Insight

Welcome to Insight, the blog of the Building Energy Exchange. To compliment our physical space in Manhattan, Insight will be a virtual space for lively dialogue on energy efficiency in the built environment.

[bx-insight]

Press Release: BE-Ex announces new board member and vice-chair

The Building Energy Exchange, a non-profit dedicated to advancing energy efficiency in the built environment, is proud to announce the election of Robert F. Lurie of the New York Power Authority to their Board of Directors, and the appointment of sitting board member Donna De Costanzo of the Natural Resources Defense Council to the position of vice-chair.  

January 29, 2018

New York, NY – The Building Energy Exchange (BE-Ex), an independent non-profit, advances energy efficiency in the built environment through education, training, and exhibits at a stunning Manhattan resource center. Working closely with major City and State agencies, private sector real estate firms, and design and engineering leaders, BE-Ex develops critical resources and training for a sector that is central to New York City and State’s climate action plans. The BE-Ex Board of Directors reflects the diverse set of stakeholders that influence the performance of buildings in our city and region.   “The New York Power Authority has a long history of support for the Building Energy Exchange and its work helping New York State meet its clean energy targets,“ said Robert F. Lurie, executive vice president, chief financial officer, and chief strategy officer for New York Power Authority. “As a member of its board of directors, I look forward to providing direction and more hands-on collaboration in this important work.”   “I am thrilled to serve as BE-Ex's vice-chair,” said Donna De Costanzo, director, eastern region for the Climate & Clean Energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Building efficiency is a crucial element of New York’s fight against climate change, and BE-Ex plays an important role in that effort, engaging a wide range of stakeholders and providing critical resources and educational opportunities.”   “We are honored to work with these two industry leaders,” said Richard Yancey, BE-Ex’s executive director, “and the rest of our accomplished Board of Directors, as we expand our newly renovated energy efficiency center of excellence. With their guidance and support we are poised to significantly accelerate and scale our impact advancing the sustainability of our built environment and ensuring the building sector meets the most important challenge of our generation.”   Robert F. Lurie, newly elected to serve on the Building Energy Exchange's Board of Directors, is the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) executive vice president, chief financial officer, and chief strategy officer. He joined NYPA in 2012 as head of the newly formed strategic planning department, where he led the management team in creating their strategic plan. He also was responsible for managing project development, project finance, research & development, and evaluating new business opportunities and technologies.   Prior to NYPA, Lurie was vice president of North American business development for Ocean Power Technologies in New Jersey, and directed mergers and acquisitions for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., in Pennsylvania. He served as the chief of strategic planning at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from 2003-2007, leading the development of a 10-year, $20 billion strategic capital plan. Lurie replaces former New York Power Authority executive Jill Anderson, who recently relocated to California.    Donna De Costanzo will serve as Building Energy Exchange’s new vice-chair, and member of the Executive Committee. As director, eastern region for the Climate & Clean Energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Donna oversees NRDC’s work on climate and clean energy across the Eastern states and advocates for the implementation of policies that increase the deployment of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean transportation options. Prior to NRDC, Donna was counsel to the New York City Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection, where she advised the Speaker and council members on environmental policy and crafted legislation on various issues, including sustainability planning, climate change, clean energy, air and water quality, endangered species, and green procurement. Before joining the New York City Council, Donna was an assistant regional counsel in the Waste & Toxic Substances branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. She holds a BS in biological sciences from Cornell University and a JD from New York University School of Law.  

[END]

About BE-Ex

The Building Energy Exchange is an independent nonprofit created to educate the building industry about innovative energy efficient technologies and strategies, increasing the demand for efficiency projects and reducing friction for decision makers and practitioners. The Building Energy Exchange convenes networking and knowledge sharing events, professional training, and energy efficiency exhibits, in their downtown resource center. Additionally, BE-Ex manages targeted demonstration projects and maintains a website of extensive virtual resources at www.be-exchange.org.

Contact Richard Yancey, Executive Director, Building Energy Exchange 212-349-3900 [email protected]

[bx-insight]

Glass Towers

There’s a good piece over on the CNN website about a few relatively famous architects questioning our reliance on “all glass towers” from both an environmental and design perspective.  I would have preferred more technical details than are offered, but it is interesting to see this issue addressed in the mainstream rather than the industry press.  

One item of note, the articles suggests that the way we build with glass today represents the edge of the technical envelope for that material and I couldn’t disagree more.  Glazing systems in the US rely on meager thermal breaks and assemblies that can be dramatically improved for very little additional cost.  There is much work to be done here.  Expect more from us on this subject in the coming months.

-Yetsuh Frank, BE-Ex

[bx-insight]

Peak Glass

The amount of glass in the facades of buildings has been the subject of fascination for generations and is now the subject of fierce debate in energy efficiency circles.  Expansive glass provides an unmitigated and undeniably powerful visual connection to the outside.  The sense of being protected within an interior space while having a broad vista before you can, when done well, have an almost elemental appeal.  But cladding buildings entirely in glass has serious consequences for energy performance.  In the residential sector, the extremely limited insulating value of glass (even double-glazing) can contribute to high heating loads in colder seasons, and solar gain in summer can lead to high cooling loads, and glare and other comfort issues can be a problem year round.  In the commercial sector, where cooling is typically the dominant mode, the low insulating value of glass can, technically, help your interior loads but also causes a variety of glare, direct solar gain and other comfort issues.  The material properties of glazing are such that, even with triple-glazed units, it is basically not feasible to achieve Passive House certification with an envelope that is more than about 40% glazing.

I have to admit to a personal bias, in high-design terms I prefer early Botta to late Meier (look it up, kids.) In 2009 at Urban Green Council I was involved in the development of a program called “Glass vs. Mass” on the implications of all glass buildings. One of the architects on the panel admitted, in the manner of someone opening an AA meeting, “My name is Doug, I’m an Architect and I LOVE glass buildings.”  This got a good laugh, and you can’t deny that the views provided by mostly glass facades are enticing.  And its not just architects that like glass.  The market has spoken.  Glass facades are virtually synonymous with Class A commercial and luxury residential buildings.  

The other factor in favor of glazing is cost.  Glass facades are, relatively speaking, inexpensive.  An aluminum and glass curtainwall (or window wall) is typically less expensive and speedier to erect than a built up wall of block, insulation, masonry or other cladding.  Curtainwalls are also lighter, which breeds it own efficiencies in speed and, sometimes, structural framing. But in the coming decades the cost of glass may be changing.  

You’ve heard of peak oil, the point at which we’ve effectively identified all available oil reserves and our extraction of it slows, the amount each year declining as we use up known reserves.  Most of you probably know that glass is made from sand, but personally I was not aware that glass is made from a particularly high-purity sand- a limited resource that, similar to oil, we take for granted but are depleting rapidly.  Some estimate we have only 20 years of this glass-sand left, and well before we reach that date extraction will become more costly.  Extraction is also likely to become more damaging to surrounding ecosystems- which is already a significant impact.  

The folks at Dezeen have an interesting piece on this subject, here.  My favorite anecdote is that you cannot make concrete from desert sand, so places like Dubai have to import sand from Australia for their big infrastructure projects.  

We want glass facades for a variety of reasons, and we can have them because they are not expensive.  Many advocates for high performance buildings hope that codes will preclude all-glass facades in the future.  But maybe cost will drive this change before regulations.  It will be interesting to see if we continue to favor glassy facades when they become more expensive.  

- Yetsuh Frank, BE-Ex

[bx-insight]

Passive House Aims Higher

A new study from FXFOWLE finds that Passive House is definitely achievable for the large, tall multifamily buildings that dominate the New York City market.

As the Passive House standard gains traction in the public and private sector, decision makers of all stripes are eager for information about applying the standard to a wide range of building types.  Local examples of Passive House projects, though growing quickly in number, are mostly residential and smaller in scale.  What about very large or very tall buildings?  What about buildings that include multiple uses?  Will Passive House make the project more expensive?  Will it affect marketability?  

Now a major contribution has been added to this conversation in the form of an extremely detailed study by FXFOWLE looking at the feasibility of applying Passive House to tall multifamily buildings.  The study uses the current design for a real project as a baseline and provides an incredibly useful resource for everyone from policy makers, to building owners, to architects and engineers.

First developed in Germany, the Passive House standard has now been successfully applied in myriad countries and many different climates.  The standard hinges on developing a highly efficient envelope, with continuous insulation and limited thermal bridges.  Passive House envelopes are also significantly more airtight than is typical and, coupled with constant volume energy recovery ventilation and high-performance windows, provide an extremely comfortable interior environment using a very limited amount of energy.  (To learn more about the basics of Passive House, check out our briefing, Passive NYC.)  

The comparative study by FXFOWLE applies Passive House requirements to an existing project which their office had already designed and is currently under construction.  Nearly 300 feet tall, the 26-story, mixed-use, residential project selected for study is located in Queens, New York.  Roughly 600,000 SF, the building includes 100,000 SF of retail and 450 apartments, 20% of which are affordable.  The project was originally designed to meet LEED Silver criteria, including 20% energy cost savings relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

            Base base building used for the study

FXFOWLE set out to bring their baseline project up to Passive House specs with as few changes as possible, while relying only on widely available materials or systems and without demanding obscure construction techniques.  As a result, the Passive House version of their project could be built tomorrow.  Their study demonstrates that this could be achieved at a cost increase of only 2.4% and without any perceivable changes to the aesthetics of the project.  The latter is a critical point. The proposed project retains the 36% window-to-wall ratio of the baseline building, a fairly common figure familiar to projects with punched openings, and the study is another example of achieving the goals of Passive House in an elegant package.  But Passive House projects require windows that are higher performing, and significantly more expensive, than the energy code would dictate- typically they need to be triple-glazed to meet the stringent comfort requirements.  A 36% ratio can provide a bright, comfortable interior, but projects that wish to rely on significantly more glazing will find it much, much more difficult to meet the Passive House standards. The luxury residential market for instance, is dominated by facades with minimal depth or texture and floor-to-ceiling, highly-transparent glass.  Many of these projects would need to either reduce the area of glazing, add external shading systems, or both.

So the Passive House version costs slightly more than the baseline project.  What do you get for that money?

First and foremost, a big upgrade in comfort.  Regular, code-compliant buildings are full of compromises that impact the comfort of the occupants but aren’t really accounted for in the typical design process.  Take, for instance, window performance.  Although our energy codes require windows to meet certain performance criteria these are largely in place to reduce direct heat loss (or gain) and to avoid critical failures like condensation build up.  Passive House takes window criteria a step further by taking into account how the temperature of the surface of the window impacts comfort.  Even if the inside air is comfortable, say 72 degrees in winter, if the surface of your new code-compliant window is 55 degrees the radiant impacts will make you quite uncomfortable.  And even though the cold window surface is the cause, you’re only available response is to walk over and turn up the thermostat.  Passive House tackles this by limiting the temperature differential between the temperature of the air and the temperature of the exterior walls and windows to about 7 degrees (the threshold when the delta causes discomfort.)  Other issues that impact comfort but are largely ignored by standard codes include drafts (caused by by leaky exteriors, but also by that temperature differential I just described) and thermal bridging (think of a floor slab that extends out to become a balcony, and how cold it will make the floor in winter.)  On top of these thermal comfort issues, the constant volume ventilation provides cleaner air, and more of it, and does it quietly- all of which ensures Passive House interiors are among the healthiest and most comfortable available.

Next on the list of benefits is the low cost of heating and cooling the building.  One of the major benefits of Passive House is the minimal amount of energy required to heat and cool the buildings.  In this scenario, the heating demand is reduced by about 85% and the cooling demand is reduced by 40%.  Needless to say, these are significant when one considers that the base building project was slated to reduce energy cost 20% relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007.  One of the key factors in this reduction is the improved energy performance that results from a significantly more airtight building.  The study notes that the airtightness of the Passive House project is nearly 7 times as stringent as the code, and since airtightness is not policed one assumes actual performance of code compliant buildings is quite a bit worse.

Using what look to be very conservative numbers, FXFOWLE estimates annual energy cost savings to be $225,000.  This figure produces a relatively long 24 year payback period, but there are reasons to be confident the actual payback period would be shorter.  In their simple payback calculations FXFOWLE assumes flat energy costs across the payback period, which is standard procedure for this type of calculation.  But the reality is that energy costs will climb, and the more they do so the shorter the actual payback period would be.  Secondly, the expensive glazing system required by Passive House is a major component of the additional project’s costs, but as demand grows more manufacturers will enter the market. In Europe, triple-glazed systems are roughly at cost parity with standard systems and here in the US the costs of these systems are coming down every month.

My last point on cost is that, in addition to the other very significant benefits, Passive House is a strong risk management strategy.  A building that we anticipate using significantly less energy in a static universe insulates the owners and tenants from increased energy consumption due to operation as well as spikes in utility costs.  Smart financiers and investment bankers hedge their positions in the market, Passive House allows building owners to do likewise.  

The FXFOWLE study is comprehensive and considers a broad array of additional subjects.  There are extensive diagrams of the energy recovery ventilation systems proposed, at the unit and whole building level.  And the report delves into a host of other issues that must be addressed to pursue Passive House, including structural impacts, material and product selection, zoning, security, and others.  Perhaps most impressive are the many, many details provided that compare base building construction details and how they would be modified to suit the thermal bridging and airtightness requirements of Passive House.  

Anyone with even a passing interest in how buildings use energy, or how that consumption can be dramatically reduced to play a pivotal role in meeting our local climate action goals, should read the FXFOWLE study cover to cover.

The complete FXFOWLE study is available for download, here.

In October the Building Energy Exchange organized a presentation of the preliminary findings of the study.  Although a few of the numbers have been refined since that presentation, I highly recommend you watch the video of the event, available here.

- Yetsuh Frank, BE-Ex

[bx-insight]

What Makes Insulation Green (or Not)?

By: Arthur B. Weissman, Ph.D. President & CEO, Green Seal

At first thought it would seem self-evident that using thermal insulation products in a building, whether for new construction, renovation, or retrofit, would be a sustainable choice.  After all, the products conserve energy in heating and cooling a building.  What complicates this are the various environmental and health impacts of the insulation products themselves, both in their manufacturing and installation. Therefore, when choosing more sustainable insulation products, we seek to reduce those impacts while retaining the energy-conserving benefits and applicability of the products.

Green Seal faced this challenge when it developed its environmental leadership standard for insulation products (GS-54) in 2015-16.  There are hazards of some sort or another attached to virtually all insulation products on the market today, ranging from the toxic or greenhouse-gas-producing ingredients of foam insulation to the lower performance and propensity to mold of seemingly innocuous cellulose products.  In between are products like wool fibers or fiberglass that have moderate impacts but may not be cost-effective or easily widely applicable.

In its leadership standards, Green Seal seeks to identify the most sustainable products.  We consider this level to be approximately the top 15-20% of products in a category.  It is sometimes hard know which are the top products, due to the multitude of product types and applications.  For example, what works for a fill-in may not work well for a wall, roof, or basement below ground.  As a result, we chose to identify the most sustainable products in each insulation product sub-category (e.g., mineral wools, foam, etc.) that also satisfied the functional needs and requirements.  (All Green Seal standards contain functional performance criteria to ensure that a “green” product actually works well.)

The draft insulation standard we proposed for public comment did not categorically exclude foam insulation products, including spray polyurethane foam (SPF) (whose required agent, MDI, is a proven asthmagen but has no known substitutes) and polystyrene foam (whose blowing agents are potent greenhouse gases). Not surprisingly, the proposal received substantial criticism from some health and environmental groups.  These stakeholders believed that a standard for “green” products should only allow less toxic or harmful products like fiberglass, mineral and animal wools, cellulose, and fabrics like denim.

Green Seal takes all substantive comments on its proposed standards seriously, and we worked with stakeholders to try to resolve differences.  While the final standard did not ultimately prohibit foam insulation, it did incorporate a number of additional protections related to the installation of SPF and the allowable greenhouse gas levels of polystyrene blowing agents.  In our view, SPF and other foam insulation products will continue to be used for applications where they are best suited, and it is better for users to choose the most sustainable versions of these products.

For more information on Green Seal’s GS-54 insulation standard and its standard development process, check out the enclosed website links or email our team at [email protected].

This is a guest blog written by Dr. Arthur Weissman, President & CEO of Green Seal, the nation’s premier non-profit environmental certification and standard development organization. The ideas and opinions put forward in this blog do not represent those of the Building Energy Exchange or its employees.   

[bx-insight]

Getting NYC to 80x50: Buildings

What’s Our Problem?

John Gilbert of Rudin Management and Thomas Sahagian, formerly of Enterprise Community Partners, went to the mat last week at the New York League of Conservation Voters’ 80x50 forum on buildings.

BE-Ex’s very own Executive Director, Richard Yancey, moderated a fascinating panel exploring ways we can radically improve efficiency in NYC’s building stock quickly enough to meet New York City’s goal of 80% reduction by 2050. One of the most interesting moments of the event was the surfacing of an ongoing debate in the building industry: Do we have a technology problem or is it something else (think education, implementation, priorities)?

This debate is not new; technocrats and non-technocrats have been going at it for years. In this author’s opinion we will likely need both technology and behavioral change to solve our problems. However, this conversation remains interesting because with limited monetary and human resources, it is clear that the side that makes a more compelling case will win a larger share of those resources.

Sahagian came down strongly that technology cannot solve all our problems. There are age-old, easy and cheap ways to save energy in buildings, such as air sealing and weather-stripping, that we have not managed to implement at a large-scale. We need to figure out how to get the most basic things done before imagining that technology will save the day.

Gilbert, on the other hand, explained that Rudin Management has achieved 20% energy savings in their base buildings by developing new hardware and software. Specifically, Rudin has developed a technology that optimizes energy use based on occupancy, in real time. Furthermore, this software and the results it produced has allowed them to make a compelling case to their tenants to do the same. It’s hard to argue with results!

As the debate continued, John Lee, from the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, stepped back and reminded us that the core problem is that the world economy is built on fossil fuels. We are in a crucial moment in history. We are trying to change the commodity that runs our economy without knowing exactly what will come next. And that is bigger than the debate between technology and behavior!  

[bx-insight]

An Intern’s Experience of Daylight Hour 2017

Name: Rachel Vullo Degree: Political Science and Cultural Studies Position: Resource Development Intern

My first week at the Building Energy Exchange began with a whirlwind of outreach, social media postings, emailing, and promotion for the organization's annual social media campaign, Daylight Hour. My organizational skills went into overdrive compiling lists of hundreds of participants and watching as they promoted the campaign over social media.

The Daylight Hour campaign has taught me valuable lessons on successfully communicating with a wide range of businesses from huge corporations to small offices with a handful of employees such as BE-Ex. As more of the responsibility for handling social media platforms was allotted to me, I have learned the importance of internet outreach and engagement. The number of offices who signed up based on a tweet they saw or a post on LinkedIn was astounding.

Now that Daylight Hour is over and we have announced our award winners, it’s great to see the excitement from our participants. Many of the offices have decided to extend Daylight Hour over the summer and continuously promote energy savings. As an intern, I value seeing the lasting impact that the campaign has had.

Daylight Hour 2017 encompassed over 100 million square feet of office space (20 million square feet more than last year) and reached more than 10 million people via social media. Not only did this year increase awareness of the campaign but we were honored by the positive feedback we received from participants. In just one hour, we saved enough energy to power 9,400 homes for a day. I am honored to have been a part of making such an impact.

[bx-insight]

Case Study: Daylight Hour Adds Up For Easy Energy Savings Boost At Great Forest

Summary: Great Forest’s participation in Daylight Hour 2016 triggered not only energy savings but also prompted increased engagement among employees stemming from the thrill of coming up tops promoting the fun competition. Following our success, we turned Daylight Hour into Daylight Fridays, expanding our energy saving efforts year-round, and beyond lighting.

What we did: Great Forest’s NYC office occupies  a  110-year-old brownstone in historic Central Harlem. Daylighting is plentiful due to skylights and east facing windows, and minimal shading from neighboring properties. As such, our office lights are usually off for a good amount of time each day, even before we began taking part in Daylight Hour.

So to really make a difference in energy savings, we decided that we would not just turn off the lights, but also take into account cooling to make an impact on the aggregated total. The Great Forest energy team then went floor to floor to make adjustments in our 2-pronged effort to curtail energy use. While the upper floors received plenty of daylight, they also predictably gain the most heat during summer afternoons, particularly in storage areas (where the thermostat is located), which happen to be remote from the work areas.  This along with our west-facing windows, which collect the most late afternoon heat, were forcing over-cooling of the rest of the building, since the cooling system was making adjustments for this area. So we decided to change the set-point and operate windows more frequently, and to invest in room darkening shades for the upper floors. Ultimately, the shades are what is probably making the most impact on the property.

Results: Results from both our managed cooling efforts and limited lighting during last year’s Daylight Hour (June 17, 2016) and the days following were impressive: we saved more than 25% (500kWh) year over year (June 2015 compared to June 2016) in total kWh usage, and over 56% (1.3 kW) in peak kW demand billed by Con Edison. We have to note that luck was also on our side as  some of the high heat days of summer 2016 fell on weekends.

Conclusion: Lights and automated heating/cooling systems are so much a part of our daily working life that in the majority of offices across the country, workers do not even think about it. The lights and heat/air are on when we get to the office, and they often remain on even if there is bright daylight streaming through our windows, or if it gets too cold.

“We need to get get more people to pay attention to their immediate surroundings,” says Sheila Sweeney, Great Forest’s Director of Energy Services.

“Part of what we do at Great Forest is to work closely with C-suite levels at property management firms around the US to forge change in the mindsets of their employees and the larger community. Now we’ve done it within our own offices with Daylight Hour. We made sure that everyone was able to join in the energy saving conversation. We made it fun and memorable, and we simply built on that success by making awareness a year-round energy saving policy.”

“If you work in a large office where controls are not within your reach, talk to your sustainability officer or facility manager.  The solution could be as simple as turning a dial elsewhere in the building.”

This article originally appeared on the Great Forest Sustainability 101 Blog

[bx-insight]

Shedding Some Light on Daylighting

This graphic illustrates our Daylight Hour light measurement study. Each photo was taken at a different location on the hour around the office. The weather at the time is represented by the cloud or sun icons and the corresponding light intensity is found within. The time of each photo is represented by the circular clock icon to the left. As part of FXFOWLE's commitment to protecting and repairing the environment, sustainable practices aren't exclusive to our design work. We are committed to making our workplace a model of sustainability as well. Our firm has been carbon neutral since 2008 and we are invested in finding new ways to be good stewards of the planet.

For that reason, we are participating in Building Energy Exchange's annual Daylight Hour. Daylight Hour is a social media campaign to encourage using natural daylight in offices in place of electric lighting for just one hour. For the second year in a row, FXFOWLE has committed to extending the Building Energy Exchange's challenge by turning the lights off between noon and 2 p.m. every day throughout the summer.

In addition to this challenge, we conducted a small research study to calculate the quality of daylight on all three floors of our New York City office within a typical work day (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). We measured different locations in the office on the hour with a light meter, measuring foot candles in each area. A foot candle is the measurement of light intensity, and LEED requires office spaces to have a minimum of 10 foot candles of daylight to be sufficient. The ideal range is 10 to 500 foot candles.

We discovered that our office receives an abundance of natural light, only absolutely requiring electric lighting in select areas closer to the interior of the office. The eleventh floor receives the highest quality and widest range (25 – 116 fc on the day of the study) of daylight due to its north-south orientation, large windows, and skylights. Knowing this, FXFOWLE will continue this research throughout the summer and consider having lights off more regularly to continue saving energy in our workplace.

This article originally appeared in the FXFOWLE Culture Blog.

[bx-insight]

North America’s Quiet Passive House Revolution - Part 3

Six strategies to accelerate market transformation for passive buildings 

By: Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, Pembina Institute 

This is the final article in a three-part series based on the findings of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures. Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Subnational governments have a key role to play in accelerating the market transformation for high performance buildings. In Part 2, we discussed some policies adopted in Western Canada to encourage Passive House developments today and to shift the building code to a comparable level of performance by 2030. In Part 1 of this series, we showed how the demand for Passive House buildings and training has increased as a result of these policies and the leadership of practitioners.

So if this transformation is underway, why do we need policy-makers to get involved?  We are on a timeline, and must pick up the pace. Each building allowed to be built to current standards is a 50+ year liability in a world that needs to be almost fully decarbonized within the next 30 years. To prepare the industry to deliver Passive House levels of performance consistently in less than 15 years is a challenge that requires vision and planning.

What would a comprehensive policy package look like? Based on our review of public policies in Europe and North America, local, state, and provincial governments efforts should focus on six strategies (Table 1):

Get more passive buildings on the ground, today. It takes time for supply chains to stock the high performance components needed, and for professionals and trades to develop expertise to design and construct passive buildings. The sooner we start, the better: the best market transformation strategy is a shovel in the ground. To this end, subnational governments should design public procurement policies, rezoning policies, and incentives programs to target passive house levels of performance, rather than allocating points for ‘marginally above code’ performance. Prioritize projects that are affordable and replicable (particularly for the MURB sector) and those with high visibility to the public (e.g. city halls, libraries, schools, hotels). To maximize the learnings from these leading projects, provide incentives for developers and owners to share data on the project economics and design strategies and to collaborate with research institutions to monitor performance post-occupancy.

Free up additional capital to cover incremental costs. Provinces and states can use government bonds to provide low-cost capital for loans and incentives for high performance new construction and refurbishments. If well designed, these public investments can be cost-neutral (or even cost-positive) for governments, because the economic activity they generate also lead to an increase public revenues through taxation. For example, Germany’s KfW development Bank returns to the public coffers four to five times the amount of public funds originally invested by the government. Alongside this public financing, private financing can be encouraged by mechanisms such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), which decrease the risk of default by tying the loan to the property title.

Ensure markets and decision-makers have access to energy information. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it: comparable and validated energy data must be made available to the market for the benefits of energy efficiency to be reflected in prices and assessed value. States and local governments should require benchmarking and reporting based on square footage, starting with larger buildings first and including smaller ones over time. They should also require home energy labelling for new construction and at point of sale/renovation. These will provide the feedback mechanisms needed to guide code evolution and facilitate valuation of energy efficiency and market positioning of high performance buildings.

Prepare the ground for regulation. States and provinces should send clear regulatory signals to the market; defining mid- and long-term targets for energy code performance allows time for supply chains and training providers to prepare for these changes. It also provides an incentive for builders to skip the middle steps and learn directly how to build high-performance buildings, giving them an edge on the market and minimizing the investment needed to change practices at each code change. Code developers should use benchmarking data to monitor impact of energy code changes as we progress towards 2030 targets, and adjust accordingly through codes updates or bulletins.

Create information sharing hubs for training, research, and outreach. High performance buildings are not rocket science, but there is a learning curve. Having set targets and a vision for where the industry is going, we must ensure that professionals, trades, contractors, owners, managers, building officials, and assessors are prepared for the next generation of energy codes and high performance buildings. Governments support the institutions and agencies that provide some of this education, research, and outreach so they can develop new curriculum and prepare to meet an increased demand as codes come into force. In addition, a central coordinating body should be created (or mobilized) to facilitate access to existing training resources, assess the readiness of the industry, and work with training providers and manufacturers to fill capacity and supply-chain gaps.

Internalize the full cost of energy. Most economists agree that setting a price on undesired externalities and letting the market innovate to meet the new conditions is more cost effective than regulatory approaches. California, Québec, and Ontario’s cap and trade system and B.C.’s carbon tax provide successful examples of how subnational governments can set a price on carbon pollution. Unfortunately, current levels of carbon pricing are still much too low to drive construction and renovation decisions towards deep energy efficiency and decarbonization. Various businesses in the building sector have called for increased carbon pricing, for example in CERES’ Building and Real Estate Climate Declaration in the U.S. and the Call for Action on Climate and Energy in the Building Sector in Canada. Reallocation of energy subsidies and utility rate design are other tools state and provincial governments can use to correct the failure of our energy markets to minimize waste and pollution.

A market transformation has started, and uptake is accelerating. Hopefully, in a decade or so, we will be comfortably seated in our new (or renovated!) Passive House office or home, and look back in awe upon the days when we accepted buildings to be drafty, stuffy, and wasteful. Unfortunately, this future is uncertain: nothing guarantees that this budding market transformation will ripen to create a new normal. The barriers are significant: low energy prices, the absence of a meaningful price on carbon pollution, split incentives, and a long list of behavioral biases that often leads us to ignoring cost-effective efficiency projects (inattention, imperfect information, hyperbolic discounting, etc.). The creative minds of Passive House designers, builders, and contractors, and of high performance component manufacturers can solve any technical issues we will face along the way. But if we want this technology to go mainstream, and fast, we need government to address these market failures.

Subnational governments have been successful at implementing progressive building policies. Their leadership will continue to be pivotal in the evolution of low/no-carbon building policies given the current White House administration’s lack of interest.

Table 1: Strategic actions for market transformation

This is a guest blog written by Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, a senior advisor with the Buildings and Urban Solutions Program at the Pembina Institute, a non-profit think-tank that advocates for strong, effective policies to support Canada’s clean energy transition. He is the lead author of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures.

[bx-insight]

North America’s Quiet Passive House Revolution - Part 2

Energy Efficient Buildings: Subnational Governments Lead the Way

By Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, Pembina Institute

This is the second article in a three-part series based on the findings of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures. Read Part 1. Keep your eyes peeled for part 3.

Both north and south of the border, the new U.S. administration’s position on energy efficiency was already a source of concern for clean economy advocates prior to their announced intention to withdraw from the Paris Accord. Canada is still recovering from a decade of inaction and regression on environmental issues under the previous government. The current Canadian government is making progress on the climate file — setting a minimum price on carbon and charting a pathway to net-zero ready building codes by 2030 — but much remains to be done.

Fortunately, in both countries, subnational governments have significant jurisdiction over the building sector. Some states, provinces, and local authorities have shown leadership in policy design, for example: New York City’s policy requiring new public buildings to be 50% more efficient than the average for each sector, their intention to increase code stringency significantly over the next few cycles, and many other incremental measures like their thick wall exclusion for high performing buildings;the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency’s competitive funding for new affordable housing granting points for Passive House certification, or Baltimore County’s High Performance Home tax credit. California’s vision to make new residential and commercial buildings zero-net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and 2030, respectively, has lead it to draft some of North America’s most ambitious stretch codes (CALGreen) and building codes (Title 24).  

Readers in the U.S. are probably familiar with these examples. But some might be less familiar with the Canadian scene, so we’ve dedicated this article to sharing progressive policies recently put into place on Canada’s West Coast.

VANCOUVER: EPICENTER OF THE PASSIVE HOUSE BOOM?

The city of Vancouver is a hot spot of Passive House activity, with at least 12 multi-unit mid-rise residential projects currently in development. When completed, these will account for a quarter of all of the Passive House square footage we could inventory (i.e. including all certified projects and our non-exhaustive [and geographically biased] survey of projects aiming for certification). This was supported by city hall, which attempted to remove barriers to Passive House by providing certified projects with floor space exclusions for thick walls, height and set-back relaxations, and an alternate compliance path to meet rezoning requirements for increased density. The city also trained permit reviewers and inspection staff in Passive House to reduce possible barriers to innovative designs and streamline processing.

But this was only the beginning. The City of Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Building Plan charts a course for a 90% reduction in emissions from new buildings by 2025, and achieving zero emissions for all new buildings by 2030. The plan sets a course for all new multi-family buildings six storeys and under to be built to near Passive House levels of performance by 2020 (i.e. requiring a thermal energy demand intensity no greater than 15 kWh/m2/year; see Figure 1). An intermediary target of 25 kWh/m2/year was adopted (alongside a prescriptive compliance option) in the latest revision to the building bylaw coming into force in March 2018. As a result, emissions from low-rise multi-family buildings will be reduced by 40% to 55%. Homeowners and renters will see energy savings of $2.8 million (CAD) over the next five years, and the net cost of ownership (including mortgage and energy payments) for new owners will be realized from day one.

The city has also committed to build all new city-owned projects to the Passive House standard (unless deemed unviable). A fire hall and a social housing project are new Passive House projects underway.

Figure 1: Targets for low-rise MURBs in the City of Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Buildings Plan Note: GHGI: Annual greenhouse gas emissions intensity, in kg-CO2e /m2. TEDI: Annual thermal energy demand intensity, in kWh/m2. Bylaw requirements apply to all low-rise MURBs, rezoning requirements apply to projects seeking to increase density beyond current zoning requirements for their site. Historically, more than half of new floor area built in Vancouver requires rezoning. See p.17-18 of the plan for targets for high-rise MURBs, and offices. 

BRITISH COLUMBIA: TAKING STRETCH CODES TO THE NEXT LEVEL

In the meantime, the Province of British Columbia is also moving forward with plans for more efficient buildings. Its latest provincial climate plan, while generally lacking in ambition and insufficient to meet the province's legislated carbon reduction targets, did contain some promising building policies. This includes a commitment for all new construction to be net-zero ready by 2032, the establishment of incentives for high-performance new construction, as well as increased support for training and capacity building.

The plan also confirmed political support for North America’s first multi-tiered energy stretch code, dubbed the Energy Step Code. This opt-in, performance-based standard will provide a unified framework for local government to incent or require energy performance beyond code minimum. It includes four performance steps, the first step requiring energy modelling and air-tightness testing (but no additional performance gains beyond base code), and the last step requiring performance levels matching the international Passive House standard (i.e. a thermal energy demand intensity no greater 15 kWh/m2/year)(Figure 2).

The Energy Step Code thus provides a four-step roadmap between current building practice and the net-zero ready goal. It also confirms a consensus towards an “envelope-first” approach, and sets Passive House levels of performance as the desired end goal. The Energy Step Code will allow leading municipalities to devise policies and incentives to move both the bulk and the leading edge of the market transformation bell curve, to prepare the industry not just for the next code cycle but also for the more profound changes needed for high performance construction to become the norm by 2030.

Figure 2: British Columbia energy step code tiers for Part 3 buildings (i.e. commercial, mid high rise residential)

As we will discuss in the last article in this series, the success of this transition requires a shared vision of the end goal, and government support for the leaders who are building to Passive House performance today.  

Vision and support from the public sector will be needed for this Passive House (r)evolution to bloom into a new normal. A friendly competition between subnational governments on both sides of the border could be an invigorating stimulus.

We’ve dropped our cards. New York, show us what you’ve got.

This is a guest blog written by Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, a senior advisor with the Buildings and Urban Solutions Program at the Pembina Institute, a non-profit think-tank that advocates for strong, effective policies to support Canada’s clean energy transition. He is a the lead author of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures.

[bx-insight]

North America’s Quiet Passive House Revolution - Part 1

Growth in Passive House Buildings: A Sign of Market Transformation Underway

By: Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, Pembina Institute 

This is the first article in a three-part series based on the findings of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures. Look for Part 2 next week.

There’s a Passive House revolution underway. It might not be obvious to all of us working in the trenches to get one more ultra energy-efficient project built, one more sustainable building policy in place. But taking a step back, we can see evidence of a market in rapid transition, showing some of the tell-tale signs of a technology leaping from niche towards mainstream.

Market transformation moments are obvious in hindsight, but nebulous as they unfold. In this series of three blogs, we’ll highlight three indicators that such a transformation is underway: the growing number and size of projects, the growing number of trained professionals and trades people, and the increased inclusion of Passive House principles in subnational construction policies. We’ll close the series with recommendations to accelerate this market transformation.  

PROJECTS: MORE & BIGGER

There has been a steady growth in the number of Passive House projects in North America in the last eight years (Figure 1). More importantly, projects are growing in size and sophistication (see here, here, and here). Alongside the nimble early adopters working on custom projects, we now see larger construction companies investing time and resources to develop Passive House solutions that can compete in the multi-unit residential market.

Once the projects currently on the books are completed, the number of Passive House units in North America will have grown six-fold, from 500 in 2015 to over 3,000 units. Even if some of these projects do not succeed in meeting all certification criteria, this is a significant growth in demand for high performance product and services.

(a)

(b)

(c )

Figure 1: Growth in certified Passive Houses in North America (PHI and PHIUS) since 2009 by (a) number of projects (b) square footage and (c) number of residential dwellings. Note: “In development” data is a non-exhaustive scan of projects under development attempting to certify. It includes projects that PHIUS expects will be completed in 2017, projects in the Moodyville redevelopment in North Vancouver, and a non-exhaustive list of projects from one of the four PHI certifiers in Canada.

This growth in number of units is mostly due to the rapid emergence of larger Passive House multi-unit residential buildings. If they deliver on the quality we expect from certified Passive House projects, these buildings will provide many more homeowners or renters with the  experience of superior thermal and acoustic comfort. Demand for new products and technologies is not linear: fueled by word of mouth and a desire to “keep up with the Joneses,” direct experience and bragging rights are a powerful social marketing force.

These larger projects will also provide a large number of “mainstream” trades people, contractors, and professionals with experience on Passive House construction sites — a key factor in reducing construction costs.

TRAINING: BROADENING THE TENT

The number of professionals and trades workers receiving formal training in Passive House construction techniques is another indicator of market transformation. Passive House Institute U.S. (PHIUS), Passive House Canada, and the Passive House Institute (through Passive House Academy) provide training and certification programs for professionals and trades and support networks for practitioners. Demand and capacity for training has steadily increased in the last five years. As a result, there are currently over 1,600 professionals and trades workers trained in Passive House construction in North America, with hundreds of new certifications expected in the next year (Figure 2).

What may matter even more than the total figure, is who is getting training. Talking with Passive House trainers in Canada, we hear that classrooms are increasingly filled with staff from large construction companies, major consultancies, and local governments. Education institutions also are integrating high performance construction principles in their curriculum, providing a base for the next generation. This broadening of the expertise base from entrepreneurial early adopters to established institutional players is a key indicator of market transformation.

The community of practitioners is also becoming more widely distributed across North America. The East Coast of the U.S. has a large body of practice, along with California and the Pacific Northwest. In Canada, most practitioners are on the West Coast, followed by Ontario and Québec. However, the spread of Passive House practice goes beyond these hot spots, as there are now certified Passive House trades workers or professionals registered in most states and provinces (Figure 3). There are also over 25 chapters of Passive House Alliance U.S. and the North American Passive House Network providing facilitated and peer-led support to their more than 1,500 members.  

Figure 2: Growth in certified Passive House designers and trades in U.S. and Canada since 2009. Data source: Passive House Canada and PHIUS. Note: the number of certified designers is not tracked by PHIUS — these figures were estimated from records of course registration and the historical pass rate on the PHIUS exam.

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1AKRo8GQLjQrHJrnmlUasZvl0QzeZVeSFNy6gLlSw#map:id=3 Figure 3: Map of certified Passive House practitioners in the U.S. and Canada (as of August 2016)

As with any systems change, movement can seem painfully incremental. It’s important to take a step back once in a while to celebrate progress. The growing number of Passive House projects built for or by large institutional players and the increasing number – and diversity – of trained professionals are good indicators of inflection points in market transformation. As we will discuss in Part 2, integration of Passive House principles and standards in public policy are other key indicators, and accelerators, of this mainstreaming.

This is a guest blog written by Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, a senior advisor with the Buildings and Urban Solutions Program at the Pembina Institute, a non-profit think-tank that advocates for strong, effective policies to support Canada’s clean energy transition. He is the lead author of the report Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures.

[bx-insight]

Meet Cate Stern, our 2017 Summer Intern

1. Share your favorite energy factoid.   New York State has the lowest total energy consumption per capita in the country, because of New York City’s extensive transit system. But it also has some of the oldest buildings with the longest life spans in the country, which leaves tons of room for energy improvement in that area.

2. What energy conservation campaign would you start in your office or want to share with other offices?   I would love to decrease vampire energy consumption, as well as making sure buildings are as comfortably heated and lit as possible. Especially with office space expanding in parts of Brooklyn, I would love to see these buildings designed and created with that in mind. Additionally, I would love to have super waste sorting in an office space! Material consumption is also a form of energy consumption. 

3. What are you currently reading?   Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown

4. What are some ways you reduce your carbon footprint at home?   I cook less meat, take my compost to a local collection, and turn off the AC during the majority of the day. I also do very full loads of laundry and am mindful of using too much water.  

5. What is your personal superpower?   Staying hydrated!  

[bx-insight]

Meet Rachel, our summer 2017 intern

My name is Rachel and I am from Saratoga, NY about three hours north of New York City. I am a rising senior at Villanova University double majoring in Political Science and Cultural Studies. I was drawn to Building Energy Exchange based on a desire to learn more about energy efficiency and sustainability.

1. Share your favorite energy factoid. I find it noteworthy that a large percentage of American citizens would like to do more to work on reducing their carbon footprints. About 62% of American households would pay more for environmentally friendly energy solutions if it meant reducing global carbon emissions.

2. What energy campaign would you start in your office or want to share with other offices? The idea of a Daylight Hour as an annual event where businesses commit to turning off the lights for one hour is inspiring. I would work on sharing this idea with other businesses but also expanding the campaign up to a monthly or weekly basis. Most offices hold weekly staff meetings so it may be easy to combine the daylight hour idea with this allotted time for meetings.

3. What are you currently reading right now? I am currently reading “All the Light We Cannot See” by Anthony Doerr- highly recommend.

4. What are some ways you reduce your carbon footprint at home? I generally try to limit my water usage at home. For example, when brushing my teeth or washing dishes, turning off the faucet while it is not necessary can add up to save a decent amount of water. Taking shorter showers is something that has come naturally to me as my schedule fills up and I have less idle time. I could, however, work on turning off the lights more in my home.

5. What is your personal superpower? My personal superpower is the ability to make endless to-do lists and maintain an almost alarmingly organized calendar.

[bx-insight]

BE-Ex Wins a City & State Corporate Social Responsibility Award

BE-Ex was honored to have been selected as a City & State Corporate Social Responsibility Award honoree for outstanding work promoting sustainability in New York. The award was presented at a celebratory breakfast reception onTuesday, April 25th at The New School.  

City & State CSR showcases outstanding New York business leaders and corporations through their series of highly publicized award ceremonies, conference, and specialty publications, for their tremendous work in the area of Corporate Social Responsibility. 

Congratulations to all the winners, and a special shout out to our good friends at Bright Power, NYPA, NYSERDA, and CUNY BPL. 

Check out more photos from the event, here. 

[bx-insight]

Enterprise’s Guide to Green Funding and Resources

Enterprise Community Partners is thrilled to share the updated Green Funding and Resources for New York City Affordable Multifamily Housing guide with the Building Energy Exchange. This guide is an important tool that provides a comprehensive overview of low- or no-cost resources to help owners and operators of affordable, multifamily housing improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. 

Enterprise firmly believes that smart and sustainable housing is a sure way to help preserve New York’s critical affordable housing stock. Green and resilient retrofits help to ensure that buildings perform at their best, reduce costs for owners, and improve the health outcomes and quality of life for residents.

The Green Funding and Resources guide represents one of the many ways that Enterprise is committed to making affordable housing healthy and sustainable. Enterprise Green Communities, the national standard for green affordable housing, was formally adopted by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in 2011, and is now required for all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects in NYC receiving funding from the department.

 The Green Funding and Resources guide is a resource to both those owners aiming to achieve Enterprise Green Communities Certification in New York City as well as owners otherwise committed to improving the efficiency of their buildings. 

Thank you to the Building Energy Exchange for connecting more owners to the Green Funding and Resources guide and continuing to support the efficiency of NYC’s buildings. We hope that those who come across this guide find it helpful, and are encouraged to use the resources available to make long-lasting and sustainable change. 

Guest blog by Aliya Brown, Enterprise Community Partners

For questions or suggestions, please reach out to [email protected]

To learn more about Enterprise Community Partners and their Green Funding and Resources for NYC Multifamily Housing guide, please visit: https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/green-funding-and-resources-new-york-city-affordable-multifamily-housing-13412

[bx-insight]

Meet the BE-Ex Board: Louis Rizzo

Louis Rizzo (left) with Paul Smith of National Grid. 1. Share your favorite energy factoid. For more than 16 years, I have held various energy efficiency and customer growth roles at National Grid. I manage all NYC agencies accounts, NYCHA accounts, and NYC Mayor’s office Build-it-Back program. In my prior role, I managed all of National Grid Gas Energy Efficiency commercial, multifamily and residential programs in New York City and Long Island service areas. These programs provide financial incentives to commercial, industrial, multifamily and residential customers implementing natural gas energy efficiency measures. 2. What energy conservation campaign would you start in your office or want to share with other offices? Over the last nine years, I have created and implemented a host of energy campaigns as well as initiatives that have assisted with achieving our New York City and Long Island sales and energy efficiency program goals. Some of these campaigns and initiatives include a) a direct install programs for the multifamily and commercial markets b) a boiler tune-up program targeting large commercial and multifamily customers c) segmented marketing campaigns promoting conversion and high velocity air conditioning services for our unregulated business units. 3. What are you reading right now? Generally, I read news and other media articles related to the energy industry, markets trends and local news. 4. What are some ways you reduce your carbon footprint at home? I am a very energy conscious person that takes active measures in reducing my energy usage and carbon footprint.  In my home, I have installed a boiler reset control, insulated my heating pipes, replaced my lighting with LED bulbs, and weatherized my home. 5. What is your personal superpower? I am a creative individual that has strong skills in contract negotiations, problem solving, project management, financial analysis, management, and maintaining/growing clients.