Building Capacity

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?

Part 2: What’s The Story? Developing a Green Building Education Plan - Elizabeth Powers, LEED AP BD+C, CSBA Reports on Developing a Green Building Education Plan

This is Part 2 of a two- part blog. Before you read this blog, please take a moment to skim last week’s article (Part 1).

Now that you’ve got a good storyline for your green building education plan, let’s talk about how to put together an effective presentation and earn credit for it in LEED or other rating systems.

It is fundamental to good storytelling to know your audience. A building’s green building education program should be geared toward the audiences to which the building most directly relates or the groups of people that are most interested in stories about that type of building. There are usually two or three groups to target which will involve using different communication tools with different messages. Let’s look at two examples.

For a university campus academic building, the most direct audience is the faculty that teaches or works in the building and the students that take classes there. Communication tools with this group should be physically linked to working and learning in the building, like building signage, electronic kiosks, and visible sustainable design features. The messages can share what features were built into the building, the benefit of those features, and how they, as building users, can help keep the building green.

Other audiences include alumni and funders, potential students, and the nearby community. Communication with these groups is more likely through electronic media or one-time events like grand openings or potential student tours. The messages for alumni and funders can demonstrate responsible use of funds by reducing operating costs and how building features improve teaching and learning. Potential students (and their parents) are also concerned about costs, but more likely want to hear how green building supports a good education. The environmental stewardship message fundamental to green building will resonate with alumni, funders, students and the community.

For a residential apartment building, the obvious primary audience is building tenants. Good ways to reach this group are electronic kiosks or a display of building features in the lobby, an informational brochure provided on move in, and building newsletters. For prospective tenants, your green building message is a sales tool. You can use signage on sample green features in a leasing center or model unit, create a take-away brochure, and develop a tour script for use when walking prospects around the building. The message for current and prospective tenants is that the building is efficient, helping them save on rent and utilities, and is better for the environment than other apartment buildings. As any building, the education should also enable the tenants to live green in the building by explaining how to use, take care of, or benefit from green features, and providing additional ideas of activities they can engage in on their own. A good example is providing all new tenants a green cleaning kit upon move in that also points out the durable, easy to clean finishes used in the building.

A secondary audience for all buildings is the greater real estate, design, and construction community. This group is the audience most likely to be interested in how many LEED points the project received and how it was done. As this group is often responsible for developing green building education, a lot of what is produced is about the LEED story on the project. This can be a good story on a project, and the role of LEED should not be excluded from the story, but think carefully about what makes this LEED project unique from others and what elements of LEED the targeted audiences care about. A good way to reach out to the building industry audience is web based case studies and tours with local green building organizations. These industry case studies and tours can share detailed lessons learned about green design and construction practices and LEED documentation.

The process of identifying the audiences and communication tools for stories is a natural set-up for putting together a package that will earn a LEED Innovation point, meet the Living Building Challenge education imperative, or earn the Sustainable Sites Initiative credit. Let’s look specifically at the requirements for LEED.

To take advantage of the educational value of the green building features of a project and to earn a LEED point, any approach should be ACTIVELY instructional. Two of the following three elements must be included in the educational program:

• A comprehensive signage program built into the building's spaces to educate the occupants and visitors of the benefits of green buildings. This program may include windows to view energy saving mechanical equipment or signs to call attention to water-conserving landscape features.
• The development of a manual, guideline or case study to inform the design of the buildings based on the successes of this project. This manual will be made available to the USGBC for sharing with other projects.
• An educational outreach program or guided tour that focuses on sustainable living, using the project as an example.

 Following this structure, the first step is to decide if you will do a building signage program. This is probably the most durable and long lasting tool in your communications tool belt and can support a tour program as well. More engaging signage like window or “truth” walls, or electronic kiosks showing energy and water usage make a “signage” program one of the most effective education elements.    
In some cases, a signage program may not  make sense, as with buildings that have a very small audience or limited public access. In that case, a good approach is provide an overview sign next to the LEED plaque in the building lobby or put information from a case study on an electronic kiosk.

   A building case study does make sense for almost all projects, although there may be different versions distributed to different audiences. For the audience most likely to learn about the building on your organization’s website or marketing, use your storylines to organize and write the most effective case study for your that audience. [Example Left – BSCS] For sharing the technical details and lessons learned with the building industry, we recommend completing a project profile in the High Performance Buildings Database. This comprehensive resource is recommended and used by the USGBC and others to produce case studies and stories about green buildings. Its detailed structure is a great way to make sure you collect and organize all the green building information about the project.

The third option for the LEED innovation credit, an educational outreach or tour program, is a good place to leverage what you’ve already done in preparing signage and/case studies to do additional outreach. If you conduct a grand opening or LEED plaque event, distribute hard copies of the case study or make a brochure and do a building tour. Collaborate with local green building or industry organizations to provide another tour or two, or to do case study presentations, and you have the foundations of a educational outreach/tour program.  Round it out with an article in the local media, ongoing green building blurbs in a newsletter, or an annual tour.

The above elements can be combined in ways to best match your building’s purpose and audiences, whether it is hands-on with signage and tours, or more arms length with digital case studies, presentations, and newsletters. Whatever the method, remember that a green building education program is most effective and engaging when it tells a unique story that is compelling and appropriate for the audience(s) you are trying to reach.

Elizabeth Powers is Principal/Owner of O'Brien & Company, a mission-based firm in its 20th year focused on achieving sustainability in the built environment. Powers leads the green building consulting services team and is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity blog. O'Brien & Company publishes the blog as well as a monthly newsletter. For the most current edition of the newsletter, please see www.obrienandco.com/news-and-events/newsletters

Did you enjoy this article? You might also like these Building Capacity Blog Articles:
CSBA Reports on Developing a Green Building Education Plan
SBAi: Introducing the Next Generation of SBA Education & Service
Time to Deal with Your LEED AP Credential
Green Building Jobs in Lousy Market
Do I Need A Green Building Credential?

Can My LEED Boundary Look Like an Octopus? Elizabeth Powers, LEED AP, CSBA Responds

A colleague working on a LEED project recently asked me if it was okay that their LEED project boundary looked like an octopus. My answer: Yes, assuming that the octopus results from following new guidance from USGBC on establishing the LEED boundary for LEED 2009 projects. If the various legs of the octopus are the result of the “discretion” often used by projects certified under previous LEED versions in establishing a boundary, your octopus is probably named Gerry – i.e. gerrymandering, which is now specifically prohibited.

Almost two years into the use of LEED 2009 ratings systems, most of our clients and project teams are still encountering the system for the first time. When discussing the LEED project boundary they often start with questions about including or excluding bits of land to benefit the project. Sorry Charlie, we can’t do that anymore. The Supplemental Guidance to the Minimum Program Requirements, Revision 1 (dated June 1, 2011)  provides comprehensive guidance for establishing a LEED project boundary under Minimum Program Requirement (MPR) #3: Must Use a Reasonable Site Boundary.

Pouring through this guidance, we discovered that there are still some situations where a project team has some discretion, but we’d recommend that decision be based on solid logic that makes the most sense for defining the project boundary, rather than which option gives the most points. Here are two examples where there are often questions about the boundaries.

The most common situation we encounter is land in the public right of way, such as sidewalks and parking strips that are built or rebuilt as part of the project. In one case, the project is voluntarily building a swale in the public right of way that will treat stormwater from other sites (not their site) and a sidewalk that, though public, is necessary to access the site.

Another situation we’ve seen on several projects is shared land for multiple buildings, such as a school campus, a retail development, or a multi-building development on a large city block. In general, we are encouraging these projects to first look at the Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and Campuses. Deciding when and how to use a “campus approach,” as it is often called, is the subject for another blog. If the team has decided to go with a single building certification, then many boundary issues come up around shared infrastructure.

Below is an approach to solving these issues following the new MPR guidance. First, pull out a site plan and three different colored markers, then follow these three steps.

Step 1: Trace all areas that directly support the building, including “hardscape, such as parking and sidewalks, septic treatment equipment, stormwater treatment equipment, and landscaping” as suggested in the MPR guidance, even if they aren’t owned by project owner.

In the first case above, the swale in the public right of way clearly does not support the project, but the sidewalk is a little less clear. Sidewalks are specifically called out as an example of the type of infrastructure considered to directly support a building but in this case, they are public sidewalks used by the community. Bottom line, if you can logically say a feature like a sidewalk directly supports a building, you can include it in the boundary even if owned by someone else.

For campus projects where parking and stormwater infrastructure are often shared, the first question is if they are adjacent to the rest of the project boundary. If so, then most likely you should include, at least, a portion of that infrastructure relative to what the project will use. Parking and stormwater infrastructure on campus but not adjacent to the project can be excluded but still be used to meet the parking and stormwater credits.

On a smaller campus, such as a park, that has only two or three buildings, one of which is in the process of getting LEED Certified, and where supporting land for the LEED Certified building wraps around the other buildings, you should look at the campus approach. A campus certification will make a number of credits available for all the buildings, if they choose to seek LEED certification in the future. If you can draw a boundary around the building seeking LEED certification that divides the supporting infrastructure proportionally, then you can proceed with a single certification.

Step 2: Trace the property boundary.

This is easy in the first example, but a campus like situation may not have clear parcel boundaries underlying the campus boundary. If not, just note any property boundaries near the project with your highlighter.

Step 3: Trace the likely limits of construction work.

This is usually the easiest step. Focus on where land is actually disturbed; you don’t have to include a parking lot where a construction trailer is parked, for example. All land that is disturbed for the purposes of undertaking the LEED project itself and is on your property should be included. Parts of the construction scope on non-owned property may be included but are not absolutely required.

Now look at what you’ve got. Where all three of these areas overlap, you are golden. It’s where they diverge that you focus. We usually make recommendations on which areas to include by focusing on these three phrases from the MPR guidance and creating a consistent approach.

1.  “The LEED project boundary must include all contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project building....’. This includes land altered in any way as a result of the LEED project construction, with exceptions as detailed above, and features enjoyed primarily by the building users, such as:

• hardscape, such as parking and sidewalks
• septic treatment equipment
• stormwater treatment equipment
• landscaping

2.  “Land that the LEED project owner does not own (either leases, has an easement on, or has no claim to) may be included within the LEED project boundary if it can very clearly be shown to support building functions (this includes stormwater management strategies), or is a part of the construction scope. Otherwise, it should be excluded.” and

3. “Often, land is shared with other buildings, extends into large areas of land, or has other attributes such that it is unclear where the project boundary should be drawn. Although many of these situations are addressed in this document, there will always be unique circumstances that cannot be anticipated. In this case, it is the responsibility of the project team to determine a reasonable boundary that meets the intent of LEED and the available guidance as much possible.”

It is best to do this whole process without referencing a scorecard or before scoring the project to assure you are not gerrymandering, which is defined as “unreasonably excluded sections of land to create boundaries in unreasonable shapes for the sole purpose of complying with prerequisites or credits.” To come back to the question that prompted this article, yes octopuses are okay, but not if they are named Gerry.

 

Elizabeth Powers is Principal/Owner of O'Brien & Company, a mission-based firm in its 20th year focused on achieving sustainability in the built environment. Powers leads the green building consulting services team and is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity blog. O'Brien & Company publishes the blog as well as a monthly newsletter. For the most current edition of the newsletter, please see www.obrienandco.com/news-and-events/newsletters

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Interview with City of Shoreline’s Juniper Nammi
Interview with City of Kirkland’s Ellen Miller-Wolfe
Vulcan’s Sustainable Real Estate Initiatives Have Deep Roots
The Next Step in LEEDership

 

Solid Waste Developments - Alistair Jackson, LEED AP Homes, Considers the Options

Every once in a while, there comes a fundamental shift in how we approach things in the green building world. Such a change is happening right now with regard to solid waste management.

Construction waste management was one of the sectors where O’Brien & Company entered the green building world 20 years ago today, helping jurisdictions figure out how to help builders reduce the amount of construction waste going to the landfill. For as long as there have been green building rating systems, there has been a reward for diverting a larger percentage of construction waste from the incinerator or landfill. Whether by donation for reuse or by recycling into another product, keeping waste out of the landfill has been seen as a good thing. The co-mingled and source-separated recycling industry that has resulted has developed very efficient systems for  separating and tracking materials and has dramatically reduced the amount of construction waste going to the landfill as trash. A huge success, right?

Over time, however, our conscience has begun to ache as we have come to understand that most recycling is really down-cycling and, more recently, that much of what we claim is recycled actually ends up, yes, in a landfill. It may be as alternate daily cover (ADC) or Industrial Waste Stabilizer (IWS), or it may get burned as a Wood Derived Fuel (WDF), but its landing place is still often times a landfill. For waste receivers, this has meant that they need to document and report the ultimate disposition of their diverted recycling streams.

The latest wrinkle in this evolution has been a LEED for Homes’ v2008 update that requires that the estimation and documentation of diversion must relate to the specific loads coming from an individual project, not from a receiver’s monthly average diversion reports. Some receivers (such as Allied Waste and CDL) tip each load onto a sorting floor to separate recyclable material, making this an easy task. Alternately, some of the larger receivers (such as Recovery One) have sophisticated continuous flow sorting systems. Inbound loads are tipped into hoppers that feed sorting belts, making it impossible to differentiate one load from another. In pursuit of greater efficiency and lower cost of service, we have lost access to one aspect of transparency. Two projects delivering to such a facility during the same month can achieve very different proportions of recyclable vs. non-recyclable waste, yet will get the same diversion results (and so the same LEED points, by extension). Do we want efficiency or transparency?

And what of the real goal? Are we trying to reduce waste to the landfill? Or are we trying to reduce the amount of high value material we consume without generating value from it? At our roots, the prioritization of the old adage, “Reduce Reuse Recycle” rings true. Is it really sound practice to generate larger than average volumes of waste as long as we can claim it is being recycled? At O’Brien & Company, we don’t think so.

The real goal is to reduce the amount of waste that is created . . . period! Unfortunately, it has been difficult to develop fair, dependable ways to do that – after all, how do you measure what you don’t buy, use, or throw away?

LEED for Homes was one of the first rating systems to offer a metric and reward for waste reduction – offering an optional credit for reductions in waste generated per square foot of construction, below a baseline derived from NAHB’s national average statistics. For projects run by teams with good resource conservation practices and those located in areas with poor recycling infrastructure, this option has been a boon. A focus on eliminating waste from the jobsite results in less material being purchased and handled, less space taken up for staging, and less time and cost associated with removing it from the site to its ultimate destination whether it be landfill or as raw materials inbound to some manufacturing facility.

At a time when construction process efficiency has become an essential part of survival, it would seem that a shift from measuring what we throw away to measuring what we don’t buy would be a big winner. In reality, however, there are structural and systemic challenges to making the shift from waste diversion to waste avoidance. Now, with the tide running in our favor, is the time to address them.

In the next blog on this topic, we’ll be talking about real world examples of the steps builders have taken to help this transition, both within their own operations and in association with their building business partners. Look out for it!

Alistair Jackson, LEED AP, CSBA is Principal in Charge of O’Brien & Company’s Residential Technical Services, and is a LEED for Homes, Energy Star and Built Green Verifier, LEED for Homes Faculty and ARCSA certified Rainwater Harvesting designer. Alistair is a frequent contributor to the Building Capacity Blog and was also a major contributor to the Northwest Green Home Primer.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles:
Regulation & LEED Reinforce Waste Prevention and Source Separated Recycling
How Can Communities Accelerate Change Towards Green Building?

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?

LEED Silver Building Stands as Beacon of Hope for Agency with Long Legacy of Fighting Poverty: Interview with Larry Eyre

Kitsap Community Resources (KCR) achieved a long-held dream in 2007 when it opened the Bremerton Community Services Center (CSC). Since its founding in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty, this was the first time KCR was operating out of a building it had designed and constructed. It was also the first building to achieve LEED Certification in Bremerton. As KCR’s Executive Director, can you share with our readers why your agency was willing to invest time, energy, and money in a green building? EYRE: It goes back to our mission, which is "providing hope and opportunity for low-income Kitsap County residents with resources that develop self-sufficiency." Since 1965, when our agency was created as part of the War on Poverty effort, we have been providing services to low-income individuals and families. Our goal is not just to provide emergency assistance, but to put our clients on the path to financial independence. The services we are now providing from the Bremerton CSC had been provided in four scattered rental locations. It seems fitting that we have built our own building, and that this building is built sustainably. We are so much better off financially.

It's got to be better owning rather than renting. How about savings directly related to the new green building features? It's fair to say we are saving about 40% a year on utilities with the new scenario. And this is with 10% more square footage than we had when we were renting four buildings.

Any other reasons for building green? Well the other half of our mission is providing "hope". Having a new LEED Silver building in downtown Bremerton is a very visible symbol of hope. We feel it has contributed to the revitalization of the Bremerton's downtown. And because the LEED concept was still novel in our area, we were able to obtain funding as a "pilot" -- this helped with the cost of documentation and certification. The project has brought the organization additional recognition. We won the Kitsap County 2008 Earth Day Award, and enjoyed good press about the project.

Any particular challenges with the project? Well it's hard to believe now, but construction was booming at the time, and the cost of construction was escalating tremendously -- up 20% during the year of construction. So we had a budget gap. Our funding partners, including Senator Patty Murray, came through for us, though, and we were able to complete the project. The project's goals were considered significant enough for this boost, and we appreciate that.

Are you happy with the building? We are delighted with it. Of course we're in a building designed for the services we provide, so it is much more functional. But the green emphasis on natural light, operable windows, and low VOC finishes, is making for a much better and healthier working environment. We're also really proud of the fact that we were able to purchase la high proportion of local materials for both building and furnishings. We're lucky to have Watson Furniture here, their manufacturing process is very green and they supplied all our furniture. Our plantings are local too, which saves us on watering and upkeep.

Looking ahead now, we're working with you on a new project that combines a community services center with eight units of affordable housing: What lessons are you hoping to apply here? Well we feel that the Bremerton building turned out pretty well. But we are more experienced. And the conditions are different. In this case we have a more natural, less urban site. We're going to take advantage of the fact that there are trees and we're going to look at on-site rainwater collection. There were a couple of things we didn't do on the Bremerton building we'd like to look at again here. In that building we ended up with a less advanced HVAC system than originally designed; a clerestory with operable windows was also value engineered out. It would be nice to see how those items would work in the new community services center. And we'd like to find a better-wearing low-VOC paint. The one we used isn't doing as well as we'd hoped. Even so, there was a lot we like about our Bremerton building and we plan to reproduce most of that in this new building.

      Based on your experience, what would you tell other community action agencies considering  capital improvement projects? I would certainly suggest they give serious consideration to sustainability early on. At this point (in Washington), if you are using state funds, you will be expected to certify your project with a LEED-Silver rating. To be successful you need to build in sustainable features as a practical matter. It's worth the extra effort because your clients, your employees (often former clients) will appreciate the investment you are making on their behalf. We have found it is more attractive for funders, also, so make sure it's part of the story you tell. With our Bremerton building, we used the project's sustainability goals to mandate no smoking on the premises, rather than just meeting the rule of law (25 ft. from entrance). Because of the extra hassle, several employees have quit. This is just one example of a positive outcome we can share with potential funders.

Also look for green features that have funding attached to them, such as alternative energy. This can help cover first cost premiums. Frankly, the more commonly these features are used, the lower the relative cost is going to be. Long term savings can also justify some expenditure. For a community service organization, it isn't just about the money, although it can certainly feel that way when dealing with the budget. For our part, it is very important that we are doing our part for the larger community by doing the right thing, and owning and operating sustainable facilities is a part of that.

Larry Eyre has served as Executive Director of Kitsap Community Resources (KCR) since 1979. KCR administers programs and services to meet the specific needs of Kitsap County’s low-income populations. KCR currently employs approximately 180 full-time employees and 80 part-time employees and is one of 31 Community Action Agencies in the state of Washington. Kathleen O'Brien, President of O'Brien & Company, and Editor of Building Capacity Blog conducted this interview. O'Brien & Company acted as the sustainability consultant on the Bremerton Community Services Center, which was designed by Rice Fergus Miller Architecture and Planning, and constructed by the Rafn Company.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Sound Mental Health's LEED Platinum Housing Project
Interview with LINC’s Maria Elena Marquez-Brookes
Interview with Eco-Logica Magazine’s Stuart Vazquez
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Interview with King County Green Tool’s Patti Southard
Interview with City of Kirkland’s Ellen Miller-Wolfe

Visionary Built Green Program: Santa Barbara's Gateway for Green Building. Interview with Executive Director Karin Perissinotto

Editor: O’Brien & Company has had the privilege of working with the Santa Barbara Contractors Association since 2004 to develop and provide strategic support for your Built Green certification program. Can you share with our readers what you were hoping to accomplish with Built Green? KARIN: Our vision when we began Built Green was to become a “gateway” for environmentally sound design, construction, and development practices in Santa Barbara and nearby communities. We feel strongly that we have achieved this vision. Over 100 projects have been certified in our program to date – mostly remodels, since our primary focus at first was in the City of Santa Barbara, which is pretty built out. With our expansion out into the County, we expect a big spike in certifications for new construction. Most of the 400 homes destroyed by the Montecito Fire are being reconstructed as Built Green.

In addition to getting green buildings on the ground, our program has been a magnet for individuals and organizations active in the green building scene or interested in being so. In addition to attracting more contractors, our membership has become more diverse, with designers, suppliers, and non-profits. We have solar companies, greywater and rainwater system suppliers, energy raters, green material suppliers on board now. As a result, we are a much better resource to the community, as well as to our members. And we’ve doubled our membership, so we are more stable, even in this economic downturn.

What are you especially proud of? Well, I’m proud that as an organization we recognized our role in creating the built environment (for good or bad) and decided to put our money where our mouth is. A few of us heard Ed Mazria speak on Architecture 2030 and we took the message back to our membership. We decided to be leaders in our community, rather than reactors.

One thing that is unique among green building program development is that your association kicked off the effort with a fairly large financial commitment from its own general fund. That’s unique? Well it just seemed like we should do it. Besides getting the connection between what we build and the impact on the environment, we felt we would be the best ones to identify how to do it better. We also understood that regulators were going to get involved. We wanted to be at the table for those discussions.

How do you think having Built Green has changed those discussions? In a couple of very important ways. First, we’ve been able to offer a voluntary option in the market that is credible. Builders know what can actually be built. Our Built Green Program is recognized and respected by local jurisdictions (our entire checklist is available on the City of Santa Barbara's website) and is actually being used by them to “spur” green building and raise the bar. We’re not very interested in just adhering to minimal green building codes. We want to do better. Second, we’ve been able to change the focus of green building in our area from a “boutique” high-end industry to something that’s deliverable and attainable for all. At the end of the day, if only a wealthy few can afford green building, we really haven’t solved the problem.

You use the word “credible” to describe your program. Critics of industry-based voluntary green building programs may question that. We get that. We are lucky in that we have a very dedicated and innovative leadership AND we have our eyes and ears open to possible green-washing. Builders tend (and need) to do what works, what's sellable, but green building practices and materials are evolving. What I thought was green five years ago isn’t really green today. We need a critical eye to determine if we are still delivering what people need. One of the ways we maintain that critical eye is by having a commitment to listening and learning from a broad base of people, both the green building skeptics and the environmentalists. Our Advisory Council helps us keep on track. We also work alongside organizations that we’ve noticed in other areas tend to compete with programs like ours. For example, we have a very close relationship with the California Central Coast Chapter (C4) of the U.S. Green Building Council Chapter. We're actually  invited to testify at the City's Council meetings on all things green building. This is a good thing.

Last year you were able to create your own Built Green Resource Center by remodeling a historic building. How did you manage that? It was a bit of magic, mixed with old-fashioned sweat. We were looking at having our own office, and fell into this opportunity to work with the Santa Barbara Trust for Preservation to remodel a building owned by the California State Park System (in the Santa Barbara Presidio). It was in pretty poor condition, and now it really is a “jewel” with green features. We were able to get permission to put solar on the roof – no small feat in Santa Barbara. Besides creating a legacy in the community, this project proves that green building isn’t just about brand new, modern buildings.

So surely the Resource Center is a big part of achieving your vision? Yes, the building is our gateway, serving as center of education, inspiration, and action. The building’s product exhibits and green features, along with the green building classes we’ve held there, contribute exponentially to the community’s awareness as well as to our industry’s knowledge base. We’ve hosted over 100 classes this past year; along with basic business-management programs, we’ve run classes on weatherization, the building envelope, greywater systems and the like. Students from local schools visit the Center and conduct learning projects. This past year we had a high school class crunching data for us on energy and water usage, and a middle school comparing CFLs vs. Incandescent energy consumption. It’s pretty exciting. One thing we’ve noticed too, with the downturn, is that having centralized resources and information helps businesses on a shoe-string. They don’t necessarily have the resources to do the research on green building materials themselves. So they can come and touch and sniff.

Meanwhile, green building organizations, such as C4 and the Architecture 2030 Committee use our classroom for meetings. This is very different. From being a contractor-centric organization, we have turned outward to become a community resource.

What's next on the agenda? We’d like to ramp up our educational program even further. We met with our Advisory Council this past July and one of things we identified in that meeting was the opportunity to do hands-on training and training in specific green building skills. We also looked at developing green job opportunities, so perhaps connecting skills-based training of un- or under-employed individuals to job placement with members.

Anything else? We also want to continue our work to raise the bar for green building standards, by working with our jurisdictions to avoid focusing on code minimums and keep the focus on incentivizing more rigorous practice. To do this we’re going to have to provide some cost-benefit numbers, so we’re looking at that, as well as providing exemplary examples. We proved that Built Green works on an historic remodel. We’d like to look at other applications – perhaps affordable housing.

What would you say to other groups hoping to do similar work? Get the right people in the room, not just the choir. You need to hear from all angles to be an effective community resource. Also, hire professionals that don’t just tell you what you already know or what they think you want to hear. A good consultant should provide a critical eye, sees both sides, and is not afraid to say how it is. Like you (laughing). (Editor's Note: Thanks!) The other thing is to actually take the time to celebrate your successes. Sometimes it’s hard to recognize when you’ve done something monumental, because you get caught up in getting it done. If you're like us, we're "doers." But we learned we had to get better at telling our story.

Karin Perissinotto is the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara Contractor's Association (SBCA), and the President of the Board of Directors for Built Green Santa Barbara, a 501(c)3 founded in 2004 by the SBCA. This interview was conducted by Kathleen O'Brien, Editor of the Building Capacity Blog and President and Founder of O'Brien & Company. Santa Barbara is one of over a dozen Built Green programs the firm has helped develop or provided assistance to.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Today’s Market: Multi-Family Developers Follow the Money
Green Building Public Education: Writing to Make a Difference
Interview with BIA-Hawaii’s Karen Nakamura
SBAi: Introducing the Next Generation of SBA Education & Service

How can COMMUNITIES accelerate change towards green building? Kathleen O'Brien, LEED AP, CSBA responds.

When serving on a panel for the Living Future Conference last spring, an audience member, noticeably distressed, asked: “How can we move towards sustainability faster? We don’t have time to waste!” Last week, I responded to this question in terms of what an individual can do. As promised, this week, the post focuses on what our communities can do.

Many within the environmental sector respond to environmental problems with: “There oughta be a law.” This is certainly an appropriate response when the desire is for "minimum compliance." With green building we want and need much more than the minimum. We want creative, integrated, and restorative solutions that move towards the ideal of sustainability. In my experience, that requires an approach that allows the interplay of private and public sector partnerships that build market, identifies solutions, and moves us ever forward.

The first step of this approach -- and one that continues to reward -- is education. Government agencies have provided free and low-cost education on environmental issues since the ‘70s, when the EPA and the DOE were formed. Local agencies -- cities, counties, and states -- have followed suit.

Much of the initial education was focused on obtaining industry compliance with (as well as public awareness of) regulations administered by these agencies. Over time, the educational approach has shifted to promoting going beyond code or law, as regulators discovered that the law had quickly become the ceiling rather than the floor -- an unintended consequence.

In the early '90s, when these agencies began to offer education on green building solutions, they realized it would require the cooperation of the design and construction industry -- both in terms of building the market for these solutions as well as building the capacity to respond to this demand. Not everyone understood this, of course. When I was publicizing "Building with Value" in 1993 -- the first green building conference aimed at contractors in the Northwest, I was asked: "Why are you doing this? We'll just tell the builders what to do, and they'll do it!" Fortunately, many regional organizations, both government and non-profit, DID understand the value, and provided enough funding to cover the costs of this conference, helping to set the stage for a vital green building movement in the Northwest.

As time went on, these organizations joined with the design and construction industry to create more and more learning opportunities for professionals and the public, including workshops, demonstration projects, fact sheets, brochures, videos, websites, and more. And now, the educational pathways are robust and diverse. In addition to finding high quality educational resources through the U.S. Green Building Council as you would expect, you can find them through industry groups, such as the AGC, AIA, ASHRAE, or NAHB at the national and local levels. Government entities (EPA and DOE) are still doing good work at the national level; a great example of a local jurisdictional effort is the King County GreenTools Program. And public/private education efforts continue to produce demonstration homes around the country. A must-see example in our backyard is the ZHome townhome project (link) under construction in Issaquah, Washington, which aspires to net-zero energy and carbon emissions, 60% reduction in water consumption, and the use of healthy, green materials. There is no doubt in my mind that the level and quality of educational investment correlates directly with the level of awareness and acceptance of green building principles and practices.

The next step that forward-thinking government agencies have taken is to incentivize green building. This strategy makes doing the right thing "convenient." An example of this is when municipalities provide grants, fee-bates, density bonuses, or streamlined approval process in return for exemplary implementation of green building techniques or standards. Jurisdictions around the country have used this technique to move awareness and acceptance forward to action. It is essential that the incentives are designed to be meaningful. For example, expedited permitting may be an incentive in a hot building market, but not in today’s cool one. Early adopters have been willing to assume more risk and have required less incentive to act. For most of the industry, however, and particularly now when the stakes are so high, aggressive incentives will be needed to offset the risk (even if merely perceived) to provide the comfort level required to spur action.

Another important aspect of designing effective incentives is to focus on performance, rather than prescription. In this way, projects that use the incentives are much more likely to produce the results you are looking for, as well as inspire innovation that can transform building across the board.

Making the wrong thing" inconvenient" to do is the natural next step (and often skipped to my dismay). For example, policy that makes it more expensive to permit a building because it lacks green features or certification or is “super-sized” can be particularly valuable in raising awareness, gaining acceptance, and motivating action. The Washington State Energy Code 2009 (currently suspended but expected to go into effect sometime next year) discourages “McMansions” by requiring additional energy efficiency measures for projects over 5,000 square feet. Other jurisdictions around the country have added requirements or fees to buildings that exceed size limitations or fail to include a particular green feature. (The fees are often used to fund energy efficiency or renewable energy projects.)

Although eager beavers among us would like to do it first…the very last step should be “Just tell 'em what to do.” And even with this step, there is an order to it – apply the mandate inward (to public sector buildings) first, and then outward (to private sector buildings). In the first step, public money is invested to help redirect the economy by creating demand for new products and services – a time-honored practice. It makes a poor case, to say the least, if government representatives are not willing to take the same risk they are asking the private sector to take! Fortunately, we have many examples of jurisdictions that are willing to hold themselves accountable in this way.

If you wait until the market has done all the work it can before crafting and implementing codes, you’ll have already won over most of your constituency. You’ll avoid quashing innovation that provides broad-based benefit. And you’ll avoid the unfortunate circumstance of obsolescing incentives before they've been optimized. Many are unaware that the minute an energy efficiency measure becomes code, utilities can no longer justify grants or rebates for this measure. We have seen this in Hawaii with solar hot water, and I anticipate we will see this in Washington State where performance testing, now promoted by utilities through incentive programs, will become required with the new code.

If you take this incremental approach, you've maximized the joy, and minimized the pain. No one is suggesting this approach shouldn’t be accelerated given the realities we face, nor that there isn’t a place for thoughtfully designed green building legislation. The effort, however, should recognize how people and organizations really change. In addition, regulators need to understand that the building sector is incredibly diverse. Readiness for green building implementation varies significantly with the building sector you are targeting, whether it is residential, commercial, or infrastructure, and varies even further depending on project types within these sectors. And geography matters -- urban locations may be better suited to aggressive change, rural locations maybe not. I prefer regulations that recognize the need to phase change in, allowing the regulatory process to incorporate lessons learned. An example of the latter was the implementation of the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol we helped develop, where the State Legislature funded pilots first, voluntary participation second, and then applied a mandate (which itself was phased in based on school district size). Even this phased approach was challenging for school districts, but I believe it was much better than an approach aimed at "instant change." (In the land of coffee drinkers, try suggesting that instant coffee is equivalent to that double shot soy latte!)

Communities inspired to become change agents should be constantly vigilant in recognizing where their constituents are relative to the desired change (are they in awareness, acceptance, and/or action?) and provide them with the information, motivation, and tools they need to feel confident as they move along this spectrum of change.

Kathleen O’Brien is Editor of Building Capacity Blog and President of O’Brien & Company, which she founded nearly 20 years ago. She is author of The Northwest Green Home Primer and has consulted on many public and public/private projects aimed at getting green buildings on the ground.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
How Can We Accelerate the Green Building Movement?
Interview with Eco-Logica Magazine’s Stuart Vazquez
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Interview with City of Kirkland’s Ellen Miller-Wolfe
Interview with King County Green Tool’s Patti Southard
Woonerf Completes a Street