Building Capacity

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

LEED, the Living Building Challenge, the Sustainable Sites Initiative and other rating systems offer opportunities to earn credit for, or require, the development of a green building education plan. The intent of the credits is to inspire and educate others by sharing the feasibility and benefits of green building. Too often however, the materials produced to meet the letter of the requirements are just a litany of LEED credits or building features, without drawing any lessons or meaning from the accomplishments. Whether a project is doing green building education for credit or out of a desire to pass on lessons learned, and whether the program will be big and splashy, or simple and low-tech, it is worth taking moment to craft an effective and compelling education plan for your project. Not only will this actually accomplish the intent of the rating system requirements, it yields better results in getting press coverage, marketing your project, developing community support, fundraising and even gaining support from building occupants and users in keeping your building green.

The foundation of such a plan is a good story. Every project has unique characteristics, challenges, and accomplishments that can teach others important lessons about green building. O’Brien & Company has found that project teams often need a little guidance in finding the heart of their story and understanding the lessons of the project.

This article talks about developing a good story. Next week, the blog will address developing content and deciding on the types of educational media to use.

When tasked with developing a green building education plan, don’t start by looking at the LEED scorecard, instead, go back to the origins of the project. Pull out the eco-charrette report, owner’s project requirements (OPR), or other documents that defined the vision and goals for the project. Reflect back – what were you trying to accomplish on this project and how did it play out?

Try writing down the three most significant challenges or accomplishments of the project as the story lines. Ask yourself and your team - When did the project get stuck on accomplishing the goals, and how did you get beyond it? What green approach failed on the project and what did you learn from it? What will you always remember about this project? What green feature will you definitely incorporate on your next project? What are you most proud of when you drive by the completed project? You could do this with the project team and stakeholders as charrette-style brainstorming exercise and see what themes emerge. Then you can pull out the LEED scorecard as another lens to think about the unique story of your project.

The best stories may not be individual building features, but human stories that resulted from the project. Here are some examples of stories that still stand out for me from one of our earliest LEED projects, Merrill Hall by the Miller Hull Partnership. This project accomplished the following:

• A diverse community of stakeholders came together to seek alternative funding and enable the Center for Urban Horticulture to rise from the ashes of a fire (literally) and create a building that exemplified their mission of stewardship.
• The project inspired a student group to lobby for green building standards campus-wide, leading to adoption of a LEED requirement for capital projects.
• The design opened the space to the surrounding natural environment and created a great outdoor living room for more collaboration and education.

Do you feel your project is more boring than this? Think it won’t lead to wholesale change like Merrill Hall? Maybe, but there is still something to be learned. Here are some of the fun stories from the more mundane projects we’ve worked.

• A contractor figured out how to collect rainwater from a nearby hillside to pressure test waste water tanks at a waste water treatment plant instead of using large quantities of municipal water which saved resources and a lot of money.
• An industrial park building put in bike racks and shower and restrooms for tenants (something tenants usually have to build themselves) to earn LEED points, one of several LEED features that attracted tenants and caused the park to lease out quickly.
• An office building renovation of a 1960’s building earned LEED Gold after starting out with a stretch goal of LEED Silver.

The message from these examples is that your project is unique, has a story to share, and people can learn from every green building. Tune in next week for discussion on how to turn these stories into a “credit-worthy” green building education plan.

 

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 Part 2 
Do I Need A Green Building Credential?
SBAi: Introducing the Next Generation of SBA Education & Service
Green Building Jobs in Lousy Market
Time to Deal with Your LEED AP 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

 

"Extreme" Collaboration: Crossing boundaries to achieve sustainable goals mark these initiatives

A number of sustainability initiatives in the Northwest illustrate the power of "extreme" collaboration. Initiated through the research of a PhD student studying the climate change mitigation efforts of jurisdictions within King County, the Cities Climate Collaboration gained momentum through staff members enthused by the idea of learning about and from neighboring cities’ efforts. These champions formed the basis of what has grown into a steering committee, comprised of city and county staff and partner organization representatives.

King County showed early support to the effort, and wrapped planning efforts together with ongoing initiatives, such as the Sustainable Cities Roundtable (now in its third year) and Green Tools. The Collaboration was formally launched on June 9th at a special event Roundtable, where King County Executive Dow Constantine (shown in photo) officially pledged support as a signatory along with several other Mayors. Six mayors have now signed the pledge.

As signatories to the Pledge, King County cities will partner on climate change outreach, coordination of standards, strategies and goals, climate mitigation solutions, and -- sealing the deal as an action-oriented effort – funding commitments for shared resources.  The Collaboration is unique in that the group is grounded in local efforts, experience, and action, but tethered by common higher level commitments such as the US Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, and ICLEI membership.

Another noteworthy collaborative model that has emerged includes the City of Seattle’s 2030 District – a public-private partnership effort of property owners, managers, design professionals and City of Seattle to create the nation’s first High Performance Building District. In this case, it’s an effort largely driven by a committed private sector group who in other respects might be seen as competitors – each working to maximize energy savings to their best ability in order to achieve an aggregate energy savings across the entire portfolio of properties within the district. After incubating for a year, 2030 District officially launches this week. Its visionaries hope to become a replicable model for similar collaborations in other cities.

Finally, at a national scale the Emerald Cities Collaborative (EEC) leverages the expertise, assets and skills of the public and private sector to create clean economy cities. Seattle and Portland are two of several early municipal partners who have signed on to the EEC. The EEC is a national non-profit based in Washington, DC that pools the resources of 21 national partners – organizations targeting green economies, the environment and community development – along with local partners such as non-profits, labor and industry groups, workforce development, and training centers, and city signatories to forge energy efficiency and sustainable development solutions at the local level. 

Working together towards a common goal is not unusual. What is unique about these initiatives is the willingness to cross economic, political, and social boundaries that have hitherto seemed uncrossable, making their efforts much more robust, and more ambitious goals attainable. As the father of evolution Charles Darwin said, “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”

Andrea Lewis, CSBA, LEED AP ID+C is Senior Project Associate at O’Brien & Company. She has provided assistance to King County’s Green Tools and Sustainable Cities Roundtables initiatives since 2009 and is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity Blog. King County Photo by Ned Ahrens.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Type of Construction for Passive House System
Interview with City of Kirkland’s Ellen Miller-Wolfe
Interview with Schacht Aslani Architects’ Walter Schacht
How Can Communities Accelerate Change Towards Green Building?

Come Rain/Shine: Envisioning a net-zero water future

I arrived at Cascadia's recent all day Come Rain/Shine workshop thirsty for a deeper dialogue about water issues, obstacles to change, and solutions that make sense for Washington. Being a sustainability consultant, I’m well aware of the smart and simple steps –like low-flow fixtures, rain gardens, and bioswales – that we can do on every project to reduce water consumption and restore our ecosystem. I was looking for the giant leaps needed to achieve a net-zero water future. Happily, Come Rain/Shine quenched my thirst.

Living in Seattle, especially after experiencing an “extra wet” winter and spring, it is easy to take water for granted or even begrudge it. The fact is that all water is precious. Whether living in a region of abundant water like Seattle or a place where water is scarce like the high desert east of Cascade Mountains, all water is vulnerable to the same threats of climate change, deforestation, over development, pollution, and unsustainable water use behaviors. What better test bed for creating new ways to support healthy and resilient water systems than the State of Washington? This state’s extreme range of wet and dry climates presents unique challenges and opportunities to innovate. Like other innovations spawned in Washington, these solutions can be exported to wet and dry climates around the world.

A Call To Action: The Replacement Era

Early in the day, Steve Moddemeyer, Collins Woerman, pointed to the root cause of our water crisis saying, “Water connects all life, yet we disintegrate water into silos – potable water, rain water, storm water, gray water, and waste water.” Our decaying water infrastructure model is based on a time when energy was cheap and resources were plentiful. We focus on building “reliable” systems in an increasingly uncertain world. Yet, we have entered a time that compels us to change -- and perhaps be more agile than predictable. The Pacific Northwest region has the capacity to navigate and define this change with pragmatism and good-natured idealism.

Design alone won’t save us. The Bullitt Foundation's Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design & Construction, Seattle, is designed to meet the Living Building Challenge, but it won’t be able to treat its black water on site until the City’s health code allows it.

As great as new technology is, it is not the complete or only answer, either. As Katie Spataro, Cascadia Green Building Council, revealed through her research on alternative waste water treatment strategies (Toward Net Zero Water: Best Management Practices for Decentralized Sourcing and Treatment), when comparing the life cycle analysis of a natural system versus an engineered bio-membrane reactor, Mother nature wins again!

We can not overlook the important role of governance in moving us toward a more resilient environment. Chuck Clark, Cascade Water Alliance, stressed the need to look at a full-cost pricing of water systems (with price based on environment, economic, and social values). Full-cost pricing can lead to policy changes that in turn support design changes. In Washington, we allow net metering for solar energy. How about net metering for onsite water reuse?

Probably the most important key to solving this puzzle is our behavior. We need a willingness to experiment, collaborate, and advocate. Come Rain/Shine was a great forum to foster this spirit among a diverse group of elected leaders, public utilities representatives, designers, developers, and members from the non-profit sector and academia.

The Slam

Katrina Morgan, Fermata Consulting, introduced “the slam,” a brainstorming session on steroids – fast and concentrated. Teams worked on scenarios of differing scales from urban to small city to rural communities with the common goal of envisioning healthy, resilient water systems. There were only a few rules of engagement. The most important was to leave your day job at the door, represent yourself -not your organization. Nametags intentionally left company names off to reinforce this notion. Slam teams explored solutions from the multiple perspectives of design, technology, policy, and behavior.

I facilitated a slam session for a hypothetical new eco-city just east of the Cascade Mountains. Here, rainfall is less than eight inches per year. Although this is a dry and arid city, it sits along an 18-mile long lake. The city has access to a major highway. Our assignment was to invent an eco-city that protects the existing natural ecosystem while creating a healthy mix of industry, residences, and tourism.

We named our community “WOW” for “wise on water”. WOW offers an out-of-the ordinary experience from the moment you leave your car about a ¼ mile away from town at the “exchange and recharge” station. Here, you can plug your electric vehicle into solar powered charging stations and bike or walk into town. The city is compact and walkable with dozens of restaurants featuring local produce, artist studios, boutique hotels, urban farms, year-round residents, and a center for sustainable agriculture.

Scarcity of water drives design, technology, policy, and behavior in this community. Sewage is not conveyed with water. Instead, WOW uses composting toilets and the public utility picks up bio-solids. Waste water and stormwater are treated in beautiful constructed wetlands by the lakeside.There are no individual bathtubs, just stand-up showers with ultra low flow showerheads. But here’s the perk, WOW has a public bathhouse that is free and luxurious.

Organic farming happens within the town center instead of outside of it. This shift from large scale monoculture crops for national distribution to diverse crops for local sales supports a healthy ecosystem and creates an economic draw for WOW. This is a destination for all who want to unplug and enjoy the simple things of life.

The “New” Normal

Current water use is simple and wasteful. Net-zero water use, on the other hand, requires a complex approach--imitating nature’s water cycle--where potable water is sourced from many places, use, reused, cleansed and returned to nature. We won’t get there alone. Nor will we arrive there using a one-size fits all approach. Arrival requires a toolbox filled with design, technology, policy, and behavioral change tools, and individuals qualified and willing to use those tools creatively and appropriately for climate and cultural conditions.

Nora Daley-Peng, AICP, ASLA, CSBA, LEED AP is a Senior Project Associate with O'Brien & Company, providing project management and planning for green building projects. She is a regular contributor to the Building Capacity Blog, and recently participated in a committee reviewing the IP ANSI Standard organized by Vulcan Real Estate. Photo Credits: Miller Hull Partnership (Bullitt Rendering), Buster Simpson (Slam Exercise)

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Capacity Building Tool for Planners to Achieve Net Zero Water Buildings & Neighborhoods
Living Building Results from a Living Vision
Living Future 2011
Living Building Challenge: Bertschi School’s New Science Wing

Capacity Building Tool for Planners hoping to achieve Net Zero Water Buildings and Neighborhoods Marks World Water Day

Although the energy crisis has long held our attention in the green building world, the global water crisis urgently needs our attention. That’s because we can do a lot to reduce the consumption of water, and in particular, potable water, in the way we design our buildings and neighborhoods. To celebrate World Water Day, and its 2011 focus on urban water systems, our friends at the Cascadia Green Building Council (CGBC) have released “Toward Net Zero Water: Best Management Practices for Decentralized Sourcing and Treatment.”

The authors, Katie Spataro and Joel Sisolak, Cascadia’s Research Director and Advocacy and Outreach Director, respectively, have produced what I predict will be a significant capacity building tool for communities hoping to achieve net zero water at the building and neighborhood scale. The report contains an overview of best practices and technologies for decentralized and distributed water systems, with special focus placed on rainwater harvesting, greywater reclamation and reuse, and on-site wastewater treatment for reuse – the systems that face the highest hurdles when it comes to permitting them. (Presumably it is for this reason the manual does not address on-site stormwater management systems and fixture efficiencies, both of which do contribute to net zero water schemes, but also enjoy greater regulatory acceptance in the past few years. There are also plenty of resources out there  on these topics, including one O'Brien & Company helped develop: “The Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual  for Kitsap County".)

Each BMP chapter describes major system components, how the systems work, and background on appropriate scale and efficiency. Design considerations are provided for system sizing, location, and integration with other building systems. And, because case studies can be very compelling, there are several demonstrating the best practices covered. The manual is more of a planning tool then a design tool; for each system, resources are provided to find more in-depth technical details.

Katie and Joel have done their homework and made it easy for us. Though there is a tremendous amount of information on these systems out there, it isn’t easy to access in a methodical, efficient manner. They’ve sifted through it all, gleaned the credible data, and organized it in a way that is useful. No fear, this is not a “cheerleading” document, but you also don’t have to be an engineer to “get it.”

The Living Building Challenge’s net zero water imperative requires “closed-loop” water systems, and that is the focus of the manual. Mark Buehrer, of 2020 Engineering, and a peer reviewer for the study has long held that closed-loop water designs are “critical for net zero water buildings.” I concur. Similar to the low impact development approach to stormwater, decentralized on-site closed-water systems can mimic nature better. Because they are more site-appropriate, they will be diverse, but the overall approach of these small-scale systems remain the same: begin with super-efficient measures to reduce overall water demand, and then treat the water needed for potable and non-potable uses.

When faced with the facts that many cities around the country are anticipating water shortages; that the cost of replacing our steadily degrading water and wastewater infrastructure is huge; and that the money (and political will) to invest in centralized infrastructure is dwindling, it only makes sense to stop using potable water for uses that don’t require it, and to find more agile and effective ways to supply and treat our water.

Building Capacity Blog is edited by Kathleen O’Brien, a Cascadia Fellow, and President of O’Brien & Company, a green building consultancy, founded nearly 20 years ago, and located in Seattle, Washington, providing services in green project consulting, sustainability policies, plans, and programs, and education. Sisolak and Spataro are among the line-up of presenters at this year’s Living Future (April 27-29 in Vancouver, BC). Their session, “Getting to Net Zero,” digs into the elements of the Living Building Challenge water petal and regulatory challenges impeding the progress of net-zero water projects. Cover image courtesy of Cascadia Green Building Council.

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Envisioning a Net-Zero Water Future
Interview with Schacht Aslani Architects’ Walter Schacht
Interview with Kitsap Home Builders Foundation’s Art Castle

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

How do you optimize a forced-air system to maintain a green home? Alistair Jackson, LEED AP for Homes Rater Responds: Part 4: MECHANICAL VENTILATION

If not installed or maintained properly, forced-air heating and cooling systems can perform poorly, creating air quality problems and unnecessary expense. To optimize a forced-air system, you need to design or refine it to prevent leaks and pressure imbalances, protect it properly during construction (or make sure the ductwork is clean and sound), and use the right filter.

The performance spec of the heat (or cooling) source is also important, but it is critical to address the distribution system first before investing in better furnace and air handler performance. This article is the FINAL of four focused on optimizing forced-air systems on the topics of Distribution, Filtration, Heat Source (and Controls), and Ventilation.

Whether in a new house or an existing home, mechanical ventilation is an important component of indoor comfort and building durability. Here in Washington, codes have required it for several years, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the ventilation system in a home is effective.

This is another system that is worth having tested by a qualified contractor to see if it is over- or under-performing. A system that is under-performing (provides less airflow than recommended) may not provide adequate fresh air or remove enough moisture from the home. A system that is over-performing (providing too much airflow) will increase energy consumption, as heating system has to heat or cool the additional volume of  air.

The ventilation performance requirements of the IRC 2009 (and the current Washington Residential Code) are consistent with ASHRAE 62.2-2007, a recognized national reference standard, and a great performance benchmark even for a project that isn’t covered by the code. The intent of this standard is to ensure adequate air changes in the home, based on size and occupancy load. It requires mechanical ventilation with dedicated outside air inlets in new construction to increase the likelihood of effective ventilation.

For existing homes, it should be noted that mechanical ventilation becomes increasingly important as the building envelope becomes more air-tight. If a blower door test gives a result of ≥7 ACH@50, the focus should be on reducing envelope leakage rather than adding mechanical ventilation. This test result is roughly equivalent to 0.35 nACH or about one air change every three hours. With this much leakage in the envelope, the house will experience more than enough ventilation through the natural convection caused by “stack effect” as well as those induced by the influence of wind on the structure. But if your envelope weatherization efforts have brought envelope leakage substantially below this level, adding effective mechanical ventilation is a top priority.

Let’s assume we’re talking about a project that has successfully upgraded the building envelope to something less than 4 ACH50. A common practice in forced air homes is to integrate a mechanical ventilation system into the forced air system; a logical approach since you already have a system of ducts to deliver air to all the living spaces. This is called a “Central Fan Integrated System (CFIS)” – Imagine that. It is a straightforward solution that can be properly implemented for around $500 as long as your distribution ductwork is clean and sound and there’s easy access for a duct run from your air handler to an exterior wall, away from other exhaust outlets.

In its simplest form, this approach consists of a duct into the return side of the air handler, drawing fresh air into the system whenever the air handler fan runs. The problem with this approach is that the ventilation rate is totally dependent on how much the air handler runs. So on the coldest days (or the warmest days in a cooling-dominated climate) you get the greatest ventilation. On these days, the outside air also needs more conditioning to meet the indoor set-point temperature – so that means more heating (or cooling) energy; a recipe for higher energy bills.

                                      

This can be mitigated by adding a “fan cycler” – a control box connected to a mechanical damper in the fresh air duct. See the mechanics of an AprilAire fan cycler  in the photo at left. The fan cycler opens and closes the fresh air duct and monitors how much time the fan runs with the duct open. On cold days, it will close the fresh air duct once the ventilation air volume for a given period has been reached. On mild days, when heat (or cooling) demand is low, it will also switch on the air handler fan to circulate fresh air to meet the ventilation requirement. The disadvantage of this action is that it uses the large air handler fan (and associated electrical consumption) to circulate a relatively small amount of fresh air. If your air handler includes an efficient, variable speed fan this impact is significantly reduced. Aircycler provides an interactive  schematic showing the airflow.

 

Another approach that reduces fan energy is to tie the Fan Cycler to one or more exhaust fans and use these fans to pull outside air through the ducts when the air handler is not running. Energy Star labeled fans from Panasonic and others use a fraction of the energy of a typical air handler fan. I’m not personally convinced this solution provides good outside air distribution but it may be worth further exploration.

Energy (or heat) recovery, where energy from the stale exhaust air is used to pre-condition the incoming fresh air, can also be integrated into this approach. Typically, the air handler fan of an HRV or ERV is not large enough to effectively circulate fresh air through the large, forced air duct system, resulting in inadequate distribution and mixing of outside air. It is better to integrate the ERV/HRV with a fan cycler and use the furnace air handler fan, (Venmar AVS used to sell a passive  HRV unit called the Enerflo, that offered all this in one convenient unit, but I’m not sure this product is still available – comment if you know differently!).

You can also install small diameter, dedicated ductwork for the ventilation air distribution. Either approach will involve increased installation cost and control complexity (see the photo). In simple payback terms, this probably only makes sense in very cold or hot climates.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: Any CFIS system requires proper commissioning by a qualified technician to ensure it is performing properly and delivering the required rate of ventilation in a range of conditions. Your HVAC contractor may be able to provide this service, or you may choose to use an independent contractor such as those listed with Home Performance Washington, RESNET, Building Performance Institute (BPI), National Comfort Institute Certified Contractors. 

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:
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 1
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 2
Tips for Optimizing Forced-Air Heating and Cooling Systems Part 3
Interview with LINC’s Maria Elena Marquez-Brookes
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Cracking the Energy Code: What Will It Cost?
Mechanical Systems and Fuel Choices for the Warming World

Shoreline's Sustainability Strategy Bears Fruit: Interview with Juniper Nammi, Associate Planner, AICP.

  
Editor: The theme of this blog is to provide inspiration and practical advice to help build capacity in the realm of sustainability and green building. In 2007, O’Brien & Company partnered with the planning firm AHBL to help develop an Environmental Sustainability Strategy for the City of Shoreline. This Fall, we checked in with Juniper Nammi, Associate Planner for the City of Shoreline, and Project Manager for our contract to see how implementation of the Strategy is going.

Before we get into today, let’s provide the reader with some background. Can you provide a little history for our reader? JUNIPER: Certainly. As of 2006, there was actually a good deal happening throughout the City’s departments and among our residents with regard to sustainability. But there was nothing tying all of these efforts together and no comprehensive guidance going forward. In 2006 the City Council added "creating an environmentally sustainable community" to its goals. Under the Council’s charge, City Staff leadership worked on what this might mean and determined that a plan or strategy to define and direct municipal and community wide efforts towards sustainability would be helpful. The Council approved a consultant budget of $75K (keep in mind this was different economic times!) and City Staff leadership created an interdepartmental team to work with the consultant team. This team was the foundation for our green team which still functions today and is a key component of Strategy Implementation. The process took one year, and included review of our Comprehensive Plan and Development Code regulations, interviews with various city staff, and two very important community conversations. The Strategy document went through an intensive review and was adopted formally by the Council in 2008 with unanimous support of Council, Planning Commission, and the Parks Board.

You mentioned an interdepartmental green team as a key component of Strategy Implementation. What is your role on the team and how does the team function? I’m co-chair of the green team along with Miranda Redinger. We have about 13-15 members at any given time and meet monthly, although there are subcommittees that meet in between to do more specific tasks. I’m happy to say that all City departments are committed and the work is included in our work plans. With lean times, it is definitely a challenge to get full support from every team member all the time, but the team does provide a city-wide forum for the implementation of ideas generated during and since the strategic planning process in 2007-08. As I mentioned earlier, prior to the Strategy there were a number of individual efforts going on. This team gives us all a better understanding of what's happening in other departments, and allows us to collaborate. It enables us to do what we are already doing, better, and to build on that.

What kind of budget does the team have? Not much. We have a few hundred dollars for direct expenses. However, sustainable elements recommended in the Strategy are being integrated into many of the City's projects. An important outcome of the strategic planning process was to add the question -- What are the sustainability implications for your project? -- to the budgeting process.

Bravo! What other positive outcomes have you seen? The Strategy provided a good starting point for the green team’s discussions, but it intentionally wasn’t a prescriptive plan. If you visit our City’s website you will see projects that have been completed or are in-progress that were identified at the community conversations we held as part of the strategic planning process. The City is also doing a better job of explicitly calling out the environmental sustainability implications of our plan updates and capital projects

A good example is our Transportation Master Planning process, which is currently underway. A number of specific recommendations in the Sustainability Strategy are related to transportation planning and the plan update is systematically reviewing those recommendations for incorporation into the Master Plan. Recommendations being considered include transit oriented development, improving the safety and connectivity of walking and biking routes in the City, and addressing transit service issues.

Anything else? We were able to secure grant funding for some projects including getting our sustainability indicators and baselines up on our website, conducting a carbon inventory, and updating our urban tree inventory and related regulations. Also, we have an approved framework for an environmentally preferable purchasing policy in place. Now we are working on specifics for various categories of purchases such as office supplies, janitorial supplies, or consulting contracts.

What about green building efforts? Planning and Environmental Services staff are currently developing a comprehensive Green Building Program, including evaluation of building codes, outreach materials, technical assistance and training opportunities, as well as incentives for greener buildings in our zoning standards. We are developing guidance for capital improvement projects to ensure sustainability is a consideration along with financial feasibility. In addition, we are in the process of benchmarking the energy efficiency of our facilities through a comprehensive carbon emissions inventory effort.

In addition to all the activity you've described, have you seen a change in the way City staff approach the concept of environmental sustainability? From the very beginning of the strategic planning process, the City Council and management staff recognized that environmental sustainability was not just about trees and recycling. There has definitely been an organizational shift in thinking about environmental sustainability, broadening staff understanding beyond the commonly understood environmental topics of habitat and the three Rs. Interdepartmental involvement supported by the leadership has been a big part of making this shift happen.

Strategy development engaged the community in planning. How is the public involved now? Public participation opportunities in environmental sustainability include outreach events such as Earth Day Every Day and Clean Sweep Recycling events, community meetings and public hearings related to specific plan and project development topics, and ongoing volunteer opportunities in our parks. At this time the City does not have a citizen committee or volunteer opportunity specifically related to the Sustainability Strategy implementation because the Green Team is primarily focused on city operations, updating processes, and developing new programs.

Any lessons learned you’d like to share with municipalities trying to do something similar? Start with the basics. In our case the leadership explicitly added sustainability as a value for our community. This begins to shape all other guiding documents and policies. And it is critical to have interdepartmental collaboration, even more so when our budgets are so constrained. For this to happen you need the blessing of your leadership, both from elected officials and City staff. Shoreline has been fortunate to have the continued support of our Council, our City Manager, Department heads, and the community at large.

Are there other tools besides a sustainable strategy that you feel are/could be useful for municipal planners? (Including tools that don’t exist but would be great if they did!) We need analytical and assessment tools that are easy to use -- for example, a Life Cycle Cost Analysis tool that doesn't require you to be an LCA expert. We also need tools that can help us convey the significance of the data in an articulate manner.

What do you think the big opportunities are there now for municipalities? We need to be looking at neighborhood or district level solutions -- although there can be challenges with maintaining centralized systems. Collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions will also be essential, especially given limited resources, to share ideas and tools that work as well as coordinate projects and ideas that need to be implemented at a larger scale. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel if the city next door has an excellent wheel model to get things rolling. Cascadia Green Building Council has issued a challenge to create Living Communities using the International Living Building Institute's Standard.. It will take some time and effort to shift the thinking of the building industry and general public as to why this approach is a good idea, but I think it's time to move beyond the low hanging fruit to more comprehensive steps toward sustainability.

Juniper Nammi is currently an Associate Planner with the City of Shoreline and a Shoreline resident. She acted as project manager for development of the Shoreline Environmental Sustainability Strategy and is currently co-chair of the City’s interdepartmental Green Team, which is charged with implementation of this Strategy. Juniper also works as part of the permit services team reviewing a wide variety of permits and assisting customers when they have questions about City regulations. She has a Masters degree in Water Resources Management from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2004).

Did you enjoy this article?  You might also like these Building Capacity Blog articles: 
Interview with City of Kirkland’s Ellen Miller-Wolfe
Vulcan’s Sustainable Real Estate Initiatives Have Deep Roots
Creating Effective Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategies Part 1
Interview with KCR’s Larry Eyre

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