<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="1252"%> Benefits to HPBD
Better Buildings at Brown
Site Map
last updated: May 11, 2004
Benefits to High Performance Buildings

Why Not: The Barriers

How: The Recommendations

"A building constructed today will last well into the next millennium. In making these buildings, we make the mold within which much of the future will have to fit and function." -Sean Wellesley-Miller

Benefits to High Performance Buildings

 

  • Fulfills the University's social responsibility to lead society to better world

  • Increases external respect

  • Increases learning for all stakeholders

Institutions of higher education are leaders in society; this is especially true of elite institutions like Brown University. It is the University's role not only to graduate students who surmount the challenges of the future, but also to provide information to others about their connections to the environment and guidance about the best environmental practices to pursue.

The twentieth century was marked by the recognition and creation of a host of environmental problems. The twenty-first century bears the burden of resolving these problems and preventing the emergence of more. Brown University 's implementation of HPBD will inspire students, faculty, alumni, and other community members to commit to environmental and human health. In his article for the Journal of Society of College and University Planning , William Moomaw relates, "University and college planners have the opportunity to become the true visionaries of higher education who help faculty and administrators combine teaching, research, and campus management into a higher level of learning for students while leading society toward a sustainable future." [1] To fulfill its role and lead by example, Brown must create and implement informed environmental policies. Brown can use its high performance facilities as teaching tools to demonstrate engineering, environmental science, and economic applications.
Publicizing Brown University 's commitment will prompt other universities, businesses, and private building owners to follow Brown's lead and invest in High Performance Buildings. If Brown promotes its HPBD measures well, faculty, staff, students and external stakeholders such as parents, alumni, local and regional communities, future employers, supporters of research, and donors will learn from and emulate Brown's environmental commitment.

 

  • Reduces energy and water consumption and material use

  • Saves on Operations and Maintenance Costs

High Performance Buildings are cost effective. A recent study prepared in partnership with the US Green Building Council and California's Sustainable Building Task Force compared the cost of 33 high performance green buildings across the US to the cost of conventional designs for those same buildings. "The Cost and Benefits of Green Building,"[2] found that the average premium for these green buildings is slightly less than 2%, or $3-5/square foot. This may be surprising to many people who misperceive the cost of HPBD. These conservative numbers show that LEED recognition is not cost-prohibitive. The increased architectural and engineering (A&E) design time, modeling costs, and time necessary to integrate HPBD practices constitute the majority of this additional investment. It was also found that the earlier high performance standards are incorporated into the design process, the lower the cost. Below is a chart comparing the average premiums for each level of LEED Certifications.

The cost premiums are worth the minimal additional cost because High Performance Buildings provide financial benefits that conventional buildings do not. Some of these benefits are outlined in the following chart:

                             

The majority of the cost savings in the Capital E Analysis are from productivity increases, which are hard to measure. The majority of health benefits in high performance buildings come from improvements in increased ventilation control, increased temperature control, increased lighting control and increased daylighting. The General Services Administration (GSA) expects to publish an additional cost-benefit study of green buildings in late 2004 which examines productivity and health benefits more quantitatively. Investments in high performance design pay for themselves 15 to 40 times over the life of the building.[3] The quantifiable benefits include energy and water savings, reduced waste, and more durable systems. Benefits of HPBD, such as improved indoor environmental quality, greater occupant comfort and productivity, and the associated reduction in employee health costs, are harder to measure, but have the potential to be far greater than operations and maintenance savings. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is currently researching the benefits of HPBD and will soon publish its results. In the mean time, its Environmental Policies and Practices commits to LEED certification for all its future construction and major renovations.

Brown University is progressively improving its energy efficiency. Anyone who pays bills knows that energy is a substantial cost of operating a building. Energy efficiency measures associated with HPBD reduce energy costs. On average high performance, resource efficient buildings use 30% less energy than similar buildings built to code. If Brown builds a 300,000 sq. foot High Performance Building that is 30% better than energy code, the net present value of its potential savigs over 20 years would be $720,000 if energy cost are about $5/sq foot. A laboratory building uses more than $5/sq foot of electricity and efficiency and program improvements in these buildings have even greater savings potential. As energy costs are forecasted to rise in the future, [4] these savings will only grow.

The New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability has produced a "High Performance Campus Design Handbook" that clearly conveys the rational motivations for implementing HPBD into college and university planning. They write,

"In fact, high performance design buildings often do not cost more to build, and always save considerable money when the full life-cycle costs of operations, maintenance, health and productivity are considered."

A report prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works titled Building Momentum states,

   "many green buildings cost no more to build-or may even cost less-than conventional alternatives because resource-efficient strategies and integrated design often allow downsizing of more costly mechanical, electrical, and structural systems." [6]

The report points to Johnston 's Controls Brengel Technology Center [7] in downtown Milwaukee. Johnston 's constructions costs were equal to standard construction rates even though the building incorporated many high-tech materials, daylighting and national ventilation, and downsized equipment. For the same price Brown currently pays for new building construction, the University could own High Performance Buildings that improve the environment, occupant health, and Brown's bottom line.

A good example of the green bottom line is detailed in The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina.[8] The integrated design team delivered "a 100-year building, 40% energy savings, 80% construction waste recovery, 100% stormwater treatment through native plants and wetlands on site, soothing daylight in offices, clean indoor air, flexible labs and more - all with no extra budget for building "green."

Click here for additional cost managing information and a Brown specific case study of energy efficiency choices in MacMillan Hall.

  • Creates comfortable and healthy working spaces will attract and retain high quality staff

  • Improves Occupant Health and Productivity

In line with Brown's Environmental Change Initiative, implementation of HPBD practices will improve the quality of Brown's environmental educational and student productivity. Higher performing buildings will enhance students' competitiveness by providing living quarters and work spaces characterized by superior health and comfort. The improvements in a building's air quality and daylighting discussed in "Characteristics of High Performance Building", contribute to healthier and happier building occupants. The result will be a reduction in the number of sick or underperforming students, staff, and faculty. HPBD will better support Brown students and faculty to achieve their professional potential.

High Performance Buildings create better study environments for students. In 1990, a study by the American Medical Association and the U.S. Army found that indoor air quality problems cost U.S. businesses 150 million workdays and about $15 billion in productivity losses each year. [9] The World Health Organization estimates the losses closer to $60 billion [10]and the Lawrence Berkeley Nation Laboratory reports US companies could save as much as $278 billion annually by preventing sick building syndrome and improving worker performance through better indoor air. [11] Additional studies show a sustained three to fifteen percent increase in productivity from indoor environment improvements. As little as a five percent increase in productivity would make a huge improvement in the research, knowledge, and positive activity at Brown. Recently, Pacific Gas and Electric funded a study to examine the correlation between occupant productivity and exposure to daylight within school buildings.[12] The study of over 2,100 students found 15-26% improvements in test scores in classrooms with the most natural light. To read a condensed, 30 page version of a daylighting and human performance study, click here. Other indoor environment improvements like toxin and lead abatement in schools have also been shown to improve the performance of students. [13] A carefully-controlled study of school systems in Colorado, California and Washington found that students in classrooms with the most diffuse and glare-free daylight scored up to 26% better on standardized tests than students in classrooms without daylight, and 10% over students in average classrooms. [14] HPBD could significantly improve learning at Brown University.

HPBD promotes productivity increases for building occupants; Brown's faculty and staff will also benefit from proper daylighting technologies and healthier indoor environments. Case studies involving increased productivity in High Performance Buildings include Verifone Corporation and Reno Post Office. The Verifone Corporation's daylighting, air filtration, and low-toxicity materials specification contributed to a 45% decrease in absenteeism at their Costa Mesa plant. [15] Approximately 75% of a organizations total expenses are related to salaries for its workers. This figure is exponentially more than it spends on construction or utility costs, so even a small investment in worker health and productivity has enormous pay-offs. The retrofit led to productivity increases with savings of $400,000 per year in labor costs. In addition, the Reno facility enjoys $50,000 per year in energy and maintenance savings, a payback within less than 8 months of the $300,000 retrofit investment. [16]

Brown University promotes learning. People prefer to work and study in places with more natural light and views of the outdoors. By following high performance design guidelines, Brown University can create comfortable spaces that are conducive to studying and working. According to David Roodman, author of WorldWatch Paper 24, "Such design can greatly enhance the qualities buildings ought to have, making them not only more affordable, but also more pleasant and healthy-productive to work in, and desirable to live in. Translated into dollar terms, the increases in worker productivity or home value alone can far exceed the utility bill savings." [17] The indoor air quality of these new campus spaces will improve occupant health. Financial gains will occur in increased productivity, lower health care costs, and fewer absent students and staff.

  • Reduces Negative Impact on Natural Environment

  • Exceeds Environmental Regulations, Reduces Liability

  • Supports Rhode Island 's goal to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets

  • Helps cut pollution from fossil fuels, including fine particulates in Providence area

Not only will HPBD save Brown money, inspire others to build responsibly, and increase student and staff performance, but this resource efficient design will also reduce Brown's impact on the environment. High Performance Buildings use 30% less energy than comparable conventional buildings. Less energy used translates into less energy produced and thus less greenhouse gasses released into the environment. Reducing energy demand through HPBD slows climate change and increases the quality of the air we breathe.

The environmental and health costs related to air pollution caused by non-renewable electric power generation are generally externalized when making investment decisions. "Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits " [18] found that the value of peak power reduction and the value of emissions reduction associated with the energy strategies integrated into High Performance Buildings are equal to about one third of the savings provided by energy efficiency. Not only will Brown save more money on operations, but its reduced energy costs will also help the state of Rhode Island meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. [19] Rhode Island has 400 miles of densely populated and highly developed shoreline, and the EPA estimates that sea level will rise by as much as 20 inches by 2100, putting much of this shoreline at risk. [20] Beach erosion, poor air quality, and hotter, drier summers will affect tourism, Rhode Island's second largest industry, and cost residents millions in weather related insurance loss. [21] In addition, according to the U.S. EPA utilities discharged more than one billion pounds of toxic chemicals into the air. Current energy sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy, create acid rain, smog, and small particulate matter that cause asthma, radioactive waste, and many other harmful public health concerns and environmental problems. Brown University should implement high performance design to reduce its impact on the natural environment and improve human health.

In addition to energy reductions, High Performance Buildings use water more efficiently. Brown's resource efficient buildings will send less water to Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Center and limit discharges into the Providence River. HPBD creates less waste. By implementing high performance, resource efficient design, Brown will reduce the amount of waste it sends to the Johnston landfill, prolonging the life of that facility and saving on waste removal costs. The environmental concerns addressed by HPBD will allow Brown to exceed current environmental regulations and have an advantage over other buildings when stricter regulations exist. For example, mold-related illness is a major legal liability for building owners; responsible building designs, like high performance design, protect against mold growth and other indoor air pollutants. By designing and constructing High Performance Buildings, Brown will reduce its negative environmental impacts, improving the air and water quality in Rhode Island, while demonstrating to others that doing the right thing can also save money.

 

  • Attracts prospective students and donors concerned with the environment

  • Receives Recognition for Responsible Building Design

Prospective students and their families will be impressed with Brown's progressive efforts towards creating a better natural environment while also designing healthy residences, classrooms, offices, study spaces, and social gathering areas. The attractive living and studying spaces created though HPBD will appeal to new students and positively influence them to enroll. Environmentally responsible design is a step towards creating a caring community that will also attract new faculty members in addition to saving on operating costs and improving the natural environment. Brown's better buildings will appeal to new students and faculty, but they will also stimulate additional donations. On average, Brown alumni tend to be more environmentally aware than most citizens and many will respond positively with donations to "green" projects on campus. HPBD will generate gifts from sources that would not otherwise contribute to Brown's funds. The 2000 Class at Penn State University stipulated that their Class Gift had to be used to reconstruct the Old Botany greenhouse using state-of-the art solar design and add a Living Machine to treat the effluent. [22] On March 10, 2004, Dorothy Park donated $7 million for a LEED certified High Performance Building on the Ithaca College Campus. Park's statement reads,

"I am delighted to be able to contribute toward a building that houses not just a school, but also a way of thinking and being that exemplifies ethical business practices, an understanding of organizations as citizens in their communities, and the responsible use of natural resources." [23]

Yale School of Forestry and the Environmental Studies director Fredrick Regan reports that in only one year, the capital campaign has raised over $37 million for endowment and facilities. He announced, "Sustainable development is a top capital campaign priority for Yale F&ES." [24] From a more demonstration project perspective, "Oberlin College found that its Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, with its major solar energy installation, living machine wastewater management system, and innovative energy-saving technology, provide an irresistible draw for multiple donors to both the building and the educational program." [25]Brown University should capitalize on donors' interest in environmental concerns by creating healthy and comfortable campus buildings.

 

  • Increases life span of buildings

HPBD produces high quality buildings. High Performance Buildings last longer because they utilize more sun and wind while integrating durable materials and life-cycle analysis. Attention to operation and maintenance issues during the design phase leads to buildings that retain their superior condition and usefulness while costing less to maintain over the lifetime of the building. A facility with easier maintenance, more productive and healthier occupants and lower occupancy costs for energy is more valuable than a conventional building. Brown plans to keep its buildings for decades, if not centuries, and thus it is in Brown's best interest to design high performing, durable buildings.

Here is another review of the benefits to Brown for implementing high performance design on all new campus facility projects.

For reasons HPBD has not yet taken root andrecommendations on how high performance design will work at Brown and specific steps Brown decision-makers and stakeholders can take, please visit the "How" page.

 

 

 

[1]Moomaw, William., (2003) " Aligning Values for Effective Sustainability Planning". Article in SCUP journal, Vol 31, n.3 Sustainability: Taking the Long View .

[2]Katz, Greg. "The Cost and Benefits of Green Buildings," A Report to California 's Sustainable Building Task Force, October 2003. www.cap-e.com , http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf

[3]New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability: http://www.njheps.org/projects/greenbuildings.htm (return on investment calculated assuming a 5% real interest rate and $200/square foot construction costs)

[4]US Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook and Projections to 2025. Gradual rise in electricity costs. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html (last visited 3/15/04 )

Savings Calculation: 300,000 ft2 building for energy savings for 20 year present value at a 5% real discount rate (0.08 capital recovery factor) with electricity costs of $5.00 per square foot (labs are $10.00/ft2)

[5]New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability, Campus Environmental Design Handbook . Volume 1 December 2003 http://www.njheps.org/projects/GDHandbook.pdf (last visited 3/12/04 )

[6] Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High Performance Green Building April 2002 http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/043003_hpgb_whitepaper.pdf (last visited 3/14/04 )

[7] GreenBiz Johnson Controls to Receive 2004 World Environment Center Gold Medal January 16, 2004 http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=26319

[8]The Greening Curve: Lessons learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina http://www.epa.gov/rtp/new-bldg/environmental/thegreeningcurve-new.pdf

[9]Wilson , et al., Green Development. (1998) Rocky Mountain Institute. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New York

[10]G.L. M. Augenbroe and A.R. Pearce, "Sustainable Construction in the USA : A perspective to the year 2010," in L. Bourdeau, P. Houvila, R. Lanting, and A. Gilham, eds., Sustainable Development and the Future of Construction: A comparison of visions from various countries , Rotterdam : CIB Publications, June 1998. http://maven.gtri.gatech.edu/sfi

[11]Fisk, William J., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Health and Productivity Gains from BetterIndoor Environments and their relationship with Building Energy Efficiency . (2000)

[12] Heschong Mahone Group, Daylighting in Schools, An Investigation into the Human Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance, August 20, 1999 . http://www.h-m-g.com/Daylighting/schoolc.pdf

Fisk, William J., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Health and Productivity Gains from

Better Indoor Environments and their relationship with Building Energy Efficiency, 2000. Sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms are commonly reported by office workers and teachers who comprise about 50 percent of the workforce. Published data indicate that on the average 23 percent of office workers and teachers reported multiple SBS symptoms that improve when they leave their workplace. In California , this implies that about 2 million office workers and teachers are frequently affected by SBS symptoms. Multiplying the number of these employees by their annual average compensation and using a conservative estimate of a 2 percent decrease in productivity caused by SBS symptoms, results in an estimated cost of $6 billion.

[13]Donald Aitken, "Putting It Together: Whole Buildings and Whole Buildings Policy," Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) Research Report , no. 5 (September 1998).

[14]Joel Loveland, "Daylighting and Sustainability," Environmental Design and Construction October,2002; Lisa Heschong, "Daylighting in Schools, An investigation into the relationship between daylighting and human performance," Report to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Francisco CA , Aug. 1999. Note: Daylighting does not mean direct sunlight. Direct sunlight can actually reduce learning.

[15]Wilson , et al., Green Development. (1998) Rocky Mountain Institute. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New York .

[16]Romm and Browning, "Greening the Building and the Bottom Line." (1994) Rocky Mountain Institute

[17] Roodman, Davil Malin. World Watch Paper 24: A building Revolution; how ecology and health concerns are transforming construction . Pg 44Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1995 http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/124/

[18]"The Cost and Benefits of Green Buildings," A Report to California 's Sustainable Building Task Force, October 2003. Principle author Greg Katz. For full text and summary slides see www.cap-e.com http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf

[19] RI Greenhouse Gas Process http://righg.raabassociates.org/ (last visited 3/15/04 )

[20]Climate Change in RI-impact analysis http://envstudies.brown.edu/classes/es201/2003/Impact/impactanalysis_mainmenu.htm (last visited 3/15/04 )

[21] US Environmental Protection Agency's Global Warming Site http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html (last visited 3/15/04 )

[22] http://www.gbacpa.org/Resources/GBA-CPA_Newsletters/Volume_3_Issue_2_(Summer_2000).pdf (last visited 3/15/04 )

[23] USGBC News College Receives $7M donation http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcinthenews_details.asp?ID=696 (last visited 3/15/04 )

[24] Environment Yale, F&ES Journal, Fall 2002 pg. 11 "Sustainable Development also a Top Capital Campaign Priority" http://www.yale.edu/environment/downloads/ey_fall02/EY_Fall02.pdf

[25]Moomaw, William., (2003) " Aligning Values for Effective Sustainability Planning". Article in SCUP journal, Vol 31, n.3 Sustainability: Taking the Long View .