less than for more modern buildings. We need to hold on to buildings that are well designed, that meaningfully link us to our past, and that have plenty of good use left in them.

When considering adapting historic buildings with a sustainable design, consider these key factors:

1. Don’t break the rules. Bottom line, there are standards you must follow outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The standards seem rigid, but there’s significant flexibility as long as you are consistent with the character of the building. Consider it a “design challenge.”
2. Lengthen your planning horizon. This applies whether you are adapting or constructing new, but after a trip to Europe this is at the top of my mind.
3. Be passive. Old buildings relied on passive strategies. Maintaining a passive approach will save money, keep renovations simpler, and make O&M easier.
4. Embodied energy. We’ve already touched on this. We’ll discuss the science behind this in our next post on this topic.
5. Verify operating energy. In doing energy modeling of an existing building, you might find it’s better than you thought it would be. Don’t assume it’s an energy hog because it’s old.
6. Work with your local preservationists. It’s best to develop an overarching strategy to your project, to determine what’s sacred, and what’s open to change. And provide opportunities to learn how historic buildings and sustainability goals overlap.
7. Don’t make assumptions about windows. There may be other ways to amp up a building’s energy efficiency. In the ongoing renovations of the historic Empire State Building the developers took the creative path of upgrading the existing windows rather than replacing them. Floor by floor they are removing  windows, “re-manufacturing” them on-site using local labor (meaning more green jobs!) The result are windows that test to R-8 and “fit.”
8. Take advantage of resources. See below .

Resources:

• Preservation Green Lab: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
• The Sustainability Initiative, National Trust for Historic Preservation.
• The American Institute of Architects Historic Resources Committee.
• The Association for Preservation Technology
• International Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives
• The National Park Service Technical Preservation Services.  
• Historic Preservation and Green Building: A Lasting Relationship Feature - Environmental Building News January 2007. 
• Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American Climate Policy Agendas. Patrice Frey, Paul Anderson, Monica Andrews, and Carl Wolf. National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Yvonne Kraus, LEED AP and CSBA and Senior Project Associate for O'Brien & Company, Inc. specializes in green building program development, community and corporate sustainability strategies, and LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M. She is the Project Manager for the City of Ellensburg’s Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategy (EECS), and led the development of the Economic Sustainability Strategy for the City of Kirkland (adopted), and of the Sustainability Strategy for the City of Sammamish (under consideration for adoption). The photo of Ellensburg's downtown was taken by Bob Bengford of Makers Architecture, leading a Land Development Code Update for the City concurrent to and integrated with the EECS project.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
LEED EB: O+M's Energy Threshold
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Passive House: A Bit of Overkill
Cracking the Energy Code: What Will It Cost?
Sweet Sustainability on the Ancient St. James Way

Clarifying the Integrative Design Process: ANSI Standard gets an overhaul with IP Version 2.0

The long awaited Integrative Process (IP) Standard for Design and Construction of Sustainable Building and Communities (VERSION 2.0) was recently released for ANSI (American National Standards Institute)  Ballot Vote. Nora Daley-Peng, AICP, led O’Brien & Company’s participation in the IP Standard Review Process provides a sneak peek at the Standard and discusses how it will redefine design teams, yield more creative and cost-effective design solutions, and improve the environment for all living systems.

New Year’s resolutions are great, but you know what is even better? Starting off the new year with a major accomplishment. When I opened my email on January 1, 2011, I was delighted to hear from Bill Reed, President of the Integrative Design Collaborative that he and John Boecker of 7 Group had just put the finishing touches on the new draft standard for Integrative Process (IP). This feat comes after more than a year of intensive work on updating the ANSI Standard for Integrative Process (aka Whole System Integration Process). The source material for updating the IP standard is based on another monumental effort of Bill and John – a book entitled the Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability. 

As a national standard, the IP Standard is intended to provide a common reference for all industry practitioners (owners, architects, builders, engineers, landscape architects, ecologists, manufacturers, and so on) in support of process changes needed to effectively realize cost savings, a deeper understanding of human and environmental interrelationships, and an improved environment for all living systems.

Last year, O’Brien & Company participated on a review committee of the draft outline of the IP Standard that was graciously organized and hosted by Vulcan Real Estate. The committee’s feedback helped clarify and strengthen the document.

So how is IP version 2.0 different and better than the current standard? The substantive changes in IP version 2.0 include: 

• a preface that explains what IP is and presents the business case for using IP;
• a step-by-step process for using IP during design and construction;
• a certification to the IP Standard i.e. Project Team Leader attests that IP was utilized; and
• a glossary of terms.

What is an Integrative Process?
The Integrative Process (IP) is holistic approach to achieving cost-effective, energy-efficient and environmentally-responsible solutions that meets the specific needs of the intended users as well as the greater community. The Integrative Process welcomes multiple perspectives right from the start of the project through to the finish and beyond. With IP, design teams are expanded to include owners, operators, occupants, contractors, scientists, artists, students, and community members. Design solutions are developed and critiqued collectively to reveal opportunities and address challenges rapidly. The process accelerates brainstorming, thematic identification, data gathering, and idea testing to yield comprehensive design solutions to complex problems.

A key distinction of an integrative approach versus a conventional approach to design is a commitment to refrain from latching on to a solution too early in the process. Why would solving a problem quickly be a negative thing? Because it cuts off other possibilities, opportunities for synergistic solutions, and the benefit of using feedback (both research and people’s opinions and knowledge) to evolve the design.

Clearing Up the Confusion
Many people say that they are using IP, but few really are. Charrettes are a good idea, and as shown in the photo for Vulcan's Amazon South Lake Union Development, we start every project with some variant of a charrette. Conducting a single kick-off charrette is not IP, however. IP is a rigorous and iterative process, requiring a road map for the project team to follow. The road map includes a series of all-team meetings interjected with smaller meetings focused around specific topics. Creative, holistic solutions spring forth from a repetitive process of everyone coming together to set goals, then dispersing to conduct research, analysis and design development, and then coming back together to report progress to the entire team, revisit the goals, and collectively advance the design. This road map is outlined in the IP Standard version 2.0.

Another point of confusion is in the name itself. The Integrative Process is often confused with AIA’s Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). IPD is a contractual agreement among the owner, designer, and contractor where all parties share the risks and benefits of a development project. Using the IP to steer Integrated Project Delivery is a natural fit. Just remember IP is the process and IPD is the contract.

One more pesky issue in the naming convention, Integrative and Integrated Design Process are used interchangeably. Which one is right? IP is an active, iterative, and ongoing process; our work is never done. Since integrative process is "present" tense, Bill Reed would say it is the appropriate descriptor.

Implementation
Assuming IP version 2.0 is adopted as the new ANSI Standard, how will IP be used? There are several “vehicles” that could drive its use. One way is by dovetailing the IP Standard with the LEED certification process. This marriage is already underway. The next version of LEED, currently called LEED 2012, includes a credit taken from the Appendix of the IP Standard version 2.0 and cites the Standard as the reference document. Another possible vehicle for wider application of IP is through the General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA is currently considering referencing the IP Standard version 2.0 as a guideline for project development practices. The other major vehicle of change is of course, education. The IP Education Subcommittee is developing a roll out plan for instruction on IP throughout the country.

One challenge to fitting IP into an ANSI Standard is that it has to be generic and based on the minimum concrete actions that everyone can take. IP naturally demands one builds on that minimum in a way that directly reflects the project, the people, and the place. This is where YOU come in. For IP to gain traction, we all must earnestly practice it and share our successes and lessons learned with the industry.

Nora Daley-Peng, ASLA, AICP, CSBA, and LEED BD+C is Senior Project Associate with O'Brien & Company, providing project management to green building consulting and planning projects at the firm. She is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity Blog.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Why Must We Reinvent the Wheel When Conducting Collaborative Change Projects?
How Can Communities Accelerate Change Towards Green Building?
Living Building Challenge: Bertschi School’s New Science Wing

Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies in Your Community (Part 2 of 2)

In looking at communities in general, an EE&C Strategy or Energy Plan will involve considering all of the ways energy is consumed in that community as a starting point, because this will also identify where the opportunities are. In this pie chart, we show just a few opportunities  associated with identifiable sectors of energy consumption.

It will also involve setting a baseline and future requirements for energy consumption and generation. With the EEC Strategy there is a strong interest in tying the effort into local economic development and job creation, so existing conditions in this arena would be helpful as well.

Remove Regulatory Barriers

The “third rail” of existing conditions is the regulatory arena. Communities seeking to establish energy plans may consider the ways in which their codes and regulations present possible barriers to implementing energy efficiency and conservation strategies. Evaluating codes and regulations against EEC Strategy goals is necessary to assess what stands in the way and needs to be either updated or eliminated, as well as what provisions may be missing. Obstacles can exist in the content of land use and development codes, design standards, building and energy codes, as well as in the regulatory process itself. Simply navigating the system for approvals can be off-putting to innovative energy projects.

Common land development code obstacles include provisions that restrict or prohibit onsite renewable energy systems. Height restrictions and setbacks may limit the feasibility of building-mounted systems such as PV or small wind turbines. In addition, strict provisions around building orientation and eave overhangs can deter passive solar design strategies. Updating codes to allow for greater flexibility during site planning to address solar orientation and instituting solar access regulations can result in measurable energy efficiency advancements for new developments.

Zoning codes have a direct relationship to a community’s transportation-related energy use. A recent study conducted by King County to map residential carbon pollution generated by neighborhood found that local urban form plays a significant role in the quantity of travel-related carbon emissions. The study found that mixed use neighborhoods had the most significant influence on carbon emissions, pointing towards the benefits of walkable, compact communities. Transportation energy savings can result from updating codes to promote infill and mixed-use development, reducing minimum lot sizes, and increasing densities or permitted Floor Area Ratios (FARs). These code changes support Smart Growth principles adopted by many communities, including greater connectivity and walkability.

Barriers can also exist in building codes and even in energy codes intended to promote energy efficiency! For example, structural and ventilation requirements may unintentionally conflict with advanced energy efficient measures such as superinsulation. Another problem is when energy efficient design strategies are not specifically prescribed. An example of the latter might be code "silence" regarding non-conventional construction such as strawbale. In these cases, building officials may require extensive (and expensive) testing to permit such strategies, require redundancies that make them economically infeasible, or prohibit them all together. Even less obvious are prohibitions by local health districts against water saving strategies such as composting toilets. Less water to treat means less pumping and process-related energy spent by the local wastewater treatment facility.

Energy codes establish minimum energy performance and often fail to incentivize higher performance and more efficient buildings. Lack of energy code enforcement or performance testing requirements or assistance, has resulted in many buildings falling short of meeting even minimum energy code standards.

A comprehensive approach to removing regulatory barriers involves not only updating existing standards but also filling in missing gaps. A number of communities are developing new standards for renewable energy and water conservation, such as solar and wind ordinances, or even requiring new homes to be solar-ready or pre-plumbed for water reuse. Flexibility within the codes to allow for demonstration projects to test innovative strategies is essential to provide information to policy makers that can be incorporated in future code updates. Lastly, regulatory agency staff need ongoing education and credible sources of information on energy efficient design strategies in order to make reasonable interpretations when faced with new technologies and practices. Understandably their main concern is avoidance of health and safety risks. Better information can reduce the perception of risk and open the door to energy saving innovations.

Identify Additional Opportunities

In addition to removing regulatory barriers, it is important in developing an EEC Strategy or Energy Plan to think beyond the typical regulatory construct. A number of opportunities exist for communities seeking to implement energy efficiency and conservation measures at both the building-specific and the community-wide scales. Examples of local jurisdictions at the forefront of progressive policies and regulations exist from around the country, serving as models for those just getting started with EEC Strategy planning. Evaluating a community’s existing energy use, identifying the biggest energy users, and defining a benchmark for measuring efficiency and conservation actions serves as an important starting point for future policies and regulations.

Resources:

US Dept. of Energy
Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy Plan www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/pdfs/community_greening.pdf

US EPA
Sustainable Design and Green Building Toolkit for Local Governments www.epa.gov/region4/recycle/green-building-toolkit.pdf

Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute
Sustainable Community Development Code and Reform Initiative: http://law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/sustainable-community-development-code-and-reform-initiative

US EPA
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/essential_fixes.htm

Cascadia Green Building Council
Codes and Regulatory Research Publications
http://cascadiagbc.org/resources/research

Kathleen O'Brien is President of O'Brien & Company, a nationally respected green building consultancy founded in 1991. She is currently Principal-in-Charge for the firms planning, policy and programmatic work (including the Ellensburg project), and has been instrumental in the development of multiple sustainability strategies for government, non-profit, and private sector organizations. She served as an officer on the Cascadia Board of Directors in its early years and has been recognized by the organization as a Cascadia Fellow, a lifetime honorific. She is Editor of Building Capacity Blog.

Katie Spataro is Cascadia’s Research Director for Codes and Standards. Katie’s efforts to assist local governments with identifying obstacles and seeking pathways to support more sustainable development practices has assisted in the creation of policies, programs and code-related curriculum around the region. Katie heads up Cascadia’s Research Department which provides groundbreaking research and technical consulting services to help to further the adoption and understanding of the Living Building Challenge and other high performance policies, programs and standards.

Editors Note:O’Brien & Company and Cascadia Green Building Council are currently working together to develop a EEC Strategy for the City of Ellensburg, Washington, with the assistance of Makers Architecture & Urban Design, Transpo, and The Watershed Company. This work is in conjunction with an update of the Land Use Development Code, led by Makers. More in depth treatment of the topic is in the fall issue of Cascadia Green Building Councils publication, Trim Tab here: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/95a19dea#/95a19dea/1

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Zugunruhe: Advice to Anxious Change Agents
How Communities Support the Use of FSC Certified Wood
Why Must We Reinvent the Wheel When Conducting Collaborative Change Projects?
Interview with City of Shoreline’s Juniper Nammi

Creating Effective Energy Efficiency& Conservation Strategies in Your Community: Getting Started (part 1 of 2)

Creating Effective Energy Efficiency& Conservation Strategies in Your Community: Getting Started

EECS & Strategic Energy Plans: What are they?

Many government municipalities around the country have taken advantage of Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EEC) Strategy Block Grant money authorized by the National Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to fund strategies that reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency in transportation, building, and other sectors as appropriate. For many cities, counties, and states, the funding represents an opportunity to act on commitments to respond to climate change, to identify and capture operational savings now and in the future as a measure of fiscal prudence, and to assist citizens in doing the same.

The Block Grant covers developing and implementing an EEC Strategy, which may include everything from conducting audits, developing financial incentive programs, analyzing and updating codes and enforcement, and implementing public education, among others.  Although the EEC Strategies we’ve seen thus far range in scope and detail, they generally include some form of action or implementation plan. Often this involves project descriptions with budgets and projected results associated with those budgets (such as energy savings, job creation, emissions reductions). The latter justification is used to prioritize and disburse remaining Block Grant monies.

Budgets for implementation can run to the millions. Las Vegas, Nevada’s Implementation Plan  announced in July of 2009 represented a proposed investment of nearly $28 million, including the planning element, and including items such as solar covered parking structures, a solar powered waste water treatment facility, facility and exterior lighting retrofits, financing and incentive programs, upgrading its green building program, and outreach. Charlotte, South Carolina has a more modest budget, roughly $6.5 million. Again, this investment is proposed for a number of different activities, primarily retrofits improving energy efficiency of existing facilities and incorporating renewable technologies. Like several of the EEC Strategies, the Charlotte Strategy proposes that some of this funding be used to staff a position to coordinate implementation.

A couple of good examples of EEC Strategy documents we’ve seen are those developed by Loudon County, Virginia and Topeka, Kansas.

In addition to EEC Strategies, we are also seeing a growing number of “Energy Plans” at the city, county, and state level. Not surprisingly, these are often allied with a concurrent commitment to addressing Climate Change. The City of San Diego’s “Energy Strategy for a Sustainable Future” is a good example of a stand-alone document. Burlington, Vermont’s Energy Plan is a section of the City’s 2006 Municipal Development Plan. King County, Washington, has an Energy Plan that it continues to update as it internalizes ongoing analyses of its operations and transportation energy efficiency measures and impacts.

An outline for an ideal strategic process for developing a community energy plan is provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) in its publication “Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy Plan.” Like most community strategic planning, the DOE outline proposes a stakeholder process, visioning and goal setting exercises, benchmarking existing conditions, identifying programs to fund as well as ways to fund them, prioritizing those programs, and memorializing all of this in a written document, which is then subject to review and ratification.

What’s Right for Your Community?

Embarking on an EEC Strategy will entail a unique process guided by the champions and leaders within your community, and influenced by resources available for the process. Although the Department of Energy process outline (discussed above) should work for most communities, the devil is in the details. It is our experience in community planning that a one-size-fits-all approach will not succeed. Each plan should be tailored to reflect the goals and interest of the stakeholders and be directly related to city and utility planning efforts. Begin by asking three high-level questions: 

• What planning efforts are already in place that would support an EEC Strategy such as comprehensive and code update cycles, greenhouse gas emissions planning, or community master planning?
• Where is the leadership and strongest support for efficiency and conservation within the community: the building and design sector, policy makers, public? 
• What federal, state or county technical assistance and funding is available to assist with strategic energy planning in your community?

Where to next?

Once you've pondered these questions, we anticipate a hunger for more information. Fortunately, resources abound for local governments seeking assistance with strategic energy planning, removing regulatory obstacles, and developing policies and standards in support of energy efficiency and renewables. A few of our favorites follow. In the meantime, good luck! Whether your motivation is operational savings, civic duty, or environmental protection -- or all of the above -- an EEC Strategy is a worthwhile venture. While it is most certainly an opportunity to save energy, it is also an excellent an non-partisan way to build community -- in itself a transformative gesture.

Resources:

US Dept. of Energy
Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy Plan www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/pdfs/community_greening.pdf

US EPA
Sustainable Design and Green Building Toolkit for Local Governments www.epa.gov/region4/recycle/green-building-toolkit.pdf

Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute
Sustainable Community Development Code and Reform Initiative: http://law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/sustainable-community-development-code-and-reform-initiative

US EPA
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/essential_fixes.htm

Cascadia Green Building Council
Codes and Regulatory Research Publications
http://cascadiagbc.org/resources/research

Kathleen O'Brien is President of O'Brien & Company, a nationally respected green building consultancy founded in 1991. She is currently Principal-in-Charge for the firms planning, policy and programmatic work (including the Ellensburg project), and has been instrumental in the development of multiple sustainability strategies for government, non-profit, and private sector organizations. She served as an officer on the Cascadia Board of Directors in its early years and has been recognized by the organization as a Cascadia Fellow, a lifetime honorific. She is Editor of Building Capacity Blog.

Katie Spataro is Cascadia’s Research Director for Codes and Standards. Katie’s efforts to assist local governments with identifying obstacles and seeking pathways to support more sustainable development practices has assisted in the creation of policies, programs and code-related curriculum around the region. Katie heads up Cascadia’s Research Department which provides groundbreaking research and technical consulting services to help to further the adoption and understanding of the Living Building Challenge and other high performance policies, programs and standards.

Editors Note: More in depth treatment of the topic is in the fall issue of Cascadia Green Building Councils publication, Trim Tab here: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/95a19dea#/95a19dea/1  

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Interview with SBCA and Built Green Santa Barbara’s Karin Perissinotto
Washington Business Alliance: A Sustainable Approach
Green Building Public Education: Writing to Make a Difference
How Can We Accelerate the Green Building Movement?

U.S. Coast Guard Leader Builds Sustainable Foundation: Interview with Captain John Hickey

EDITOR: We recently toured the Oahu Sand Island Base where you’ve been Base Commander until recently. We were pretty impressed with the savings you’ve been able to accomplish. What got you started? CAPTAIN HICKEY: I started my Command there in 2007. There were already several mandates in place focused on sustainability – the Energy Policy Act (2005), Executive Order 13423, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At the same time the base had seen some action with an Energy Savings Performance Contract, but it left a lot to be done. I felt it was important as the Commanding Officer of the biggest facility in the Pacific to get something going in-house.

And what was that “something?” We enrolled in Hawaiian Electric Company's Demand Response Program "Energy Scout". (Demand Response Programs, or load control programs are not unique to Hawaii; Captain Hickey has enrolled other CG facilities in such programs in California, Baltimore,  Boston, New Jersey, and Virginia.) With the connected load of our ships, we had more than 1 megawatt of curtailable load that we could disconnect if the grid was in trouble. Our incentive for this participation was over $100,000 a year. We used this money to train our crews in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Then we let them go to work looking for ways for the base to save energy.

What did you find?We found lots of opportunities. For example, by de-lamping and re-lamping exterior fixtures, we reduced our consumption for exterior lighting by 80%. We looked for less obvious things to do as well. We found that in some of our vending machines we were spending $4 on energy for every soda we sold! Easy enough, we got rid of the vending machines. We also began promoting commuting by bike (see bike rack in photo), that helps with reducing our carbon footprint, as well as with the weight issue. Furthermore, we improved our HVAC controls and installed several solar domestic hot water systems.

So you were able to really leverage that $100,000 HECO Incentive.Yes, we needed to be creative with our resources, and we certainly made a lot of headway with the HECO money. We also used interns from the University of Hawaii for some of our analysis. One resource we’ve been taking advantage across the board are the National Laboratories. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), for example, is doing some high performance building training and energy auditing for us; PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory , is helping us with a REM and coordinating with BPA (Bonneville Power Authority); LBL (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) is helping us with our data centers; Oak Ridge National Lab is assisting with compressed air systems, and so forth.

What other opportunities for sustainability have you explored?Well I got my start in the Northeast when the Coast Guard “solar-ized” all our offshore lighthouses. And I’m happy to report that the crew in Hawaii is continuing to take leadership in this regard. Now that I’m stationed in Seattle, I’m focused on how we can maximize sustainability in our projects in the Northwest. As you know, we’re pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings Certification on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Seattle Shore Ops building (see photo). That’s an interesting project, because we have a complicated situation there, both in terms of hours of operation and HVAC equipment, making it a challenge to get the crew up to speed. Turnover is an issue, too. We had someone trained and then they were mobilized to Afghanistan. Frankly, my preference is to use passive, less complicated designs as much as possible; it will make training easier, and won’t matter so much if we have turnover.

What do you think of LEED EB?Actually I like using LEED EB, because it’s a way to get everyone on board. For me, it isn’t just about new construction of green buildings or maintenance of an existing building. It’s about general operations too – for example, environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP), solid waste management, alternative transportation. To use a maritime term, LEED EB makes it an “all hands on deck” situation. LEED EB isn’t difficult; we just have to do it.

What’s next?We’re working on a few things. There’s a pilot program for our training campus in Petaluma starting up later this year that’s going to help us transition from individual buildings to volume LEED-EB certification. I’m very interested in a “fence to fence” approach. And with new construction, we need to focus on getting as many energy points we can get. A LEED Silver rating is the goal, but in some projects there hasn’t been adequate attention to how it’s achieved. We’ll be looking at improving our RFP process so we get what we need.

Are you optimistic?I believe that a lot of our people want to take a sustainable approach; the Coast Guard attracts people who want to do the right thing, and marine environmental protection is a core mission for our organization. We just need to provide the right leadership, opportunity, and power to take the action – and a little creative support, like we did with the HECO incentive and UH Interns. I actually think the bar is set a bit low. We can do this, and it’s more than a nice thing to do. It’s urgent. Our national security depends on energy efficiency and a solid economic base. Sustainability will get us there.

Captain John Hickey, PE is an officer in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Coast Guard, recently transferred from the Oahu Sand Island Base to Seattle. Kelly Kirkland of O’Brien & Companyis managing the LEED-EB: O&M certification of the Shore Operations building in partnership with ECH Architectureand USCG Energy Manager Bob Mallahan.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles:
LEED EB: O+M's Energy Threshold
Balancing Energy Efficient Adaptive Reuse with Historic Preservation
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Today’s Market: Multi-Family Developers Follow the Money
LEED’ing the Contractor’s Bid: What Should It Cost You?