1. MacMillan Energy Modeling Example
2. Oberlin's Lewis Center as a Demonstration Project
3. What HPBD might look like at Brown- buildings that really work
4. Managing the Costs of HPBD
5. What does LEED cost?

1. MacMillan Energy Modeling Example:

How did Brown construct MacMillan Hall, a new 75,000-square foot science lab, assembly, and classroom building, attach it to the adjacent GeoChem building, and in the process save more than two million kilowatt hours (kWh) each year-enough to power 560 average homes and save Brown $59,000 in annual energy costs?

Brown planners learned from mistakes made in the inadequate planning and construction process undertaken on the GeoChem building in the early 1980s. From the day GeoChem came online, it became one of Brown's largest energy draws . Fast tracked, due to high inflation concerns, the architectural plans for GeoChem were created at the same time the building was being constructed. As a result, most of the problems centered upon the basic operating systems e.g. mechanical, electrical and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). Students, faculty, and staff consistently experienced problems in the use and maintenance of the building. This combination of continuing user complaints and high operating costs resulted in a series of repeated maintenance orders and adjustments throughout the ‘80s and early ‘90s. Another fault in the GeoChem planning process was the focus on minimizing first costs regardless of how these decisions affected later operations.

MacMillan Hall is an example of how Brown learned from experience and investing time and energy into the building's preparation and planning in order to enjoy less problematic and more cost-effective operation over the life of the building. The lessons collected from the GeoChem project apply to many areas, from engineering to administrative planning. For example, Brown administrators realized the value of integrated design. Initial MacMillan planning conversations involved maintenance personal, future occupants, and representatives from the local electric utility, Narragansett Electric Company (NECo). "We were being asked questions about the details of what would go on in our labs. That never happened during GeoChem," according to Ronald Lawler, professor of Chemistry and one of three faculty representatives formally appointed to the design team. As planning continued, Brown students, mainly those in the Center for Environmental Studies, become more involved.

The initial scope of MacMillan indicated it was to embody environmentally responsible building practices and interested students were encouraged to learn about the available efficiency opportunities. New England Power Supply Company (NEPSCo) and NECo funded Savage Engineering, Inc to model several energy efficiency options. Savage's evaluation involved analyzing a number of alternative energy conservation strategies involving cost effective facility design and retrofit options. The following energy efficiency measures were investigated:

Lighting

High Efficiency lighting

Occupancy sensors

Daylight dimming

Daylight dimming with increased glass area

Cooling and Heating

Premium efficiency motors

Variable pressure controls on VAV supply systems

Fume hood exhaust controls

Run-around heat recovery system

Heat pipe reheat coils in air handler

Central Plant

High efficiency chillers

Variable speed drives on cooling tower fans

Variable speed chilled water pumping

Variable speed drives on hot water reheat pumps

Thermal ice storage

Envelope

High performance windows

Increased wall and roof insulation

Electrical

Premium efficiency transformers

After performing preliminary calculation of energy savings and estimating installed costs for each measure, (see Appendix for detailed figures) ten were found to be cost effective using 1995 NEPSCo. For these measures, detailed analyses were performed. The results of these analysis are shown below. Finally, after accounting for interaction between measures, a final package was recommended for implementation.

Overall, annual savings of $59,482 in electric costs were identified for an investment of $213,731 yielding a simple payback of 3.6 years. Including NEPSCo incentives, the payback period decreases to 0.9 years, making this an attractive investment opportunity. Moreover, Savage Engineering found that is the complete package of measures were implemented the incentive would have been increased to 100% of incremental cost. In considerations, some energy efficiency measures were not chosen, even though there would have been no net cost increase. The MacMillan project team chose to install the following energy efficiency measures:

Lighting Modifications

Occupancy Sensors

Daylight Sensors

Premium Efficiency Motors

VAV Fume Hood Exhaust System

Variable-Speed Drives on Hot Water Reheat Pumps

Variable-Speed Drives on Chilled Water Pumps

Variable-Speed Drives on Cooling Towers

High Efficiency Chiller Plant

One well-known environmental design element considered but not included in the final design of MacMillan Hall was a solar-assisted domestic hot water system. The consulting engineers for the project, Bard, Rao + Athanas (BR+A) conducted a simple payback analysis. They found the installation of 12 solar panels would reduce the energy demand only enough to create a 21-year simple payback period. The length of the payback period combined with elements of the building's facade design that made installation problematic disqualified solar installations on MacMillan. From Brown is Green online MacMillan report : “Some of the ideas developed during the building process, while not currently instituted, are still on the table.”

After construction was complete and MacMillan was occupied, Brown commissioned Wortman Engineering to evaluate the actual operating performance of the energy efficiency measures and compare th i e s e this data to the estimated savings modeled in the design phase. In total, the Impact Evaluation shows that the overall project met 97% of the estimated annual kWh energy savings. Reasons for the decreased savings compared to projects are listed in the Wortman Report (1998). The end-results of the study are presented in a graph below. Note that some measures save more energy than predicted, while others save less.

Here are some possible reasons given by Wortman Engineering for differences between the predicted and actual energy usage and costs:

Decreased savings compared to projections:

• Savage's Energy Modeling Analysis probably overstated their motor load-factor in regards to the Premium Efficiency Motor measure. Wortman's Impact Evaluation believes the variable-speed controllers may not have been accounted for in the load-factor assumptions.
• The Energy Modeling Analysis assumed more daylighting opportunities would be harvested. In addition, Savage Engineering incorrectly determined the savings from the Daylight Sensor measure by comparing the measure case with the High Efficiency Lighting measure, when in fact it should have been compared to the Occupancy Sensor measure. Reduced demand during vacant periods should have been accounted for.
• The original estimates contained a simplified spreadsheet analysis for the Cooling Tower Variable-Frequency Drive (VFD) measure. This measure assumed a load-profile to be overstated.
• The Reheat Pump VDF measure saves less energy than predicted. One cause of this might be related to occupancy sensors not being places in from of research fume hoods to limit exhaust-air during vacant periods as originally proposed.
• The High Efficiency Chiller Plant saves less energy due to differences in approximates external load requirements. Most likely, the original predictions from Savage Engineering assumed greater external loads, causing the chiller to operate more frequently and to there for save more energy than predicted.

Increased savings compared to the projections:

• The Savage Analysis only counted the summer demand savings from the chiller measure and mistakenly neglected the demand savings from the other measures. This is a result of the chiller measure being revised in the course of the project, and the demand savings for this measure alone being substituted for the savings of the entire project.
• The Static Pressure Reset measure saves more energy than predicted. Most likely, this is due to differences between the assumed static pressure reduction and the actual reduction. This may be due to fewer realized loads than predicted.
• The Savage Analysis did not account for subsequent cooling load savings from the High Efficiency Lighting measure.
• The Savage Analysis assumed conservative estimates on the Occupancy Sensor measure.
• The Chiller Water Pump VFD measure saves more energy than predicted. This may be due to fewer realized loads than predicted.

The proper planning effort given to the design of the $30 million MacMillan hall resulted in successful science building and the energy efficiency measures that save over $59,000 in yearly energy costs. The interdisciplinary effort used in the design process should serve as a model for future capital investments of this type at Brown University . The financial incentives offered by Narragansett Electric heavily influences the decision to implement the energy efficiency measures with higher upfront costs. It is more economically viable for Narragansett Electric to use some of RI Renewable Energy fund towards energy efficiency project than it is to run the current plant at a higher capacity or built new plants to meet greater energy needs. As these funds are claimed, the amount available to others is reduced. As a non-profit institution, Brown can still heavily benefit from Energy Efficiency Funds. These might not always be available so it is in Brown's best interest to claim them whenever possible.

2. Oberlin's Lewis Center as a Demonstration Project

MacMillan primary purpose was an academic building, incorporation of several environmentally responsible features was an additional intent. On the extreme, the Lewis Center at Oberlin College was built with purpose of teaching student s about the environmental building and our connections to the natural world. The Lewis Center is meant to be a demonstration project for environmentally sustainable construction whereas MacMillan is an academic building that performs better than code requirements. I am including the description of Oberlin's project not as an example for Brown to follow, but as a representation of a more environmental campus building. I agree Brown should focus more on hard cost savings but warn against ignoring more advanced environmentally responsible technology options if they do not pass Brown's investment hurdle rate.

The six-year pre-design and scope of the Lewis Center was le a d by David Orr, an environmental studies professor. The design process involved students researching specific products and systems to be used in this college library and assembly space. The design team was selected for their expertise in education, design, renewable energy, and current building technologies. Members of the team worked closely to create integrated systems. Project performance goals set the bar high. (E.g. produce more electricity than it consumes, discharge no wastewater ) Selected High Performance strategies include:

• Wall Insulation
• Achieve a whole-wall R-value of 15 or greater
• Daylighting for Energy Efficiency
• Use south-facing windows for daylighting
• Orient the floor plan on an east-west axis for best use of daylighting
• Locate frequently used areas on the south side of the building
• Use atrium for daylighting
• Use large exterior windows and high ceilings to increase daylighting
• Use large interior windows to increase daylighting penetration
• Non-solar Cooling Loads
• Use operable windows
• Make a high internal thermal mass building
• Interior Design for Light
• Use light colors for surfaces and finishes
• Photovoltaics
• Use a photovoltaic (PV) system to generate electricity on-site
• Arrange for sale of excess electricity into the grid
• Light Sources
• Use LED or other super-efficient exit signs
• High-performance Windows and Doors
• Use super windows with a whole-unit U-factor less than 0.25 (greater than R-4.0)
• Air Infiltration
• Perform blower door testing
• Lighting Controls
• Use on/off photoelectric daylight sensors
• Use occupancy sensors
• Use dimming switches
• HVAC Distribution Systems
• Consider using an access floor system
• Roof Insulation
• Achieve a whole-roof R-value of 25 or greater

The 13,600 sq. ft. two storey building was built for $375 per sq foot. The total design fee was $1,175,000. The photovoltaic array cost $402,500. The Living Machine cost $400,000. Landscaping, including the creation of a wetland area, cost $84,000. An aesthetically memorable curvilinear design and more durable, attractive finishes were incorporated despite their high first-cost. Long-term costs were given priority over first costs in the design of the Lewis Center , partly made possible by a private grant. Education is the key component of this project. Not only were students involved in the design, but students also run many of the green components and Oberlin provides a real time energy usage via the internet. Currently, an extensive data monitoring system allows the center's staff and Oberlin college maintenance staff to track the performance of various systems in the building thereby allowing them to identify, track, and manage problems. Students also have access to this data and use it for performance analysis.

Some problems with the Lewis Center have been identified and Brown can learn for Oberlin's experience. Inefficiencies in the building's heating system have received considerable attention. Electric boilers were installed in some places where heat pumps should have been used and heat pumps were mismatched with groundwater temperatures. Groundwater wells may also have been undersized. While some corrections have been made, others remain under consideration and study. Fulfilling environmentally responsible material choice intentions proved more difficult than anticipated because local markets for recycled or reused products were limited.

Oberlin's Lewis Center has earned the college much recognition in the HPBD industry. However, due to Brown current energy standards, square foot by square foot, Brown's buildings are more energy efficient than Oberlin's on average. The Lewis Center is an isolated demonstration project, whereas Brown's energy policy is widespread. Brown University does design efficient buildings compared to code minimums. I recommend it should build ever more effective high performance buildings; top-level support is necessary for significant improvements to take place.

3. What HPBD might look like at Brown- buildings that really work

My recommendations address the administrative planning process for campus buildings rather than specific materials and building systems. There are consultants and professionals whose lives are dedicated to keeping abreast of the available green building strategies and applying the optimal combinations of high performance alternatives. My lack of on the job experience and purely academic background provides little authority in these areas. I cannot describe the engineering of a potential high performance building at Brown, but I can illustrate how a successful building process could be facilitated. My interest and outside observations of the green building industry have given me some perspective about what design methods processes work and which have greater potential to fail –in terms of inefficient operation and overwhelming project costs. Following my recommendations will open the door to gaining from HPBD benefits in the most cost effective manner.

4. Managing the Costs of HPBD

From discussions with Frances Halsband, John Noonan, Richard Spies, Mike McCormick, and Harold Ward , I gather cost issues are the largest barrier to implementing better HPBD at Brown. The decision to design and construct a high performance building is still largely based on initial cost. A obstacle for high performance buildings is when budget overruns occur near the end of construction. Often in this case, higher initial cost products are replaces with lower priced equipment that are more likely to have higher lifetime costs. Ordering regular windows, instead of super efficient windows is an example of this detrimental situation. It is important at this stage to find the extra funds, including loans if the payback of the high performance feature is comparable or better than Brown's borrowing rate, to ensure energy efficient measures are not forgone from lesser quality features. This is unfortunate because the greatest economic benefits are realized during the occupation and operation of a High Performance Building . As shown by the MacMillan example, actual energy efficiency savings are achievable. The relative level of savings from each project should increase as Brown gains experience with a integrated design process, life cycle costing and high performance standards. This section begins to describe strategies to control the costs of a high performance building project.

Beginning the pre-design phase with high performance goals in mind is the key to managing costs on High Performance projects. Facilities personnel involved with trying to fit the current Life Sciences design into LEED qualifications must realize the opportunity missed by introducing LEED too late in the process. Starting a project with the high performance concept on the table is the most common recommendation for managing costs and producing the best building. I have heard this from countless number of people with HPBD experience and have read this advice in every quality HPBD resource consulted. In addition to stating a High Performance intent, carefully engineering complementary building systems within an integrated design process can reduce the first cost of the building while optimizing operational savings. For example, by improving the building envelope, the design team can often eliminate HVAC system around the perimeter of the building and downsize the primary HVAC system. The design of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections' Cambria Office Building exemplifies how a whole building approach can lead to lower first costs. When designers of this building first proposed an upgrade to triple-glazed, double low-e windows, the developer cringed at the $15,000 increase in cost. However, the developer was won over when it was demonstrated that this upgrade would allow the perimeter-heating zone to be eliminated for a savings of $15,000, the heat pumps to be downsized for an additional $10,000 savings and additional space to be gained because of the smaller equipment and ducts. At a construction cost of $93 per square foot, this building shows it is possible to pay extra attention to systems and materials to build a “green” office building within the same cost range as building a conventionally constructed office building.

Many more environmentally responsible building materials and fixtures cost the same or slightly less than traditional construction materials. They are high performance in terms of their environmental features and cost-effectiveness. These include :

•  Concrete with slag content or fly ash. This product is made with a mix of Portland cement and either iron mill slag (a waste product from blast furnaces that produce iron) or fly ash (a waste product from coal-fired power plants). Vendor quotes gathered during this study indicate that this type of concrete can be slightly less expensive ($0.50 to $1.00 per ton less) than concrete made with 100% Portland cement and is purportedly more durable.

•  Carpet with recycled content. A range of environmentally preferable carpet products is currently available on the market, including refurbished used carpet and new carpet made from various combinations of old carpet, carpet scraps, carpet backing, auto parts, soda bottles, and flooring materials. The quotes gathered for this study indicate that such sustainable carpet options can cost as much as $15 less per yard than traditional carpet (although some price quotes indicated the recycled carpet was more expensive).

•  L ow-emitting paint and recycled paint. Low-emitting paint has very low or no emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) when it is applied. For building occupants, the paint significantly reduces negative reactions that normal latex paint often causes and allows buildings to be occupied during or shortly after the paint is applied. Price quotes gathered for this study vary, but some indicate that low-emitting paint can cost $3 per gallon less than normal paint and can cover more surface area per gallon.

Recycled paint is “left-over” paint collected from construction sites or the paint manufacturing process. That paint is then sorted by type, color, and finish and reprocessed for resale. Price quotes collected for this study indicate that recycled paint can sometimes be $15 per gallon less expensive than comparable "virgin" contractor-grade latex paint.

•  Certified wood products. Such products comply with Forest Stewardship Council Guidelines, indicating that wood producers have applied all regional laws and international treaties, respect long-term tenure, and use rights on the land from which the wood is harvested. Price quotes indicate that some certified wood doors are $150 less expensive than traditional doors (although some are more expensive).

•  Waterless urinals. Urinals that use no flushing water often cost less to install than traditional, water-using urinals because of the reduced need for pipes (no intake water is required). Price quotes indicate that some brands of no-water urinals cost over $280 less (per urinal, installed) than their water-using counterparts.

Implementing all of the sustainable features discussed above reduced the first costs of the prototype building that was examined in this study discussed in the US Department of Energy's The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities. The cost reductions equaled $2.60/sq. ft and the total first cost of the building construction was reduced by as much as $51,000, lowering the total building cost by about 2%. Part of every construction project at Brown should consider the above building materials due to their economic and environmental benefits. While there are some high performance building measures (e.g. recycled content structural steel, others discussed above) that may be achieved with no increase in cost, planner must realize most green building feature involve a change in practice that effectively moves costs from the operating budget to the design and construction budgets. Considering life cycle costs of design options demonstrates the most cost effective HPBD choices.

5. What does LEED cost?

The cost to achieve LEED certification can depend upon a variety of factors and assumptions, including :

•  Type and size of project

•  Timing of introduction of LEED as a design goal or requirement

•  Level of LEED certification desired

•  Composition and structure of the design and construction teams

•  Experience and knowledge of designers and contractors or willingness to learn

•  Process used to select LEED credits

•  Clarity of the project implementation documents

•  Base case budgeting assumptions

Based on increased experience and research, US green building consultants have been lowering their expected cost of achieving a LEED Certified rating. Varying cost figures have been mentioned in discussions on the Green Buildings list serve about LEED certification costs vary. Most commenters agree with the 0-2% capital cost premium established by the Capital E study completed in October 2003. The main difference in values is the inclusion of energy-modeling costs. Because the University already uses energy modeling to make design decisions, Brown should not view energy modeling costs as specific LEED certification costs. Considering the valuable energy modeling results Savage Engineering produced for the planned MacMillan building in 1995, it is hard to believe Brown would allow the design and construction of a major campus facility without performing energy modeling. The real issue is that LEED/ HPBD is simply good design and that is what Brown expects out of the design teams it hires. The real purpose and cost of LEED is getting the designers to actually design the building systems rather than chose from established building system packages. The superior design that LEED represents should be part of good designers' service regardless of high performance guidelines. Real experience shows most architects do not include HPBD features if the client does not ask for it.

While there may not be additional capital construction costs of a LEED building, there is definitely a time requirement and cost to submitting LEED documentation. Building owners pay the USGBC to register and evaluate the project. As mentioned within the text of my web thesis, green building professionals at other universities see two main value in LEED certification, beyond more effective design

•  Knowing LEED is a goal keeps HPBD on the table at every project meeting

•  The marketing and public relations components easily justify the documentation costs

In the case of LEED registration, campus buildings can be designed so the reward of having a LEED building outweighs the additional costs. Brown should aim for LEED Silver on all future building, while also using established strategies to manage the costs of the project. If I did not believe the skeptics at Brown would ignore a LEED Gold standard to start with, I would recommend Gold because that is the new measure for HPBD leaders.

Appendix: Savage Engineering's Macmillan Building Simulation Results

GeoChem accounted for nearly 8% of Brown's campus energy consumption during fiscal year 1990

Geological and Chemical Sciences Building Energy Efficiency Renovations http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/reports/ncf_gc.htm

Environmentally Responsible Design of W. Duncan MacMillan Hall http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/reports/ncf_macm.htm

New Science Building , Brown University , Final Report, Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures, Design 2000 Comprehensive Design Approach November 1995.

incremental cost being the cost of the energy efficiency option minus the baseline design costs

Environmentally Responsible Design of W. Duncan MacMillan Hall http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/reports/ncf_macm.htm

Eco Design Matters: A Building that Teaches by Bonda, Penny
Publication: ISdesigNET (10/00) http://www.isdesignet.com/Magazine/Oct%2700/eco.html

US DOE High Performance Building Case Study http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/case_studies/energy.cfm?ProjectID=18

Energy Data on the Lewis Center http://www.oberlin.edu/envs/ajlc/DataPages/EnergyData.htm

Top-level support for:

1. Following High Performance Guidelines,
2. Considering Life Cycle Costs,
3. Requiring HPBD Qualifications in the Design Team Selection Process,
4. Hiring an Energy Manager, and
5. Implementing an Integrated Design Process

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections' Cambria Office Building http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/29941.pdf

The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities Economic Benefits of Sustainable Design http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/buscase_section2.pdf

The slag is recycled into ground-granulated blast furnace slag cement by grinding the iron blast furnace slag to cement fineness.

Various brands of low-emitting paint were compared with their traditional counterparts. To provide reasonable points of comparison with the low-emitting paint, costs for both normal contractor-grade and high-end products were included. The cost of the low-emitting paint varied depending on location of the purchase, volume of the paint purchased, and the ability of the local distributor to offer special rates.

Introduction to The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/buscase_section1.pdf

Managing the Cost of Green Buildings http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/greenbuilding/Design/ManagingCost.doc

http://listserv.repp.org/cgi-bin/wa.cgi?A0=greenbuilding&D=0&F=l&H=0&O=T&S=&T=1

Kats, Greg (2003) “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings” Report

http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf