Architects Submit Your Design Projects and Join the Race!

The Race is a friendly competition among organizations and architects across the country to see who submits the most projects that achieve Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR. The project’s region will be determined by zip code for one of three U.S regions: Wild West, Big Easy Central, and East Coast. The region with the most projects by the deadline wins the Race. Here are just some of the benefits for Architects, Building Owners, Commercial Investors, and Public Officials:

• Easy and affordable to apply for the certification (no cost from EPA)
• Connects your project to the ENERGY STAR brand recognized by more than 80% of the American public
• Recognizes organizations for achieving energy efficiency during the design phase
• Documents design energy use for various disclosure initiatives and other rating systems
• Compares design energy target to the operating building performance

For more information or to join The Race, head to the ENERGY STAR website.

Chapter 2 of the recently published Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small to Medium Office Buildings: Achieving 50% Energy Savings Toward a Net Zero Energy Building (“AEDG”), is a resource that begins to explain how to use IPD to achieve energy savings, by asking the right questions at the right time. The AEDG was developed by  representatives of ASHRAE, AIA, IESNA, USGBC, and USDOE and is available free for download at http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/aedg50pct.  Previous guides in the AEDG series have been very technically focused, with extensive charts enumerating prescriptive values to govern design. To augment this approach, the Office 50% AEDG explores the interconnectivity of critical decisions across a number of disciplines.

Chapter 2 was written for a broad audience of stakeholders involved in the design process and begins by clarifying how greater efficiency and quality of design and construction is obtained through trust, early involvement of all, common goals, open communication and cooperation. An idealized design management guidance template is included to document Key Design Activities for Energy Efficiency. Detailed descriptions are provided, by project phase, of what issues should be considered by the team.

For example, during the crucial Project Kickoff phase, the AEDG recommends that an Owner’s Project Requirements document (OPR) be written to compile project goals. Alignment on both the goals and their relative importance is useful so that team members do not pursue divergent paths. Some suggested points for discussion are:

• Construction and Operating costs
• Frequency of use
• Target energy labels/ratings
• Payback period/ ROI thresholds
• Ownership/leasing arrangements
• Prioritization of requirements
• Funding requirements

During the Concept phase, the AEDG recommends completion of a series of holistic studies related to climate, site investigation, and building configuration, to creatively address:

• Site conditions
• Availability of natural resources
• Local material availability
• Access to transportation
• Environmental risks or opportunities
• Daylighting and natural ventilation potential
• Perimeter occupant comfort

The AEDG also recommends that teams, during Schematic Design, develop a preliminary energy model for a representative zone, on each face of the building, exploring the interplay of façade component performance; the amount and placement of glazing; and impacts upon annual operating costs, comfort, and first costs.   At this time, most teams would also complete a preliminary project cost estimate; so it is a critical time to look beyond capital cost, to review opportunities to reduce operating expenses. A selection of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) should be analyzed, to support this effort.  Typical comparative evaluation criteria include:

• Additional first costs
• Anticipated energy/maintenance savings
• Payback period/Return on Investment
• Energy and carbon emissions savings
• Additional  savings, additional USGBC LEED points, utility incentives
• Range of light levels/temperatures throughout year

Armed with this information, teams will be prepared to enter Design Development, ready to evaluate design options using Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), a 20-to-25 year view of the building and its projected operating expense.  The goal of this analysis is to determine where early investments will continue to reap savings for a decade or more after payback is achieved. It is often useful to complete LCCA early enough to offset the first-cost saving pressures of value engineering. As a final, project-specific collection of ECMs is determined, the design team can update its Basis of Design document (BOD) for the Commissioning Agent’s review, to ensure that the goals of the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) have been maintained.

During the Construction Documents phase, the AEDG recommends that a pre-construction review of constructability, on-site waste reduction, and material sourcing be conducted with the builders.  Small changes to specifications or typical details, during this phase, are often negligible in cost but might easily result in a project with improved durability, reduced off-gassing, selection of the most appropriate building methods, and increased local industry engagement. At this point, the AEDG also strongly recommends a thorough review of control strategies, to ensure design intent clarity.  A design with the best intentions can still fail miserably, regarding energy savings, if controls are implemented poorly. Lastly, during the Construction Documents phase, the AEDG recommends that the design team produce a user-friendly tenant education guide that contains a few key items such as:

• Introductory content explaining why energy efficiency is important.
• A “cartoon” type graphical representation of energy-efficiency features
• An estimate of energy savings compared to a familiar metric such as “equivalent to a certain number of single family homes”
• A “what you can do to help” section

As Construction begins, it is crucial that newly engaged team members be introduced to both the IPD ethos and the energy efficiency principles of the project, so that they can complete their project scope in compliance with these requirements.  During this phase, the AEDG recommends that the commissioning agent and design team review submittals and only accept substitutions if equivalent energy performance is proven. The owner’s facilities team is often trained during this commissioning period, to better understand the critical maintenance activities that will lead to optimized energy savings throughout the life of the building.

Once aware of the synergies between IPD and energy efficient design, project team members interested in greater technical detail, can turn to Chapter 3 of the AEDG, which expands upon a variety of integrated design strategies, including discussion of building and site design features, more detailed information about the most effective energy conservation measures, and an in-depth discussion of multidisciplinary coordination issues.

Midway through the AEDG, Chapter 4 provides prescriptive performance values by component, and a summary of climate-based design considerations for the main United States climate zones.  The tables in Chapter 4 are cross-referenced with Chapter 5’s “How-To” tips, where specific, detailed, design recommendations are provided at a component or system design level.

In summary, the new 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide compiles, in one 200 page document, a series of collaboration and technical recommendations that will help design team members, of all backgrounds, find the necessary details to support their common efforts to systematically achieve deep energy savings.

• THA Architecture’s Mercy Corps project, an 85,000 square foot Portland headquarters for the global relief organization, has a measured energy use index (EUI) of 36 kBTU/sf-yr, with the rooftop infrastructure in place for a photovoltaic array to bring energy use to net zero.
• Opsis Architecture’s Music and Science Building for the Hood River (OR) Middle School Campus is pursuing the International Living Future Institute’s Net Zero Certification. Before recognizing the energy contribution from photovoltaics, total building energy use for the 7,200 square building is 24 kBTU/sf-yr (24 thousand British Thermal Units per square foot per year).

• Hennebery Eddy’s Portland Community College Newberg Center  (Newberg, OR) administration building <link to previous BetterBricks article about the project> is a 13,500 square foot project that is also net zero, thanks to the 109 kW rooftop array.  Here’s a previous post on this project.

This year’s COTE Top 10 are distinguished by the company they keep. Note that all three of these buildings are already net zero energy projects (or will be soon). Thirty projects were submitted for consideration by the jurors this year, and the levels of performance achieved across a variety of sustainability metrics, the integrated strategies used to achieve project goals, and the design quality are all significantly elevated above previous years. Rocky Mountain Institute’s Alexis Karolides, AIA, in her fifth year as a national COTE member, has written a particularly interesting column reflecting on trends, seen in these projects, which “speak to the evolution of green leadership in the built environment.”

Christopher Meek, AIA, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Washington, and a daylighting specialist at the Puget Sound Integrated Design Lab, was co-chair of this year’s awards (along with Eric Anderson, of CDI Engineers). Chris told us that the energy bar has been raised much higher for this group of winners, compared when the awards were last given, two-years ago. For example the Rice Fergus Miller Office 7 Studio has a measured summer EUI (Energy Use Index) of 19 kBTUh/sf/yr and a winter EUI of 22 (achieved with the adaptive reuse of an existing building). The Machias Elementary School project submitted by NAC|Architecture has a design EUI of 18 or 19. Other projects were projected to have EUIs in the high teens or low 20s. Only two years ago, EUIs in the low 40s were associated with winning projects. As one of the notable local architects in attendance said to Chris as the award winners were being announced, “people are getting pretty good at this stuff.”

The Award Winners

Rice Fergus Miller Office & Studio (Bremerton, WA) – a 30,000 square foot LEED Platinum commercial office project designed by Rice Fergus Miller; the adaptive reuse of a Sears Auto Center at $105/sf with only the original shell salvageable.

Bertschi School Living Science Building (Seattle. WA) – KMD Architects designed this 1,425 square foot elementary school wing, the first building that meets Living Building Challenge v2.0 criteria, including net zero energy and net zero water.

LOTT Clean Water Alliance - Regional Services Center (Olympia, WA) – an interpretive center, commercial office and laboratory, located at a water treatment plant, this project welcomes the public with an exhibition gallery and a classroom for water education. Designed by The Miller Hull Partnership, the project has received LEED Platinum certification.

Machias Elementary School (Snohomish, WA) – this 80,000 square foot elementary school was designed by NAC|Architecture and their consultants to achieve outstanding energy performance. Located on a rural site, the project’s vision of sustainability includes the notion of self-sufficiency, encompassing energy performance and the use of the building to teach land stewardship.

Bullitt Center for Sustainable Design & Construction (Seattle. WA) — a winner in the Unbuilt category (although currently under construction) this 52,000 square foot project is expected to be the first urban office building to meet the goals of the Living Building Challenge, including being net-zero energy and water. This building was by The Miller Hull Partnership.

Greenfire Campus (Seattle, WA) the second winner in the Unbuilt category, designed by Johnston Architects, this 346,500 square foot mixed-use project includes residential, commercial, and office space, “placing housing near offices and commercial spaces, allowing occupants to work, live, play and produce food in the heart of Ballard.”

Under NEEA’s  BetterBricks initiative, thePuget Sound IDL provided various levels of technical advisory support to four of the six winning design teams, for the Bertschi School, the Bullitt Center, LOTT Clean Water Alliance and the Rice Fergus Miller Office and Studio. Project descriptions, including identification of complete project teams and sustainability criteria addressed by the project, for the winning projects, as well as those that received Honorable Mentions, can be found at  http://wmig2012.aiaseattle.org/.

For those who don’t know, the BetterBricks Awards recognize the outstanding career achievements of commercial building professionals whose efforts in promoting and implementing high performance design and operating solutions result in tremendous energy savings.  The Awards are hosted by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s BetterBricks initiative and includes regional utilities and media partners such as the Portland and Puget Sound Business Journals.

Below is the latest cadre of winners from around the Northwest.  Winners were selected by a panel of judges comprised of industry professionals, utility representatives and green building experts.

Be sure to watch their “Words of Wisdom” for some inspiration.  You can find full details on all past Award winners at the BetterBricks website here.

2012 OREGON/SW WASHINGTON BETTERBRICKS AWARDS
Download Portland Business Journal’s special section here.

Advocate Winner: Ralph Dinola
Principal and Director of Marketing, Green Building Services
Watch Ralph’s “Words of Wisdom”

Emerging Leader Winner: Martin Tull
Executive Director, Green Sports Alliance
Watch Martin’s “Words of Wisdom”

Owner/Developer Winner: Justin Hurley
Director of Real Estate & Sustainable Planning, Asante Health System
Watch Justin’s “Words of Wisdom”

Design Engineer Winner: John McMichael
Mechanical Principal, Interface Engineering
Watch John’s “Words of Wisdom”

Design Engineer Winner: Steve Reidy
Principal, PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Watch Steve’s “Words of Wisdom”

Special Judges Award Winner: Mitch Dec
Energy Department Manager, Glumac
Watch Mitch’s “Words of Wisdom”

2012 PUGET SOUND BETTERBRICKS AWARDS
Download Puget Sound Business Journal’s special section here.

Architect/Designer Winner: Allyn Stellmacher
Partner, ZGF Architects
Watch Allyn’s “Words of Wisdom”

Advocate Winner: Rod Kauffman
President, BoMA Seattle King County
Watch Rod’s “Words of Wisdom”

Emerging Leader Winner: Brian Geller
Director, Seattle 2030 District
Watch Brian’s “Words of Wisdom”

Owner/Developer Winner: Robert Foster
Construction Planning Administrator, Northshore School District
Watch Robert’s “Words of Wisdom”

Facility Manager/Operator Winner: Cal Ihler
Associate Director of Facilities Operations and Maintenance, Seattle University
Watch Cal’s “Words of Wisdom”

Facility Manager/Operator Winner: Rick Mock
Director of Facilities, Washington Holdings
Watch Rick’s “Words of Wisdom”

Special Judge’s Award: Scott Dorough
Resource Conservation Manager, Peacehealth St. Joseph Medical Center
Watch Scott’s “Words of Wisdom”

2012 MONTANA BETTERBRICKS AWARDS
Download the special insert profiling each award winner here.

Architect/Designer Winner: Jim Shepard, AIA
Chairman of the Board, CTA Architects Engineers
Watch Jim’s “Words of Wisdom”

Design Engineer Winner: Chris Batson, P.E.
Public Buildings Energy Supervisor, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Watch Chris’ “Words of Wisdom”

Facility Manager/Operator Winner: Dan Stevenson
Campus Engineer, Montana State University
Watch Dan’s “Words of Wisdom”

Facility Manager/Operator Winner: Mark Chitwood
Resource Conservation Manager, Kalispell Regional Medical Center
Watch Mark’s “Words of Wisdom”

This month, two buildings – Painter’s Hall in Oregon and IDeAs 72 Design Facility in California – became the first buildings to earn the designation as net zero buildings.  Both buildings were existing building retrofit projects.  Read more about the Painters Hall project, including interviews with key team members, in this Oregon Daily Journal of Commerce article.  Sustainable Business Oregon also covered the news, concluding that net zero construction is expected to grow to become a $1.3 trillion market by 2035.

A number of years ago, ZGF’s Managing Partner, Bob Packard, at a large firm roundtable, suggested that all the firms in attendance should sign on to the 2030 Commitment. ZGF senior management was enthusiastic from the start, but internal, self-education about the implications of committing to the goal was necessary: what would be potential impacts with a large portfolio of health care, institutional laboratory projects (that also have a high density of energy use), and other projects that have unique challenges.

ZGF characteristics

ZGF has roughly 450-500 professional staff across five offices, the Portland headquarters, Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington DC and New York City. We spoke with Chris Chatto, associate partner, about the firm’s energy efficiency efforts and the 2030 Commitment. Chris explained that an internal Project Performance group (ZGF has taken to using “project performance” internally and “sustainability” externally), with four staff in Portland and Seattle, pretty much devoted to this work, become involved with multiple project teams. The Project Performance group deals with making the 2030 Challenge and various metrics quantifiable and also works with various aspects of the Integrated Design process. About twelve others, representing the various departments within the firm (architecture, interior design, and urban design) contribute their time and expertise to this group, in addition to their project responsibilities.

Interiors and LPD

ZGF did not did not have the infrastructure in place to track and report the LPD of interiors projects in 2010. A current initiative will facilitate improved LPD tracking.

Energy Modeling

Of the reported 2010 portfolio of projects, 60% of new construction projects had energy models. As Chris pointed out, this metric is somewhat dependent upon the design phase (ZGF’s in-house analysis is that by the end of construction documents, 80-90% of their projects are modeled). Some health care projects do not require energy modeling and some owners reject the opportunity to model, no matter how much the designers promote the value.

Projects that did not have models (yet) were able to report higher levels of predicted performance if a design goal had been established, but ZGF did not have a mechanism to track energy performance goals across all reported projects at the time the 2010 data was assembled. Looking forward, a plan is now in place to assume an explicit energy goal setting leadership role, working with owners and consulting engineers

ZGF does some early stage “shoe box” modeling in house, mostly using eQUEST, with occasional use of Ecotect and other tools. Detailed energy models are constructed by consulting engineers.

Actuals

• Six of 60 projects met or exceeded the 2030 Challenge (2010) 60% threshold. Each of these six projects was under 200 thousand gsf.
• The largest project reported for 2010 was 1.4 million gsf.
• As reported, gsf weighted average reduction in energy use, was 25% (on a project count basis, this might look more like 30%). This savings number was skewed low by projects that were not modeled, which had to use either a default code versus CBECs baseline calculation, or a concept and schematic energy performance goal, which was not credited as highly as modeled results.
• ZGF’s highest performing project was a 10,000 sf net zero energy environmental education center
• The lowest performing predicted energy use was for projects reporting 0% savings, which is what was required for projects with no model and no code, to establish a baseline (the case for some international projects that ZGF had on the boards).
• On the other hand some large projects were in the range of 60-65%, with office projects predicted to perform extremely well.
• Many projects are predicted to save 40-60% from the baseline. Chris observed that ZGF, like others, has noted that a number of ASHRAE 2007 compliant projects are being predicted to achieve 40-45% reductions relative to CBECS.

Some ZGF Lessons Learned

• One very important result from participation in the 2030 Commitment is that it has raised the level of energy performance information within ZGF, increasing transparency and facilitating useful discussion, both inside and outside the firm. Having numbers, both for projects that look really good and those not as successful, prompts useful analysis and consideration of performance.
• ZGF is building a relational database, moving beyond spreadsheets, to track multiple EUIs, for multiple strategies, and how these EUIs evolve over time. The database will track performance data and integrate with other project data that the firm tracks. 2010 results will serve as a firm baseline, for comparison with their 2011 portfolio and into the future.
• Of the 2010 portfolio reported for 2030 Commitment purposes, Chris estimates that 25% were pursuing LEED (on a project basis), 25-40% on a gsf basis. His perception is that LEED has been most successful transforming markets related to sustainable materials. ZGF has internalized a good bit of this aspect of sustainability and delivers high levels of sustainable materials performance on pretty much all projects, but is not yet as successful with energy performance.
• Some building types are tougher than others. The weighted average of ZGF projects is heavily influenced by large health care projects, which are typically large users of energy. Labs, for institutional clients, also have a high energy density.

Some clients are tougher than others. If energy modeling is not required, either because of the building type or the location, it is not always possible to convince owners of the benefits of energy modeling. And, without modeling as a tool, it is more difficult to optimize predicted savings.

NBBJ is one of the largest firms in the United States, with 600-700 total staff. The firm headquarters is in Seattle, with large design studios in Beijing, Boston, Columbus, London, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, and Shanghai.

History of interest/focus on green buildings/performance/sustainability

We spoke with Margaret Montgomery, an NBBJ Principal and one of the firm’s architects, who has been working on sustainability issues for 20 years. She explained that “for a long time sustainability, green building, and energy performance have been ingrained in the NBBJ value system, without being fully integrated into actions, firm wide. For the past decade, there has been a consistently increasing focus upon (and more sophisticated understanding of) linkages among Impacts upon the natural environment, the human/built environment, and building performance.”

NBBJ management recognized that the AIA Commitment was needed to put teeth into the 2030 Challenge and to help make the Challenge executable. While the implications of the 2030 Challenge were immediately understood, with its large health care portfolio, it took NBBJ some time to consider how to deliver on the Commitment, and the firm spent a year or so working with NEEA’s BetterBricks initiative and the Puget Sound Integrated Design Lab to better understand what it would mean to make the 2030 Commitment. In the industry, there have been two schools of thought about the 2030 Commitment: one unwilling to commit unless sure it could deliver, the other choosing to commit, to drive progress. Ultimately, an internal convergence of these two perspectives lead NBBJ to make the commitment. According to Margaret, “the Commitment and the Challenge have affected goals, process, and performance — providing a structure and framework to support and strengthen what NBBJ was already doing.”

Organization to Manage Performance Challenges

NBBJ manages sustainability and performance initiatives, primarily, via a loose network of sustainability staff within the firm’s studios. In addition, there are a small number of people within the firm that are tasked with providing sustainability support across studios and projects. This support is typically delivered from within project teams that are formed by breaking out of the traditional studio silos. Margaret Montgomery explains, “there’s a focus on getting the right people on the right projects. We’ve worked hard over the past few years to break down barriers. Studios provide a home, but we also need to draw on resources across the firm.”

NBBJ’s 2010 portfolio

NBBJ’s 2010 design portfolio was diverse, but heavily weighted toward health care projects (along with laboratories, one of the most difficult building types to design to meet the 2030 Challenge).

• 11.5 million gsf reported to AIA
• 5 million gsf health care
• 2.6 million gsf office (1 million gsf in eastern Europe)
• 0.7 million gsf higher education
• 0.5 million gsf of civic projects
• projected energy reductions producing $5 million in cost savings

NBBJ tracked predicted energy use, by project, employing both code and CBECS baseline:

• 38% met the 60% goal
• The average predicted savings was 51%
• Health care savings varied from 10% to nearly 60% reduction from CBECS, a few were between 50-60%. (The lower percentages were typically for projects started a number of years ago.) Health care projects frequently met a savings target of 30% savings below a targeted ASHRAE Code baseline.
• There were office projects and a courthouse that exceeded 60% savings

During 2010, NBBJ did not track LPD for interiors projects, but intends to do so in 2011.

Modeling

Twenty-three of twenty-six projects, equivalent to 64% of reported gross square footage, were modeled (the 36% weighted average square footage, without models, amounted to a couple of large projects, including a 3 million gsf project in Kuwait).

Use Data

NBBJ is currently collecting data on about 70% of reported projects, but aspires to collect more. With LEED projects, collection is often being done via the Building Performance Partnership, using Energy Star Portfolio Manager accounting capabilities. There is a general firm commitment to increased measurement and verification activity.

NBBJ Lessons Learned

• It has become necessary to be very methodical about collecting data, across the firm.
• A refined internal education strategy has been developed, to get people to deliver.
• Assumptions about designing for high performance are getting better, greatly increasing awareness and the ability of teams to make the right initial assumptions and to ask necessary questions:
  • start project with a benchmark target:
  • form a team with the right consultants, with all essential skill sets; and
  • engage an energy modeler early in the project.
• Revit software capabilities have helped to support 2030 goals; internal NBBJ teams can now perform weather analysis, assess solar impact and model certain design strategies.
• The firm is currently working very hard to increase understanding of the impacts of daylight and views on people; helping the health care practice address the healing elements of design.
• International projects are problematic when it comes to the 2030 Commitment. NBBJ has a significant number of international competition projects in very early design stages. Often, after schematic design, these projects are completed by local firms. So, there is a need to ensure good tracking at the end of schematic design, and NBBJ is discussing the benchmarking of international projects with the AIA national committee, considering an approach similar to the benchmarking of domestic projects, to support consistency and help ensure success.
• In general, the firm is acquiring more and more data to support decisions that had previously been intuitive.

External Collaboration – Seattle 2030 Roundtable

NBBJ participates in the Seattle roundtable of firms who have signed on to the 2030 Commitment. Margaret provided a wonderful statement about the functioning of the Roundtable: “In the conventional realm we’re competitors, in the sustainability realm we’re more like teammates. We all need to get there. The sustainability community, within the industry, is open and willing to collaborate in a way that lifts the whole profession.”

The AIA (American Institute of Architects) 2030 Commitment program is a call to action for firms to voluntarily track and report on the performance of their designs and the commitments they have made toward the Architecture 2030 Challenge goal of carbon-neutral buildings by the year 2030 and to sustainable operating practices. At the end of 2010, 135 firms, nationally, had made the commitment and the AIA expected 125 firms to report progress. As it turned out, only fifty-six firms actually submitted reports by the April 2011 deadline. Read on, to learn about how those firms performed, and some of the collective lessons learned during the first year of the Commitment.

To better understand how the Commitment is impacting local practitioners, NEEA’s BetterBricks contacted three Pacific Northwest firms who entered into the 2030 Commitment and submitted 2010 reports, to discuss their initial performance and some of the adjustments that their firms are making. Representatives of each of the firms graciously shared the results of their initial year and their thoughts as they begin to assess 2011 results and prepare the second round of reports. Discussion of Mithun’s results follow; NBBJ and ZGF experiences will be posted, over the next couple of weeks.

2030 Commitment Basics

Firms signing a commitment letter pledge that within

• two months, they will establish leadership to facilitate development and implementation of the firm’s 2030 Commitment plan;

• six months, they will begin reducing the environmental impact of firm operations;

• one year of signing the commitment, the firm will develop a long range sustainability action plan that aligns with 2030 Challenge benchmarks to achieve carbon neutrality.

Committed firms also submit annual progress reports by the end of the first quarter of each subsequent year.

The AIA created the 2030 Commitment in April 2009 and the first full year for which data could be reported was 2010 (with the reporting tool first made available May 2010, so that firms would know the measures and metrics that they were expected to report). To date, over 200 firms, nationally, have made the commitment. The first annual progress report, released by the AIA early in May 2011, consists of two major components:

Operational Data Collection and Reporting

Within six months of making the commitment, firms report on a minimum of four operational action areas—office energy use, waste reduction and supplies, transportation, and meeting procedures—that assess the firm’s impact on the environment. Various measures are reported in each area, along with the percentage of firms that have implemented, are in the process of implementing, or have not yet implemented each measure.

Design Portfolio Data Collection and Reporting

Reporting firms used a tool developed by the AIA to assess the performance of their complete 2010 design portfolio. Rather than preparing report cards on individual firms, the AIA has committed to using only aggregated results, to create a collective industry portrait.

The performance measure applied to the design portfolio is an energy use index for site energy, reported as Predicted Energy Use Intensity (or PEUI). This predicted EUI, for each reported project, is compared to a similar building, using the Department of Energy’s 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). The percent EUI reduction from average is multiplied by the project’s gross square footage (GSF). The sum of these products, for each firm, during the reporting year, is divided by the sum of the GSF of the same projects, to calculate a weighted average percent reduction from average. The change in this weighted average, over time, is considered the firm’s progress toward the 2030 goal.

For interiors only projects, the reporting tool collects data on Lighting Power Density (LPD) as a significant indicator of the design energy use.

2010 Results

 2030 Commitment – Mithun

Mithun is a firm of architects, interior designers, landscape architects, urban designers and planners, headquartered in Seattle, with a satellite office in San Francisco. Overall staff is around 100, with 80-85 professionals. Mithun has a long history of interest and focus on energy performance, green buildings, and /sustainability. We spoke with Lynn McBride, AIA, Associate Principal and Caroline Sneed, Architect, Special Projects Manager, about Mithun and the 2030 Commitment.

It was clear that it was a ‘no-brainer for Mithun to make the commitment. They explained:

“Sustainability has always been a core value of the firm and joining the AIA 2030 Commitment was the next step in supporting this mission. We wanted to lead this effort for our industry, along with other firms that were early adopters of the AIA 2030 Commitment.”

“Yet, we didn’t want to sign up without carefully considering the implications. There was still a need for discussion: all consultants and team members would need to be prepared; clients would need to be committed. These challenges fostered additional discussion and lead to interest in educating clients about the value of the 2030 Challenge. Although not all clients will be able to fully commit to the Challenge, we strive to inform them about its importance and long-term value, and work toward achieving the highest energy savings possible for the project.”

Mithun’s 2010 Design Portfolio

Mithun’s 2010 portfolio was varied, with multi-family apartments, restaurants and hotels, office, retail, a spa, an outdoor education facility, a research lab center, and a major university project. Average project performance was about the same as the national average of reporting firms: 35% better than the CBECS average. The percentage of Mithun’s projects meeting the 2030 goal was also around the same as the national average of reporting firms (12%). The best performing projects were:

• Outdoor adventure facility –environmental education “tree house” – 80% reduction
• Chatham University, Eden Hall Campus, Pittsburgh, PA—a campus project with buildings targeting the Living Building Challenge, Passive House, LEED Platinum, and SITES; the classroom and support buildings are predicted to have an 83% reduction from average

Interiors and LPD

LPD was tracked and recorded for the handful of 2010 interiors projects. Mithun found the LPD metric useful for those projects not receiving envelope upgrades. According to Lynn and Caroline, the 2030 Commitment created more awareness of the use of LPD as a performance metric: while LPD had previously been incorporated into the electrical package, it now increased sensitivity to how effectively LPD and other metrics might serve as predictors of energy performance. It also lead to further firm consideration of measuring the energy use of plug loads, or other “tenant” related (non-shell and core) items.

Modeling

Around 30% of 2010 reported projects had energy models. Mithun’s Sustainability Action Plan currently calls for all projects to be modeled and the firm is developing strategies to achieve this within typical project budgetary constraints.

Lessons Learned

After the first year of reporting, Mithun has learned some useful lessons:

• It is extremely difficult to reduce energy use across all buildings; just in reporting, different project types face different challenges.
• A significant number of projects did not have energy models, so the firm needed to assume code performance for reporting, probably underreporting savings.
• Mithun learned quite a bit about what it will take to meet the net zero energy performance requirement in 2030, not only how building design will need to change, but how much end users will need to change behavior. As a result, the Mithun Action Plan includes additional efforts related to education of end users and development of strategies to also secure end-user commitments to 2030 goals.
• The need for energy modeling earlier in the design process and consideration(s) of how to further refine consultant modeling scope.
• Ideas to expand the 2030 Challenge beyond building energy use, to include Mithun’s planning group and landscape architects, with initial discussion of metrics related to exterior lighting, exterior power usage, and water usage.
• As much progress as has been made internally, efforts are still needed to ensure everyone is sufficiently engaged; more internal classes will be developed to focus upon the 2030 Commitment and the Living Building Challenge.
• New project documentation protocols ask project managers to consider the target EUI early in the design process and to ensure EUI tracking throughout the design process, with benchmarking against the 2030 Commitment at the end of each design phase.

Internal Organization Related to Performance

Mithun’s Core 2030 Team has been formed to support the firm’s 2030 Commitment Action Plan and to help create a culture that broadly supports the project teams. The Core Team is currently working on implementation of the sustainability action plan, addressing tasks such as:

• Creating an easy project-reporting interface on the firm’s intranet, with progress on critical metrics reported at each project milestone.
• Updating contract language to include energy modeling as a basic service and working with the firm’s collaborating engineers to develop focused scopes of work for energy modeling of different project types and scales.
• In-house classes and staff meetings to advance staff education.
• Effectively incorporating EUI into all staff’s vocabulary
• An energy audit of Mithun office space and future implementation of changes
• Updating all office forms and checklists to consider the 2030 Commitment as an aspect of each project; for example, the internal QSP (Quality Support Process) is being expanded beyond original code check functions, to incorporate 2030 Commitment, with a 2030 checklist at each design phase.

Seattle 2030 Roundtable

Both Caroline Sneed and Lynn McBride represent Mithun as participants on a Roundtable of Seattle architecture firms who have signed the 2030 Commitment. They point out that even though competition among architecture firms is particularly high these days, the Roundtable has been a successful forum to share information among colleagues; representing a changed industry dialog surrounding sustainability and building performance, where it is safe to discuss common challenges, and where firms are able to collaborate rather than just compete.

Chatham University Eden Hall Campus, Richalnd Township, PA
Classroom and support buildings predicted to use 83% less energy than average.

Hennebery Eddy was founded in 1992 “From the very beginning it (sustainability) has been a part of what we do, trying to design great buildings—sustainability is just a part of a great building.” Tim Eddy studied architecture during the 1970s and his professional outlook has been influenced by the oil shocks that effectively book-ended that decade, the early passive solar sensibilities and design initiatives of the time, and the teaching and writings of Ed Mazria. As Tim explained, “from 1970 to the early 80s, it was hard to study architecture without being heavily indoctrinated. While some firms have pursued sustainability from a branding standpoint, at Hennebery Eddy, we’re a design firm where sustainability is one more of our tools. We haven’t felt a need to change.”

Services span architecture, interior design, and planning and the firm is active in a variety of markets: higher education and institutional work is a major focus, representing 30-50 percent of fee income, but Hennebery Eddy also delivers major public and municipal, corporate, hospitality and urban housing projects. A particular area of interest is the influence of landscape and parks. The firm has regularly been invited by landscape architects to add buildings to projects. Two historic preservationists on staff support an ongoing interest in historic work. 93 percent of the 30-35 person staff are LEED APs or green associates.

Early recognition for projects with sustainability elements:

• The C-TRAN Evergreen Transit Center was delivered with a strong focus on incorporating sustainable materials. The story of these materials became part of the overall story of the transit shelter, which received a Portland AIA, Design Citation Award, in 1999.

• The firm designed the 122-unit Buckman Terrace project, completed in 2000 for Pat Prendergast and Ed McNamara. Said Eddy: “we found a common interest in sustainable design with Ed, and we worked closely with Tom Liptan of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) to install an eco-roof on part of the building. This was one of the first green roofs in Portland, probably the first on a wood-framed building. We also provided on-site storm water management, for the entire project, on a very tight site. The building had a highly insulated envelope and was the first apartment building in Portland to separately meter hot and cold water for all units.

• “We had completed a Master Plan for the Tualatin Valley Water District’s Beaverton site and were asked by Water District CEO Greg DiLoreto to submit an architecture proposal for the new headquarters building. We proposed a theme of significant potable water savings, as the District promotes to their customers, and also suggested LEED certification. In 2005 the resultant building became the 8th LEED Silver building in Oregon, incorporating a 40 thousand gallon, below grade, rain water storage tank, with rain water recovery equipment displayed within the building, accessible for viewing by school tour groups and others.

• By the time Hennebery Eddy completed a below grade parking garage, for Portland’s First Presbyterian Church, in 2007, sustainable design ” had become mainstream.” The parking structure was covered by a large green roof and garden. Interior ceilings were painted white, allowing a 15 percent reduction in fluorescent lamps. The project received a 2007 Excellence in Concrete Award.

Typical of many early projects, industry-wide, with a sustainability focus, these Hennebery Eddy projects highlighted materials and stormwater strategies. The following, more recent projects reflect a greater emphasis on energy performance and demonstrate application of some of the load reduction and passive design strategies that Tim Eddy identified as early interests of his. In the case of Ford Hall, and most significantly, PCC Newberg Center, these design strategies have been applied to achieve contemporary performance challenges, specifically the net zero energy goal of the 2030 Challenge.

Ford Hall

Willamette University’s 42,000 square foot academic building, Ford Hall, was completed in September 2009. The LEED Gold certified building uses 58 percent less energy than a comparable CBECS baseline building and is the first Hennebery Eddy project to incorporate a large photovoltaic array (25.5 kW). From the university’s perspective it is the highest performing building on campus, combining excellent energy use with virtually no occupant concerns with respect to comfort. As previously mentioned, the project received the 2010 Portland 2030 Challenge Design Award, As Built Category

Tri-Met South Terminus

Hennebery Eddy was approached by TriMet to explore the greening of the South Terminus of the Downtown Transit Mall. The agency’s initial program for the site called for a couple of 3,000-4,000 square foot buildings to house system equipment. The architects decided to approach the site more comprehensively: first addressing all storm water on site; second, rather than including systems buildings of the type and scale found on TriMet’s other light rail lines that could seem out of scale in the context of adjacent planned development and existing infrastructure, much smaller scale, less costly, prefabricated equipment enclosures were used shrouded bya structure designed to elegantly wrap the enclosures andsupport a 50-60 kW SolarWorld PV array (large enough to generate all electricity required at the site, with some surplus to the grid). Additionally, the support poles for the light rail catenary lines are designed to accommodate Oregon Wind vertical axis wind turbines, when they are available and ready to go. The project received a Portland AIA, Unbuilt Citation Award, 2009 and a National ASLA, General Design Category Award of Excellence, 2011 (as part of the ZGF Partnership team for the Portland Transit Mall Revitalization).

PCC Newberg Academic Center

When Hennebery Eddy began work on the PCC Newberg Academic Center, they knew that Linda Gerber, PCC Sylvania Campus President, had already considered a net zero energy plan for the entire Sylvania campus and had begun planning another net zero energy building. They also knew that the Newberg Academic Center project offered the “best possible equity between the roof area and building energy use to achieve net zero”. The design team worked closely with the future occupants to reduce building energy loads and to integrate passive systems. Explained Eddy, “At PCC Newberg, we were, in effect, rolling back the clock to consider strategies used for years before the era of refrigeration and cheap energy”. The resulting building, with a large roof and a huge porch, provides the necessary area for PV integration to meet the NZE goal. The building EUI, which will be met by the PV array, is 28 kBTU/sf-yr. Winner of the 2011 Portland AIA Sustainable Design Award and a 2010 Portland 2030 Challenge Design Award, As Designed Category, details about the project can be found here.

Occupant Behavior and Net Zero Energy Goals

Load reduction strategies are essential, to meet net zero energy goals, and must address owner assumptions about equipment use. For example, PCC Newberg’s computer lab baseline called for one desktop computer per workspace. The design team proposed a thin client server approach, which was a greater change than the school was prepared to make (at that time). The compromise strategy was the use of laptops to reduce energy demand. The project also addressed a college standard that initially called for eight vending machines in the building. With the active participation of the design team, to assess needs, that number was reduced to three, with the proposed use of vending miser controls, to closely manage the energy use of the remaining machines.

Hennebery Eddy successfully addressed occupant needs, in this project, to reach net zero loads, but Tim Eddy points out that the impact of occupant behavior for this project was not as challenging as it is in other occupancy types: staff and students are mostly transient, with limited opportunities to accumulate personal equipment that requires added energy use. In most commercial environments it’s tougher to address accessory items brought to work by occupants and an agreed upon set of group ethics is necessary to maintain minimal miscellaneous plug loads.

When asked about the potential for the firm to design more NZE projects, Tim Eddy responded that it’s inevitable, but that either incentives or donors to support the installation of sufficient renewables are required.

Integrated Design, Energy Performance and Performance Tracking

For projects pursuing aggressive energy performance and for certain system solutions, Hennebery Eddy tends to work with familiar team members, employing an integrated design and integrated project delivery strategy involving project “partnerships” with major consultants, who are generally at the table from day one. As a project evolves these consultants are well positioned to accommodate design changes while maintaining focus on performance goals.

For example, the initial plan to incorporate natural ventilation into Ford Hall was carried well into the design process, until it was set aside over typical, lingering concerns about noise, air quality, etc. The design process allowed the team to quickly respond to these client concerns, while remaining focused upon the project energy performance goal, by substituting displacement ventilation without the need for major design revisions.

At PCC Newberg, Hennebery Eddy involved the Energy Trust of Oregon from the start and was able to include the project in the Trust’s Path to Net Zero pilot. Interface Engineering, also part of the PCC Newberg and Ford Hall teams, provided ongoing modeling support, including computational fluid dynamics, to maintain a project-specific balance among the trade offs of different design strategies.

The 2030 Challenge and requirements of the 2030 Commitment are leading firms, including Hennebery Eddy to increased tracking of the performance of built projects. The firm maintains contact with clients, such as Willamette University’s campus facilities management and employs internal green bags, where they have pulled utility bills from projects to assess performance.

Sustainability

When asked if he thought Hennebery Eddy’s increased recognition of the energy performance and sustainability of their projects had become a major factor in attracting new clients, Tim Eddy responded, “it is always a factor on public solicitations, particularly public higher education. Public building projects usually target sustainability and energy performance. On private jobs, it is always expected that you can work through sustainability issues. Even clients whom you might least expect, are tuned into sustainability now (while they might not have been five years ago). But when it comes to projects with really tight budgets, first cost can still trump all else.”