8/3/2019 bcsddoc

1/24F

EDERALE

NERGY

M

ANAGEME

NT

PROGRAM

FEDERALFACILITIES

SUSTAINABLEDESIGN

The Business Case for

IN

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiencyand Renewable EnergyBringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

2/24

The Business Case for

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

On the cover:

National Institutes of Health, Louis Stokes Laboratories/Building 50, Bethesda, MD

Sandia National Laboratories' Process and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM

Zion National Park Visitors Center, Springdale, UT

IN FEDERAL FACILITIESPrefaceThe ethic of good economic and environmental stewardship is well established in the

Federal governm ent . ce to th e sustain able use

of n atural resources run s deep. et, as con cern s about th e environ m ent al an d societal

consequences of mod ern developm ent increase and man y agency bu dgets are being

redirected, Federal decision-makers face new challenges.

expan d efforts to m ake pub lic facilities energy efficien t, secure, an d h ealthy wh ile

min imizing their im pact on the en vironm ent and providing good business value?

In ad dressing th is question , m an y decision-m akers initially believe th at limited

Federal budgets make th e cost of meeting th is challenge proh ibitive.

that we m ust choose between environ m ental protection and econom ic efficien cy.

But, the real answer lies in sustainable design.

to in crease the cost of constructin g and operating a facility, an d in some cases

may actually lower first costs as well as often reducing operating costs and

environ m ental impacts.

The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities dispels many m isconceptions

and provides a better und erstan din g of the Federal governm ent s effort to build a

m ore sustainable real estate p ortfolio.

that Federal agencies of all sizes and from all parts of government are using

sustainable design principles to extract greater efficiencies from our public buildings

and th e tax dollars th at pay for them .

from research fin din gs and case studies that sustain able design is a sm art

business cho ice.

For m ore detailed inform ation on th e costs and ben efits of sustain able design,

down load a copy of a com plementary resource docum ent o n this topic at

h ttp:// www.eere.energy.gov/fem p/resources.

Acknowledgements

The Federal En ergy Managemen t Program (FEMP) would like to ackno wledge the

cont ributions of th e Office of th e Federal En vironm ent al Executive, the Federal

Interagency Sustainability Working Grou p, th e Pacific North west Nation al Laboratory

(PNNL), the Rocky Moun tain In stitute, th e Urban Lan d In stitut e, the U.S. GreenBuilding Council, and Greening America in the development of this publication.

This pu blication was produced u n der th e direction an d guidan ce of Beverly Dyer and

An n e Sprun t Crawley of the Federal En ergy Man agemen t Program.

The commitment of the Federal workfor

Y

How can the governm ent

They assum e

Sustainable design d oes not h ave

The report illustrates m an y inn ovative ways

It also provides significant financial evidence

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

3/24

Table of Contents

In troduct ion 2

Busin ess Ben efit s........5

Fin an cial Ben efits....... ....... ......5

Improved Productivity and Health.......10

En viron m en tal an d Societa l Ben efits............14

Co n clu sion 17

Resources..20

Case Stu dies

Nath an iel R. Jon es Federal Building an d U.S. Courth ouse

Youn gstown , OH.....8

Zion Nation al Park Visitors Cen ter

Sprin gdale, UT....9

Naval Base Ven tu ra Cou n tyBuildin g 850Port Hu en em e, CA...12

Environmental Protection Agency Campus

Research Trian gle Park, NC.....13

Herman Miller Marketplace

Zeelan d, MI....18

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)in collaboration with the

Interagency Sustainability Working Group

August 2003

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

4/24

Introduction

2

More than 15 years ago, in an era of in creasin g

concern for popu lation growth an d th e health

of the global environment, sustainable develop

m ent was first d efin ed by th e U.N. World

Commission on Environment and Development.In th e 1987 Brun tland Report, it was defin ed

succinctly as development that "meets the

needs of th e present withou t comp romising the

ability of futu re gen erations to m eet th eir own

needs."

This far-reaching concept of sustainability

has three cornerstones:

Environmental stewardship protecting

air, water, land, and ecosystems, as well

as conserving resources, including fossil

fuels, and th ereby preserving th e Earth s

resources for future generations.

Social respon sibility imp roving th e

qu ality of life an d eq uity for ind ividuals,

communities, and society as a whole.

Econ om ic prosperity reducing

costs, addin g value, and creating

economic opportunity for individuals,

organization s, comm un ities, an d n ation s.

In relating these principles to Federal buildings

and facilities, the W hole Building Design Guide1

describes a "sustainable" approach as onethat supports an increased comm itment to

environ men tal stewardship an d conservation,

resulting in an opt imal balance of cost,

environmental, and societal benefits while

still meeting th e m ission of the agency an d th e

function of the intended facility or infrastructure.

The ben efits of emp loying th ese prin ciples are

many.

realize finan cial benefits in cluding reduced

waste disposal costs, reduced wat er an d energy

bills, and lower operatin g and mainten ance

costs.docum ented an d often overlooked, include

better occupan t h ealth and reduced absenteeism,

increased wo rker productivity, h eigh ten ed

security, m ore effective recruitmen t an d

retention of top em ployees, an d im proved

public image for organizations that build and

operate sustainably.

Sustainable building owners also gain

econo m ic benefits associated with lower

liability, reduced risk, and lower permitting

costs resulting from early comm un ity

acceptance and approval of sustainable

projects.

economic benefits in the form of reducedcosts from air and water pollution and

lower infrastructure costs.

Many ind icators in th e building in dustry po

to fun damen tal changes that will reshape

the way we design, construct, and operate

buildings.

n o stand ardized system existed to evaluate a

high p erforman ce green building, and on ly

few bu ildin gs across th e coun try exh ibited

com preh ensive sustainable d esign features.

Today, a diverse mix of mo re th an 800 priva

an d pu blic buildings, com prising 91 m illion

square feet, have registered for third-party

certification under the nationally recognized

Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design (LEED) green bu ilding rat ing system

developed by th e U.S. Green Buildin g Coun c

Fifty-eight projects have completed certificat

and mo re than 700 are in the pipeline.

these, 40 percent are state and local governm

projects and 10 percent are Federal projects. 2

Of the remainin g 50 percen t, man y projects

are registered by large private sector compan

includin g Joh n son & Joh n son, Toyota, BP,

Frito Lay, and Ford Mot or Com pan y.

Integrated Design

To reap full fin an cial benefits, sustain able

design must be considered at the outset of a

project.

shape, and building envelope, cannot be eas

changed once a project is underway; yet the

can m ean th e difference between a h igh

performan ce building and a m ediocre one.

it is im portan t to invest in sm art design u p fro

One concept, generally accepted as a firststep, is to form an integrated, m ultidiscipli

design team.

owners, architects, engineers, landscape

designers, main tenan ce/operations staff,

general con tractor and key subcon tractors,

cost consultan ts, and end -use representativ

This team works together at t he earliest

con ceptual stages of a project, often using a

workshop process referred to as a design

"charrette." The pu rpose of th e charrette is t

The Federal governmenthas many leaders in

this field already, and

together we can

demonstrate that a

sustainable building

is healthier, more

environmentally sound,

operationally and

economically viable, and

the way we should be

doing business.

John L. Howard, Jr.,

Federal Environmental

Executive

Building own ers an d op erators can

Other benefits, though not as well

Society as a whole also reaps

Just three years ago, for example,

Of

Many design decisions, such as sitin

The team shou ld include bu ild

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

5/24

develop a "whole bu ilding" design th at best

meets the economic and environmental

nt erests of all part ies.

Another concept that characterizes sustainabledesign is the in tegration of th e specific

rchitectural and mechanical features of the

acility to m inim ize en ergy an d resource use

nd reduce cost while maintaining com fort.

Wh en th e project team comm its early to a high

evel of buildin g integration, th ey can fully

xplore and evaluate cost-effective trade-offs

before com mitm ents and contractual

obligation s are initiated.

The team can ach ieve a sustain able design by

ntegrating six fun dam ent al strategies:

Maximize th e poten tial of th e site;

Minimize energy and resource

consumption;

Protect an d conserve water;

Use environ m ent ally preferable produ cts

and materials;

Enh ance ind oor environ m ental quality;

an d

Optimize operational and maintenance

practices.3

By employing these strategies, sustainable

buildings in many cases can be constructed

t the same or lower cost th an convention al

buildings.

high-performance features can increase first

osts from an average of two to seven percent,

dependin g on th e design and extent of features

dded.4 Many of th ese features, h owever,

generate operatin g cost savings that exceed

dditional first costs in a relatively short period

of time.

avings continue to accumulate over the life of

he project.

The Federal Sector

The business case for sustainable design takes

on special meanin g when discussed in the

ontext of the Federal government.

government has always been a leader in the

green building movement, and efforts are

payin g offliterally. s en ergy

use in its standard buildings has dropped

23 percent per square foot sin ce 1985, saving

axpayers $1.4 billion an n ually.

Savings of this scale are the direct result of a

n um ber of Federal laws and Executive Orders

th at set energy efficien cy and renewable

en ergy goals for Federal agencies.

exam ple, th e Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992

required all agen cies to in stall energy an d wat erconservation measures that have a payback

period of less than 10 years.

Issued in 1999, Executive Order 13123

man dated en ergy reduction goals beyon d

EPAct levels, and requ ired agen cies to

apply sustainable principles to d esign an d

con struction of n ew facilities.

further requ ires Federal man agers to use

building lifecycle analysis on all projects.

Yet, m an y project m an agers still have trou ble

designin g sustain able buildings.

operating and m ain tenan ce (O&M) costs

are approp riated separately from capital

expen ditures, they fin d it difficult to app ly

lifecycle cost analysis and consider capital and

O&M collectively.

pre-set for construction projects, so increasing

the budget to include the additional first cost of

many sustainable design features is difficult, no

matter h ow short the p ayback period m ay be.

Despite these difficulties, Federal facility

m an agers, buildin g profession als, an d

financial officers have become increasingly

creative and adept at designin g sustainableprojects with n o ad ditional first cost

expenditures.

th is report offer examp les of how Federal

agencies can m ake sustainable design a

stand ard practice rather th an th e exception.

We at the Department

of Energy believe ther

can be a sound busine

case for the use of

sustainable design

options, and we

encourage all Federal

agencies to incorporat

these options

whenever possible.

David Gar

Assistant Secr

Office of Energy Efficiency

Renewable En

U. S. Department of En

In oth er cases, integration of

After th at payback period, addition al

The

The governm ent

For

The Order

Because

Capital budgets are usually

The followin g section s of

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

6/24

Benefits of Sustainable Design

4

ECONOMIC SOCIETAL ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABLE

SITING

Redu ced costs for site

preparation an d clear-cuttin g,

and parking lots and roads.

Lower energy costs due tooptim al orien tation. Less

landscape maintenance cost.

Improved aesthetics (e.g.,

better app earance of site

to neighbors). Increased

transportation options foremployees.

Land preservation.

resource use.

ecological resources.

water conservation. Reducedenergy use an d air pollution.

WATEREFFICIENCY

Lower first cost (for som e

fixtures). Reduced ann ual

water costs. Lower municipal

costs for wastewater treatmen t.

Preservation of water resources

for futu re gen eration s and for

recreation al an d agricultural

uses.

treatmen t plants and

associated ann oyan ces.

Lower potable water use and

pollution disch arges to

waterways. Less strain o n

aquatic ecosystems in water-

scarce areas. Preservation of

water resources for wildlife

and agriculture.

ENERGYEFFICIENCY

Lower first costs, when systems

can be down sized du e to inte

grated energy solutions.

70% lower annual fuel and elec

tricity costs; reduced peak power

demand.

n ew energy infrastructure, low

ering energy costs to con sum ers.

Improved th ermal con ditions;

better occupant comfort

satisfaction.

plants and transmission lines

and associated annoyances.

Lower electricity an d fossil fu

use, and the accompanying a

pollution an d carbon dioxid

emissions.

of fossil fuel prod uction and

distribution.

MATERIALS &

RESOURCES

Decreased first costs due t o

m aterial re-use and use of

recycled m aterials. Lower costs

for waste disposal. Decreasedreplacemen t cost for m ore

durable materials. Lower

m un icipal costs for n ew

landfills.

Fewer lan dfills an d associated

n uisances. Expan ded m arket

for environ m entally preferable

products.due t o u se of local/region al

materials

Reduced strain on landfills.

Reduced virgin resource use.

Healthier forests due to bette

management. Lower energyuse for m aterial transportatio

Increase in local recyclin g

market.

INDOOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

Organization al produ ctivity

improvements due to im proved

worker performan ce, lower

absenteeism, and reduced

staff turnover. Lower disability/

h ealth insurance costs. Reduced

threat of litigation .

Reduced adverse health

impacts. Improved occupant

satisfaction and comfort.

Better individual productivity.

Better air quality inside the

facility, includ ing red uced

volatile organic emissions,

carbon dioxide and carbon

monoxide.

COMMISSIONING;

OPERATION &

MAINTENANCE

Energy cost reduction. Reduced

cost of dealing with comp lain ts.

Longer building and equipment

lifetimes.

Occupan t prod uctivity,

satisfaction, health, and safety.

Lower energy con sump tion,

well as air pollution and carb

dioxide emissions and other

environ men tal imp acts of

energy production and use.

Lower

Protection o f

Soil an

Fewer w astewater

Up to

Reduced deman d for

Fewer new p ower

Decreased impac

Decreased traffic

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

7/24

Business Benefits

Financial Benefits

Siting

Wh en an agen cy has th e luxury of cho osingh e site for a building, it sh ould t ake full

dvantage of this critical factor to increase a

buildings energy efficiency.

be d ramatically reduced th rough app ropriate

orientation of a building to the sun.

ddition, sustainab le sitin g can redu ce the costs

of adverse environmental impacts by taking

nto accoun t local habitat, agricultural lan ds,

parkland , and wetlands, and reduce the

ikelihood of property damage due to flooding

n d m udslides. Th e inh erent environm ental

ben efits of a sustain able building can also be a

ignificant advantage when dealing with zoningofficials, regulatory bodies, and other interested

parties.

process an d redu ce legal, engineering, and

oth er early costs associated with perm its and

nviron men tal impact studies.

Same or Reduced First Costs of Construction

Through integrated design and use of sustain-

ble mat erials and techn ologies, the first cost of

sustainable bu ildin g can be th e same as or

ower than that of a traditional building.

Through good plann ing and by eliminating

unnecessary features, it is possible to offset the

ost of mo re expen sive sustain able features that

no t on ly meet environm ental goals, but also

esult in lower operating costs.

nten tion ally con ducts a trade-off exercise

.g., tradin g th e cost of option al features

gainst the cost of features that will result in

nvironmental or social improvements.

For exam ple, by takin g advan tage of sout h ern

xposures, imp roving th e en ergy efficien cy of

windows and walls, and spen ding m ore on

dayligh ting, building design ers can redu ce the

need for heating and cooling at the buildingsperimeter an d reduce th e need for electric

ighting. to

down size the HVAC system plan t an d

ductwork and the quantity of electric

ighting so that there is no increase in the

irst costs of construction.

The Penn sylvania State DEP Cam bria building

is a good example of how first costs were

reduced an d lon g term value increased th rough

integrated en ergy an d design decisions.

designers first prop osed an up grade to h ighefficiency triple-glazed, double low-e windows,

th e developer balked at th e $15,000 increase in

cost. , h owever, wh en th ey

were able to dem on strate that this upgrade

would allow th em to elim inate the p erimeter

h eating zon e for a savings of $15,000,

down size the h eat pum ps for anoth er

$10,000 savings, and gain $5,000 worth of

additional leasable space as a result of smaller

equipmen t and ducts.

Several key design and construction strategies

th at can reduce first costs in clude:5

Re-using/reno vating older buildings an d

using recycled materials;

Optim izing energy systems an d related

building elements for energy efficiency

and low lifecycle cost;

Elim inatin g un n ecessary finishes an d

features;

Avoiding structural over-design and

construction waste; and

Reducing project size.

Wh ile a wide array of environm ent ally prefer-

able building materials and products are more

expensive, some can also have lower first costs,

such as:

Con crete with slag con ten t or fly ash up

to $1.00 less per ton ;

Low-volatile organic com pou n d (VOC)

paint an d recycled paint $3 and $15

per gallon less expensive, respectively;

Certified wood prod ucts

certified wood doors may be up to $150

less than traditional doo rs; and

No-water urinals

over $280 less per urinal, because of lower

plumbing costs.

En ergy use can

In

This can in tu rn speed th e approval

The design team

This in turn allows designers

When

He was won over

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

8/24

Several Federal agencies, including the

U.S. Navy, th e Departm ent of th e Interior, and

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

have designed and constructed sustainable

buildings with n o in crease in p reviouslybud geted building costs.

When EPA first received the construction

budget for its campus at Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina, they did n ot know h ow they

could meet their environmental goals. However,

by tradin g off som e n on -essent ial features,

they were able to incorporate many sustainable

building features at th e same cost.

As one example, they replaced four-lane roads

with two-lane roads, which had negligible

impact on commuters and preserved acres of

natu ral habitat.

reduced construction costs by $2 million.

Creating a space efficient design is an oth er

strategy to reduce first costs.

for the Zion National Park Visitors Center in

Springdale, Utah m ade an early decision t o

mo ve a n um ber of exhibit spaces outdoors

un der perman ent shade structures. This

decreased the indoor floor space and the

associated system s, and reduced th e overall

construction costs by 30 percent.

Lower Lifecycle, Utility, an d O&M Costs

It is surprising to many experts and professio

that design and construction expenditures, t

so-called "first costs" of a facility, account forjust 5 to 10 percent of the total expenditures

own er will make over th e span of a building

service lifetime.

mainten ance costs accoun t for 60 to 80 perc

of the total lifecycle costs.6 Most features th

increase first costs can significantly reduce

lifecycle costs.

high value features, higher first costs are ofte

recovered with in t h ree to five years.

En ergy Cost Savin gs

Savings in energy costs of 20 to 50 percent

are comm on as a result of integrated design,

site o rien tation , en ergy efficien t t echn ologie

on -site renewable en ergy systems, natu ral

daylight and ventilation, and downsized

equ ipm en t. To illustrate th is con cept, FEMP

developed and compared two detailed energ

m odels of a protot ype 20,000 square foot

Federal building.

met ASHRAE 90.1 energy requirements7 whi

th e secon d "sustainable" m odel optim ized bo

energy and lifecycle cost savings.

show that energy costs can be reduced below

th e base case by 37 percent by includin g a

package of integrated en ergy savings measurth at in crease first costs by less than 2 p ercen

an d p rovide a sim ple payback of 8.7 years.

sustainable m odel h ad a n et lifecycle saving

over $23,000 during the course of the assum

25-year lifetim e.8

Sandia National Laboratories invested

con siderable design effort to imp rove th e

energy efficiency of their new Process and

Environmental Technology Laboratory (PETL

in Albuq uerqu e, New Mexico.

m odeling an d life cycle costing to select

advan ced en ergy efficien t system s, they reduann ual energy costs by more th an 40 percen

compared to preliminary design.

cost of the advanced features added just und

$700,000 to th e total building cost of $28.5

million, the projected annual energy savings

more than $200,000 pays back the higher fir

costs in less than four years.

savin gs have exceeded th e savin gs projected

by energy modeling.

6

Thoreau Center for

Sustainability at Presidio

National Park, San Francisco

Sustainable materials often do

double duty. The skylightedentryway at the Thoreau Center

for Sustainability at Presidio

National Park, San Francisco, CA,

uses photovoltaic cells that are

laminated to the skylight glass to

produce electricity as well as to

provide shade and daylight.

tats

egy,c

At the same time, this change

The design team

In contrast, operations and

Even for projects loaded with

The base case m odel sim pl

The result

T

Using energy

Although

Actual ann ual

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

9/24

An important aspect of achieving energy

fficiency in a new building is "commissioning.

Com m ission ing refers to th e process of testin g

h e performan ce of building system s to satisfy

both th e designers intent and occupantsn eeds. Because of th e int eractive synergies

between the various mechanical and electrical

quipmen t an d systems and th e overall building

rchitectural features, sustainable buildings

equire proactive com m ission ing.9 Although

omm issionin g adds a sm all portion to th e

up-fron t costs (0.5 to 1.5 p ercen t of total

on struction costs or 1.5 to 2.5 percent of

mechanical system costs), the annual energy

avings are likely to recoup th ose costs in t h e

irst few years of operation.

n addition to commissioning a building before

occupan cy, bu ildin gs designed for sustain ability

hou ld include a rigorous O&M program

h roughout th eir lifetimes. Stud ies of com m ercial

buildings estim ate an O&M-related energy

avings potential of between 5 and 30 percent.

One com pon ent of such a program can be th e

periodic recomm ission ing of equipm ent . The

noted commissioning firm, Portland Energy

Con servation, In c., estim ates an average cost

of $0.17/ft2 for recom m ission ing existin g

buildings. If we assume th at comm ission ing

an deliver a 10 percent reduction in energy

use, Federal buildings can m ake up th e cost of

om m ission ing in just 1.4 years on average.10

Water Cost Savings

A num ber of off-th e-shelf techn ologies lower

ndoor water consump tion an d save mon ey.

Ultra-low-flow showerheads pay back in 1.5

years; low-flow faucet aerators pay back in

our m on ths; and n o-water urin als have an

mm ediate payback because they cost less to

nstall than their traditional counterparts.

Many Federal sites across th e coun try h ave

nstalled no-water urinals and other water

aving devices with great success. Facilitiesan also lower potable water consumption by

utilizing n on -pot able water for prod uctive uses

on site, installing re-circulating cooling water

ystem s, initiating leak detection an d

maintenance activities, and using sustainable

andscaping techniques.

Lan dscape Mainten an ce Cost Savings

Sustainable land scapin g techn iques decrease

the costs for lawn mowing, fertilizers, and

irrigation . PNNL recen tly com pared a sustain -able storm water man agem ent systemone th at

com bines a porou s gravel parking area with a

rainwater collection system wh ere rain water is

stored for sup plemen tal irrigation of native

landscapingto a conventional asphalt parking

area and a standard corrugated pipe storm water

m an agemen t system . The sustainable storm

water system increases first costs by about

$3,000, but saves m ore th an $500 a year in

maintenance costs alone, resulting in a

payback of less than six years.11

Likewise, a sustainable landscape design that

uses a combination of native warm weather turf

an d wildflowers to create a natu ral "m eadow"

area is com pared to t raditional turf landscaping

of Kentucky blue grass that requires substantially

mo re irrigation , mainten ance, and chemical

application. Altho ugh th e study calculates th e

incremen tal first cost of th e sustain able lan d

scapin g approach at $2,500, avoided irrigation ,

maint enan ce, and chem ical costs add up to

mo re than $3,000 in ann ual savings and

th erefore a payback of less than on e year.12

Lower "Churn" Cost

A 1997 survey conducted by the International

Facilities Man agem en t Association (IFMA)

determined that, on average, 44 percent of

building occupant s move internally within a

given year. This is called the "churn rate."13 In

governm ent buildings, the ch urn rate appears

to be som ewhat lower at 27 percent.

Using a protot ype 20,000 squ are foot office

building, which serves approx imately 100

occupants, annual churn cost savings between

$35,000 and $81,00014 could potentially be

achieved if the building included moveablewall partitions and raised floor systems with

un der-floor HVAC an d cablin g instead o f

traditional ceilin g systems. Altho ugh t h e cost

of under-floor systems can sometimes be slightly

higher up fron t, they m ake it m uch easier to

install air handling systems, as well as cabling

for electric out lets, comp uters, and t eleph on es.

Plus, the air handling equipment usually costs

less for un der-floor systems th an system s

in the ceiling.

Sustainable design

approaches and new

technologies are

proving that we can

save energy and

resources without

sacrificing our

comfort and

efficiency. We

are encouraging

sustainable design in

every way possible.

Beth She

Dir

Federal En

Management Pro

U. S. Department of En

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

10/24

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

11/24

CASE STUDY: Zion National Park Visitors CenterSpringdale, Utah

This ainable

buildings construction

cost was about

30 percent less than

that of a conventional

visitors center.

An integrated design tea

of architects, engineers,

and energy consultantsemployed a whole build

design philosophy when

planning the Zion Nation

Park Visitors Center.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES

Natural ventilation and

evaporative cooling

Passive solar heating

Daylighting and sunshading

Computerized building controls

Uninterruptible power supply

Heating

A passive solar wall,

shaded in summer,

provides heating of

the open spaces

and private

offices located

adjacent to the wall.

Heat from the sun

is trapped between a pane of glass and a black,

selective coating. A masonry wall stores the heat

for release into the building later in the day.

Cooling

Passive down-draft

cooltowers bring

the temperature

down when natural

ventilation is notadequate. Water is

pumped onto a

honeycomb media

at the top, cooling the air by evaporation. The cool air

descends naturally through the tower and into the

building. Strategically placed windows eliminate hot

air and optimize circulation.

Electricity

Minimal electric

lighting costs and

no need for air condi

tioning significantly

reduce operations

and maintenance

costs as well as the

peak electric load.

A 7.2 kW photovoltaic system provides the majority

of electricity needed by the building.

An integrated d esign team of architects, engineers,

and energy consultants used a whole building

design for the Zion National Park Visitors Center.

From th e onset of th e conceptual plan th rough th ecompletion of the commissioning process, the

team worked togeth er to ensure that the bu ilding

envelope and systems complemen ted each oth er

to ach ieve dramatic environ m ental benefits and

significant cost reduction s.

The Center costs less to operate because it uses

70 percent less energy than would a comparable

facility.

overhan gs, clerestory win dows, roofline, an d

materials selection.

primarily with daylighting, complemented by a

high-efficiency electric lighting system and related

controls.

few radiant pan els that p rovide th e h eat, the

designers avoided th e en tire cost of a central

heating system, the need for a hot-air furnace

or boiler, and all the expenses associated with

ductwork and piping.

features save approxim ately 250,000 kWh an d

$14,000 per year.

While the integrated design team applied sustain-

able features to reduce en ergy costs, th ey kept th e

building cost com parable to th at of a "typical"

building.

decision to move many of the exhibit spacesoutd oors, wh ich decreased th e building size,

con struction m aterials, and floor space required

for building suppo rt fun ctions (ducts, large

blowers, chillers, an d b oilers).

projects construction cost (excludin g th e

photovoltaic system) was estimated to be about

30 percent less th an a con vention al visitor center.

sust

Savings are due in part to the building

Lighting n eeds are met

By installing a passive solar wall and a

These energy efficient

This was primarily due to an early

In fact, this

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

12/24

Wh en t h e entire system is con sidered, th e first

cost difference is usually small, and t h e an n ual

chu rn savin gs qu ickly recoups the cost. The

un der-floor system also en ables in dividual

occupants to personally control ventilationrates and tem perature, further enh ancing

their comfort and productivity.

A case study for the Rachel Carson State Office

Building, a Penn sylvania governm ent office

building with 1,500 work station s, ind icates

that a h igh -performan ce green bu ilding with a

raised floor system would achieve an n ual cost

savings of more than $800,000.

Reduced Liability a nd Risk

The Environmental Protection Agency

classifies indoor air quality as one of the

top five environmental health risks today.

According to a study by th e Am erican Med ical

Association an d t h e U.S. Army, health problem s

caused by poor in doo r air qu ality cost 150

million workdays and about $15 billion in lost

produ ctivity each year in th e United States.15

Exacerbatin g the drain on th e econom y caused

by this preventable health problem, the issue of

sick building syndrome (SBS) increasingly ends

up in the courts where the financial costs

continue to moun t.

BusinessWeeks June 5, 2000 cover story reportedthat "sick building" cases, often filed against

building owner/operators, are becoming more

and m ore comm on . Building owners and

operators face h igh-cost lawsuits when th eir

buildings are claimed to h ave caused illness

amon g occupantswheth er the case is won,

lost, or settled.

In 1995, a Florida state jury awarded Polk

Coun ty, FL almost $26 m illion to en able

it to correct th e A&E firm s design an d

con struction flaws in its eight -year-old

courthou se. (The actual reno vations en dedup costing $37 million.)

In 1996, a jury found DuPage Coun ty,

Illinois, responsibleas the building

own erfor health-related com plaints at

its $53 m illion courth ouse, callin g the

problem s a result of improp er building

operation and maintenance.16

The fact that bo th builders and owners of

buildings have been held liable highlights th

imp ortan ce of addressing in doo r air issues in

stages of building d esign, con struction , and

operation . With the recent explosion inm old-related claim s, for exam ple, insurance

companies have begun to take defensive acti

with mold exclusion clauses and premium r

hikes. On th e other han d, som e insurance

com pan ies are willin g to o ffer lower in suran

prem ium s for buildings and facilities with

positive environm ent al effects. DPICth e

n ation 's largest liability in sureroffers a

10 percent credit for organizations th at prac

com m ission ing. Han over Insurance offers

10 p ercent credits for earth-sheltered or sola

buildings on th e basis of reduced fuel-based

heating systems and fire risk.17

Improved Productivity and Healt

Wh ile poo rly design ed an d o perated facilitie

can create serious health problems, a numbe

of stud ies show t h at sustainable buildings ca

h ave positive im pacts on o ccupan ts. A grow

body of research an d em pirical eviden ce

indicates that building occupants have a

h igher satisfaction level, better health , an d

improved personal productivity in high

performance buildings.

Given that labor costs dwarf other buildingoperating expen ses, large organ ization s can n

afford to overlook sustain ability features th a

can lead to enhanced productivity and impro

worker h ealth. Com paring relative operatin

costs for a com m ercial building, on average,

an n ualized costs for salaries and ben efits

amou nt to $200 p er square footcompared

with $20 per square foot for bricks and m ort

an d $2 per square foot for energy.18 Likewis

the Federal sector, as a percentage of total

expen ditures, person n el costs far exceed en e

or buildin g m ainten an ce costs. (See th e

chart on the n ext page for ann ual Federalexpen ditures for personn el versus con structi

an d utilities.19)

Sustainable design for h ealthy in teriors invo

use of low-VOC materials (paint, carpets,

fabrics, etc.); good ven tilation an d p erson al

control of temperature and lighting; dayligh

and views of the outdoors (while avoiding

glare); and noise control through use of

acoustic buffers, floating floor slabs, and sou

10

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

13/24

nsulation. ith effective trade-offs, n on e of

h ese in dividual features need t o collectively

ncrease the total construction budget.

Improved Worker Performance andOperat ional Productivit y

Em erging research studies point to a stron g

orrelation between healthy buildings and labor

productivity.

worker performan ce ben efits associated with

ustainable bu ildin g techn ologies and p ractices

oversh adow th e savings associated with m ore

m easurable building performan ce gain s.

ase studies indicate a direct correlation

between sustainable design and productivity

ncreases from 6 to 16 percent.

Reno Post Office:

lightin g an d HVAC ren ovation , worker

produ ctivity increased by 6 p ercent .

En ergy savin gs came to m ore th an

$22,000 per year, with an additional

$30,000 savin gs from elim inatin g

recurring maintenance costs.

these savings, productivity gains were

worth $500,000 per year.20

Penn sylvania Power & Light:

$8,000 lightin g upgrade resulted in an

an n ual electricity cost reduction of

app roximately $2,000, for a 24 percentreturn on investment an d a payback of

four years. , h owever,

productivity jumped 13 percent, worth

m ore than $44,000 per year, reducing th e

payback period from four years to 69 days.21

West Bend Mutual Insurance:

insurance companys new headquarters,

with daylighting, advanced energy

techn ologies, an d person al workspace

con trols, decreased an n ual electricity

costs by 40 p ercent .

subject to a rigorous study by RensselaerPolytechnic Institute, which concluded

that "the new building produced an

increase in prod uctivity of approxim ately

16 percent.22 Since th e com pan ys

an n ual salary base was $13 m illion , a

16 percent p roductivity increase could be

tran slated in to a d ollar value of

$2,080,000 per year.

Drawin g on a wide review of research on

indoor air quality and th erm al con dition s,

research ers estim ate th at p roviding workers with

tem perature con trol of just th ree degrees (plus

or m inu s) m ay result in p erform an ce in creases

of 7 percent for typical clerical tasks, 2.7 percent

for logical thinking tasks, 3 percent for skilled

manual work, and 8.6 percent for very rapid

man ual work.23, 24

A study o f win dows an d views in seven

buildings in the Pacific Northwest found that

emp loyees in wo rk areas with win dows were

25 percent to 30 percent m ore satisfied withlighting and with the indoor environment

overall, comp ared to th ose with reduced access

to wind ows.25 Wind ow views may be especially

effective in provid ing m icro rest breaks of a few

minutes or less, which have positive impacts on

performance and attention.26

Better Worker Health and

Reduced Absenteeism

A recent study by Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory foun d th at comm only recomm ended

improvements to indoor en vironm ents couldreduce h ealth care costs an d work losses from

com m un icable respiratory diseases by 9 to 20

percent; from reduced allergies and asth m a by

18 to 25 percent; and from other non-specific

h ealth an d discomfort effects by 20 to 50

percent.

poten tial national savings from health and

productivity gains after indoor environmental

quality improvements would fall somewhere

between $17 to 48 billion.27

0

50

100

150

$200B $194 Billion

Salaries andBenefits

FacilityReconstructionand Renovation

$20 Billion

Energy

$3.5 Billion

Water andSewer

$0.5 Billion

COMPARISON OF ANNUAL

FEDERAL EXPENDITURESW

Many experts agree that the

Several

Due to a $300,000

Including

A simp le

More significantly

This

The building was

The same study estimated that

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

14/24

CASE STUDY: Naval Base Ventura County - Building 850Port Hueneme, California

Sustainable design is an

integrated approach to

facility engineering and

management. Sincesending out policy over

five years ago, the Naval

Facilities Engineering

Command has been

following a course of

action demonstrating

engineering leadership

through a proactive

commitment to environ

mentally sustainablefacilities. ord is getting

out that the Navy is

providing leadership in

sustainable development,

that we are leveraging the

benefits of integrated

design of shore facilities

in harmony with the

environment to reduce

the total cost ofownership of facilities.

Rear Admiral

Michael R.Johnson,

Chief of Engineers,

Naval Facilities

Engineering Command

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES

Photovoltaic power generation

Solar water heating

Daylighting

High-efficiency lighting and HVAC equipmen Natural ventilation

Recycled and healthy building materials

Sustainable landscaping

Gray water recovery system

Water

Waterless urinals,low-flow toilets,automatic lavatoryfaucets, and low-

flow showerheadshave a short pay-back period byreducing indoor water consumption by more than40 percent. Captured rainwater and reclaimed lavatorygray water are used for toilet flushing. Outdoors, droutolerant native plants require minimal irrigation.

Energy

A 30 kW photovoltaicarray supplies 68percent of the total

annual energy forthe building. It canprovide 100 percentof the buildingspower needs on sunny days during months when therelittle or no cooling load. Excess power is routed tothe electrical grid for other base requirements.

Lighting

The design makesuse of 100 percentnatural daylighting

during normalworking hours.High efficiencylighting providesadditionalillumination during the evening hours or cloudyconditions; a microprocessor lighting control system usdimming ballasts and photo sensors to maintain desirelighting levels.

The design ers of Building 850 want ed to

fully dem on strate sustain able design and

construction practices th at can b e applied

to other Navy projects and facilities

through out th e Federal governm ent.The building serves as a learning center

wh ere techn ologies are highligh ted an d

displayed, including an interactive tou ch

screen com pu ter kiosk that provides a

real-time view of building energy

demands and green features.

An expan ded in terdisciplinary design team

engaged in a series of worksh ops to en sure

efficien t in tegration of building systems

that would reduce first costs as well as

operating costs.

team incorporated daylighting an d n aturalventilation systems to downsize HVAC

equipment.

building envelope, minimized internal loads,

and generated on-site power from renewable

sources. As a result, Building 850 will save

64 percen t in ligh ting, 46 percent in p lug

loads, 67 percen t in h eating, and 43 percent

in coolin g expen ses each year.

The design ers also want ed to create a

highly productive work environm ent

through space planning, lighting quality,

th ermal comfort, and ind oor air quality.All work areas have outdoor views, and

n early all visual t ask areas are daylit with

windows and clerestories.

12

W

For exam ple, th e design

They also optimized the

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

15/24

CASE STUDY: Environmental Protection Agency CampusResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

The teams sustainable

design produced a

more productive facility

and lowered the

total project cost

by $30 million.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES

Preservation of old-growth trees

Minimal disruption to habitats and wetlands

Native plantings and natural treatment of

stormwater runoff Sunshading and daylighting

High-efficiency chillers, boilers,

and fume hoods

Water-conserving toilets, urinals, and faucets

Recycled building materials

Recycling of construction waste

Landscaping

Landscaping with indigenous plant materialssaved money on irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticides.

Biofiltration methods cost no more than the

construction of curbs and gutters for handling

stormwater runoff. Runoff is treated naturally

using soil and plants to remove contaminants.

Building Materials

Durable materials save money on long-term mainte

nance expenses. Materials include local brick;

recycled-content concrete; recycled asphalt;

sustainably-harvested wood from certified sources;

low-VOC paints, adhesives, caulks, and sealants; andrecycled-content products such as gypsum board,

ceiling tile, and rubber f loor tile.

Daylighting

An open floor plan maximizes daylighting of interior

spaces. Daylighting provides 70 percent of the

lighting requirements in the offices and 43 percent

in the labs.

Wh en designin g its n ew camp us at Research

Triangle Park, EPA committed to build a high-

performance facility at a reasonable cost with

reduced environm ental impacts.

disciplin ary design team evaluated a wide range ofoption s at every step of th e design t o balance cost,

fun ctionality, and environm ental performan ce.

a result, they successfully integrated sustainable

features into a state-of-th e art laboratory an d o ffice

complex at no extra cost to the original budget.

The team cho se to elimin ate various n on -critical

building features in order to meet a group of

pre-set environm ent al goals and redu ce in creases

in first costs.

m inimal disruption to surroundin g woodlands, so

th ey traded off 700 of th eir total 2,500 parking

spaces an d con structed a m ulti-story parkin ggarage rather th an pave a larger lot in con crete.

EPA then offered employees incentives for

carpooling and alternative transportation.

Many other environmental strategies resulted in

significant econo m ic savin gs.

roads with two-lane roads preserved n atural

h abitat an d saved $2 m illion on construction .

Optim izing glass in th e atrium saved $200,000

on construction an d an estimated $130,000 in

energy bills over 20 years.

EPA produ ced a h ealthier, m ore prod uctivefacility and lowered th e total project cost by

$30 m illion . cent

less than a similar facility, saving approximately

$1 m illion per year.

A multi-

As

For example, the team wanted

Replacing four-lane

An n ual en ergy costs are 40 per

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

16/24

14

Recent stud ies are also dem on stratin g ho w

certain features of sustain able buildings h ave a

positive impact on health and well-being, and

lead to lower absent eeism:

A study of absenteeism among 3,720emp loyees at a large East Coast comp an y

found th at th e absenteeism rate was 35

percent lower in o ffices with h igher

vent ilation rates.

an annual cost savings of almost $25,000

per 100 em ployees could be ach ieved

th rough a on e-time investm ent o f $8,000

per 100 employees in improved ventilation

systems.28

A study of 11,000 workers in th e

Netherland s foun d th at absenteeism due

to sick buildin g syndrom e is likely to be

34 percen t lower when workers have

control over their own thermal conditions.29

Other financial impacts occur when building

occupants are uncomfortable because building

mainten ance en gin eers spend un necessary labor

ho urs dealing with complaints.

estimated th at simple efforts to in crease com fort

could result in a 12 percent d ecrease in labor

costs attributed to responding to complaints

Ano ther report ind icated th at person al contr

for HVAC system s (wh ich can be im plemen t

on ly by using u n der-floor air distribut ion

system s rather th an ceilin g system s) reducescomplaints to as low as 10 calls per 1,000

employees per year.31 Less time dealing with

complaints leads to more time to complete

preventative mainten ance, better equipmen t

longevity, an d lower operating costs overall.

Improved Image

Wh ile difficult to qu an tify, th e positive im ag

associated with an agency that builds or

occupies sustainable b uildings can result in

emp loyee pride, satisfaction , an d well-bein g

This can translate into reduced turnover,

improved m orale, and a m ore positive comm

men t to the em ployer.

develop th e building own ers repu tation as a

desirable employer, wh ich in turn creates a

business advant age for attracting, recruitin g,

and retaining talented em ployees and reduc

labor replacement and training costs.

A high performance building is one of the m

externally visible expressions of an organiza

tions commitment to sustainable values.

addition to employee morale, an organizatio

that owns and operates a sustainable buildin

will tend t o capture intan gible value th roughstakeho lder awaren ess an d respect.

distin ctive character can be a symbo lic m ess

to visitors, com m un ity officials, and th e pub

Key messages conveyed by a sustainable

building include techn ological advancemen t

business inn ovation , and concern for the

environment. ces

the primary mission of the organization

(e.g., environmental protection, energy

efficien cy, tech n ological inn ovation ), this

"image value" is part icularly powerful.

Environ m ental andSocietal Benefits

Sustainable design also provides a n um ber o

environmental and societal benefits includin

reduced infrastructure requiremen ts, imp rov

safety and security, increased power reliabilit

and less pollution.

Arizona Army National Guard

Ecobuilding

The Arizona Army National

Guard's Ecobuilding in Phoenix

is an adobe style office building

that is completely independent ofconventional utilities, including

electricity, sewer, and municipal

water. It is constructed with

many recycled materials,

including 5,000 used tires and

windows taken from buildings

previously scheduled for

demolition. Other sustainable

strategies include a closed-loop

wastewater treatment system;

passive solar design; daylighting;

solar-powered evaporative

cooling; and rainwaterharvesting and collection. The

building is powered by four 400w

wind turbines and an 18 kW PV

array. Each year the building

saves approximately $6,750 in

electricity costs and 60,000

gallons of water.

The study showed th at

One study

These effects can als

In

The build

Wh en th e building rein for

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

17/24

m prove Occupan t Safety, Increase Electricity

Reliability, an d Enha nce Nat ional Security

Since Septem ber 2001, p ublic agencies and

private companies have focused great attentionon building security issues, especially in high-

visibility pu blic places an d governm en t o ffice

bu ildings. Federal facilities will n o dou bt

eceive a large share of th e n ation 's total in vest

m en t in security upgrades. As a result, large

Federal facilities offer significant opportunities

o integrate energy efficiency measures with

ecurity-driven investmen t decisions. This

ntegration encompasses capital investments

nd operating practices, including building

nvelope components, mechanical equipment,

ighting, ducts, and on site-power generation.

Con sidering th ese issues in a wh ole building

pproach, the resulting energy savings may

be able to redu ce the n et cost of security

mp rovemen ts. Calculating an d building in

h e energy savings would m ake the security

mprovements more affordable and allow them

o be in corporated m ore extensively th an would

otherwise be possible.

ust a few features with a dual benefit of

ecurity and energy efficiency32 include:

Tighter building envelopes reduce energy

losses from infiltration wh ile reducing en try

of airborne h azards released o utside;

Daylit spaces m ay be easier to evacuate in

th e event of a threat accompan ied by a

power outage;

On -site, renewable power system s imp rove

reliability du ring grid-con n ected p ower

outages;

Window upgrades may improve blast

resistan ce as well as therm al and optical

performance; and

Security lightin g designed in con cert with

automated sensing and surveillance systems

can im prove detection capabilities wh ile

reducing th e n eed for constant h igh

n igh ttime lightin g levels.

The Pentagon renovation project provides good

xamp les. The Departmen t of Defense reports

h at a spray-on wall coating selected to im prove

blast-resistance at t h e Pentagon also im proves

th e air-tigh tn ess of th e bu ilding envelope, saving

heating an d coolin g energy and protecting

again st releases of airborn e ch emical an d

biological agen ts. New blast resistan t windowsare also 50 p ercent m ore energy efficien t th an

th e original wind ows. Photo -lum inescent signs

m arkin g evacuation rou tes are easier to see than

convention al ceiling m oun ted exit signs and

require no stand by power. Finally, zon ed

clim ate con trol systems m ake it easier to cont rol

smoke and man age the spread of chemical or

biological toxins, while also redu cing h eating

and cooling energy use and improving indoor

air quality.

From a n ation al perspective, energy efficiency

and renewable energy technologies also con-

tribute to U.S. dom estic security by lowering ou r

dependence on imported oil and gas. Moreover,

critical and essential services provided by

government agencies depend on reliable power

for th eir operation s. Buildings powered by

on-site renewable or super-efficient energy

system s, such as ph otovoltaics and fuel cells,

are less susceptible to supply in terruption s due

to unpredictable circumstances such as natural

disasters, power glitches, and world events.

Reduce Infrastructure Costs

By carefully locatin g an d siting Federal facilities,and reducing the resources and raw materials

required to service th em, Federal agencies

can reduce the n eed for new roads and oth er

infrastructure in vestm ent s costs born by

neighboring comm un ities.

Som e examp les include:

Site buildings near pu blic transportation ;

include design features that encourage

alternative transportation rather th an use of

personal veh icles in order to reduce air

pollution an d avoid highway expansion ;

Redevelop brown field sites or locate new

buildings in down town areas rather th an

suburban or rural green field sites in order t o

stimulate urban econom ic developm ent

an d reduce or eliminate in frastructure costs

for new power supply, sewer systems,

and roads;

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

18/24

16

Use recycled m aterials an d con struction

waste management practices in order to

reduce th e n eed for new land fills; an d

Con serve water to reduce the size an d

need for new water treatmen t plants.

Reduce Pollution and Ecosystem Impact

From con struction through operation anddemolition, buildings and infrastructure

consume vast quantities of energy and

n atural resources and t h ereby result in

many adverse impacts, including:

Acid rain an d m ercury pollution th at

dam age vegetation , wildlife, and

hum an health;

Spills and run offs of oil and tox ic

m aterials that spoil marine ecosystem s

and contaminate ground water and

soils; an d

Air pollution th at affects h um an h ealth

alters weather patterns, and disrupts

the atmosphere.

To m itigate th ese imp acts and avoid th e soc

costs associated with th em, sustainable d esig

includes choosing sites that do not disturb

agricultural lands, h abitats for th reatened

species, wetlands, parklands, and n atural or

cultu ral relics.

existing buildings or siting new facilities on

brownfields.

orient th e building to th e sun ; use topograp

to o ptim ize building en ergy factors; an d loca

near public transportation , amon g other

considerations.

En viron m ent al ben efits associated with

sustainable design do n ot always translate

into cost savings for bu ildin g own ers.

some cases th ey can.

Jersey an d five oth er states, building own ers

receive emission credits when th ey invest in

energy efficiency an d th ereby redu ce the air

pollution associated with electricity.

own ers sell these emission credits on th e ope

market to power plants and others, forprices ranging from $9 0 to $272 p er ton

of emissions.33

As th is report dem on strates, great progress h

been made in developing sustainable buildin

meth ods that h ave far less en vironm ental

impacts.

design will result in significant benefits to

society, including p rotection o f our air and

water and restoration of natu ral ecosystems.

National Institutes of Health,

Louis Stokes Laboratories/

Building 50

The energy-efficient design of

the National Institutes of Health,

Louis Stokes Laboratories/

Building 50 includes desiccant

energy recovery wheels, variableair volume systems, variable

frequency drive motors,

programmable high efficiency

lighting, daylighting, occupancy

sensors, and efficient water

fixtures. With these high-

performance features, the

facility uses less than half

the energy of a conventional

laboratory building.

It can also involve reuse of

Designers con sider h ow to bes

But in

For exam ple, in New

Buildin

Acceleratin g th e tren d o f sustainab

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

19/24

Conclusion

The Federal governm ent is th e nat ions

argest landlord, with more than 500,000

buildings and facilities.

remendo us opportun ity and a clear

espon sibility to lead b y exam ple on

ustainable design and construction, and

will reap many financial and other benefits

by doing so.

Same or reduced first costs.n atural heatin g and cooling,daylighting, recycled materials,efficient space planning, and the useof new technologies can in many casesreduce first costs of construction an denvironm ental impacts;

Lower operating and maintenance costs.En ergy and water savin g techn ologies,indigenous landscaping, commissioning,an d longer-lasting m aterials can savem on ey over their lifetimes that farexceed their higher first costs;

Better health an d in creased produ ctivity.Stud ies lin k worker health an dprod uctivity to sustain able featuresincluding good ventilation, personalcon trols, daylight ing, an d low-VOC

materials.absenteeism , improve qu ality, an dincrease output when buildings aremore comfortable and healthier placesto work;

En h an ced security.can imp rove occupan t safety, in creaseelectricity reliability, and enhancesecurity of government operations; and

Better image.an d p olitical supp ort, ease of siting an d

permitting, and ability to attract andretain top em ployees h ave all beenattributed to sustainable facilities.

Federal decision -makers sh ould con tinu ally

challenge th emselves to:

Establish sustainable design goals early

in th e plann ing stages and aim for aminimum of a LEED Silver rating, withaddition al emph asis on energy efficien cyand indoor air quality;

Bring together a multi-disciplinarydesign team with all buildingstakeholders, and include th em in adesign charrette at the outset ofthe project;

Strive for a "wh ole bu ilding" designthat integrates the architectural and

m echan ical features of th e building inrelation to its environ m ent;

Evaluate lifecycle costs in all designand financial decisionmaking;

Consider making new types oftrade-offs, including foregoing certaintraditional bu ildin g electives in orderto pay for some more expensivesustainable features; and

Main tain a com m itment to integrate

sustain able design principles andpractices through out th e design,construction, and operation ofth e facility.

These challenges are sizable but achievable.

Meeting them will result in buildings that

are better suited to live an d wo rk in, as well

as a healthier en vironm ent, a stronger

economy, and a more secure future.

As such, it has a

These ben efits include:

Integrated

Organizations can lower

Sustain able d esign

Community acceptance

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

20/24

PRIVATE SECTOR CASE STUDY: Herman Miller MarketplaceZeeland, Michigan

Herman Miller

constructed

the building at

an economical

$89 per square foot.

We are deeply committed

to sustainable architecture.

Our experience has

proven that these

investments can also

deliver significant

financial returns.

Mike olkemaChairman, President

and CEO, Herman Miller

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES

Daylighting and open floor plan

Operable windows and occupant

thermal controls

High-efficiency and task lighting Computerized building controls

Low-water use fixtures

Recycled and locally-supplied

building materials

Indigenous, drought-resistant vegetation

Indoor Environment

The company

wanted to create a

great place to

work in order toattract the best tal

ent and retain top

employees. The

building has an open floor plan with large exterio

windows and high ceilings to increase daylight.

Employees can control both temperature and ligh

in their personal work areas.

Land Use

To benefit the community

and reduce the environmentalimpacts of commercial

development on the

environment, green spaces

were incorporated into the

parking lot and its size was

decreased. Special parking spaces close to the

building encourage carpooling and the use of

alternative fuel vehicles.

Energy

The building incorporatesan efficient HVAC systemthat reduces energy costsby 40 percent. Carefullyselected, high efficiencylight sources combinewith daylight to minimizelighting system energydemands.

Sustainable design is not only being implemented

in the Federal sector. Man y private sector

com pan ies are instituting sustainable design

policies and practices as part of theirstand ard operation s.

With a strong com mitm ent to sustainable

design, Herm an Miller, Inc. built a m odel for

environmentally sound, economically viable, and

produ ctive places to work.

for natural light and fresh air, as well as siting,

energy use, an d m aterials, were incorporated in to

the p roject from t he beginn ing.

a Gold LEED certification and operational cost

savings that m ake the building a nation al

benchmark for sustainable and energy

efficient design.

The close working relationship between the

architect, client, and contractor helped ensure the

pro jects success.

goals, such as increasing HVAC efficiency an d

m inim izing electric lighting, were cont inu ally

tracked through out th e project.

m otivator, th e lease agreem ent also tied th e base

rent directly to achieving at least a Silver

LEED ra tin g.

Herman Miller constructed the building at an

econo m ical $89 per square foot$46 per square

foot less than th ey have spen t on traditionalcon struction of th eir other o fficessaving m ore

than $4 million.

33 percent in building costs; 44 percent in u tility

costs; and 66 percent in chu rn costs over a

traditional 1 00,000-square-foot bu ildin g with

a 7-year lease.

docum ented at mo re than $1 million over the

lease term.

18

V

Sustain able strategies

The result was

Project budgets an d sustainable

As an additional

In fact, the facility saved

Operation al cost savin gs are

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

21/24

5

0

5

0

5

0

Endnotes

1 W hole Building Design Guide, www.wbdg.org/design

2 U.S. Green Building Coun cil. Building Momentum : rends and Prospects for

High-Performance Green Buildin gs. Washington, D.C.

3 W hole Building Design Guide, www.wbdg.org/design

4 U.S. Green Building Coun cil. Op. Cit.

Many of these concepts were outlined in "Building Green on a Budget," found at:

http://www.betterbricks.com which cited: Environmental Building News, May 1999.

6 U.S. Federa l Facilities Cou n cil. Sustainable Federal Facilities: alue Engineering,

Life Cycle Costing, and Sustainable Development. echn ical Report No 142.

Nation al Academ y Press. ashingto n , DC.

7 90.1 is the base case for LEED, and is very close to t he 10 CFR 43 base requirem ent for Federal buildings.

8 Federal En ergy Man agemen t Program , U.S. Departmen t of En ergy. The Business Case for Sustainable

Design in Federal Facilities (Resource Docum ent ). .eere.energy.gov/femp /resources

9 U.S. General Services Adm inistration an d U.S. Departm ent of Energy. uilding Commissioning

Guide Version 2.2. .eren.doe.gov/femp/techassist/bldgcomgd.html

Portland Energy Conservation Inc., W hat Can Com missioning Do For Your Building?

(Brochure from the Federal Energy Management Program, U.S. Department of Energy).

1 Federal En ergy Man agemen t Program , U.S. Departm ent of En ergy.

2 Federal En ergy Man agemen t Program , U.S. Departm ent of En ergy.

3 The churn rate is defined as the total nu mber of moves made in a 12-month period, divided by the totalnu m ber of occupants, multiplied by 100 (to obt ain a p ercentage).

4 This figure assum es 27 mo ves at a savings of approxim ately $3000 per m ove (which is th e rough difference

between a "construction" move and a "furniture" move.)

Rocky Mountain Institute Web site http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid221.php

6 Rocky Moun tain Institute Web site ht tp:// www.rm i.org/sitepages/pid22 1.ph p

7 Mills, E. 2003b . y of En ergy-

Efficient Products and Services." Energy Policy. y. Report No.

LBNL-43642.

8 U.S. Green Building Coun cil. Op. Cit.

9 Sources: .opm .gov/feddata/02factbk.pdf and Federal Facilities

Council, 2001.

Departm ent of Defense). y facilities.

Rocky Mountain Institute. Greening the Building and the Bottom Line: easing Productivity Through

Energy-Efficient Design.1 Rocky Moun tain Institute.

2 Kron er, W., J.A. Stark-Mart in, an d T. Willem ain , 1992. Using Advanced Office Technology to Increase

Productivity. Rensselaer Polytechnic University, Center for Architectural Research.

3 Wyon , D. 2000. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. Spen gler, J.D.,

Sam et, J.M., an d McCart h y, J.F. Eds. New York:

4 Wyon , D.P. 1996. . In Proceedings of IAQ 96, Paths to Better

Building Environments, October 6-8, Baltimore, MD.

Heerwagen, J., J. Loveland, a nd R. Diamo nd , 1991. Post occupancy evaluation of Energy Edge buildings.

Center for Planning and Design, University of Washington.

6 Zijlstra, F.R.H., Roe, R.A., Leon ora, A.B., an d Krediet, I. 1999 . "Tem po ral Factors in Men tal Work: Effects of

Interrup ted Activities."Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 163-185.

7 Fisk, William J. 2000. Health and Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their

Implication for the U.S. Department of Energy. y.

8 Milton , D.K., P.M. Glencro ss, an d M.W. Walters. 2000. "Risk of Sick Leave Associated w ith Ou tdo or AirSupply Rate, Humidification, and Occupant Complaints." Indoor Air10(4): 212-221.

9 Preller, L.T., Zweers, T., ork -Related Healt h

Complaints Among Office Workers in the Netherlands."Indoor Air90. Toron to, volum e 1: 227-230.

Federspiel, C. 2000. "Costs of Respond ing to Com plaints."Indoor Air Quality Handbook. Spengler, J.D.,

Sam et, J.M., an d McCart h y, J.F. Eds. New York:

1 Loftness et al. 2002. ht tp://www.arti-21cr.org/research/com pleted/finalreport s/30030-final.pdf

2 These exam ples are drawn from a recent FEMP paper presented at th e U.S. Green Building Conference:

J.Harris, B. Dyer, an d W. Tsch ud i. Securing Buildings and Saving Energy: tun ities in the

Federal Sector.

3 Nation al Research Coun cil. 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was It W orth It? Nation al Academ y Press,

Washington, D.C., p.29.

2003. National T

A Guide to Integrating V

Federal Facilities T

W 2001.

2003.

http://www

B1998.

http://www

Op. Cit.

Op. Cit.

New Players in th e Deliver"The Insurance and Risk Management Industries:

Lawrence Berkeley Nat ional Laborator

http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/Insurance_Case_Studies.html

Office of Personn el Management http ://www

Note that personnel costs are for civilians only (including civilian employees of

Energy and other costs include militar

Incr

1994.Snowmass, CO.Op. Cit.

Thermal effects on performance. 2000.

McGraw-Hill.

Indoor en vironm ental effects on p roductivity

Lawrence Berkeley Nat ional Laborator

"Sick Leave Due to WBrun ekreef, B. an d Bolej, J.S.M. 1990 .

McGraw-Hill.

2001. Oppor

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

22/24

Resources

Useful inform ation o n sustainability, h igh perform ance buildings, and the green building indu

Web sites

BetterBricks: h ttp ://www.betterbricks.com

En viron m ental Building News: h ttp://www.buildinggreen.com

En viron m ental Design + Con struction : http ://www.edcmag.com

Federal Energy Management Program Federal Greening Toolkit:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/techassist/greening_toolkit/

Federal Energy Management Program Greening Federal Facilities:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/techassist/green_fed_facilities.html

Federal Energy Management Program Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/prodtech/low-e_bldgs.html

Laboratories for th e 21st Cen tury: h ttp://www.epa.gov/labs21century/

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive: http://www.ofee.gov/

Planet GSA:

Rocky Moun tain Institute: htt p://www.rmi.org

Sustain able Buildin gs Ind ustry Cou n cil: .sbicou n cil.org/

U.S. Department of Energy High Performance Buildings:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/

U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency: h ttp://www.epa.gov/greenbu ilding/green.h tm

U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/

Wh ole Building Design Guide: ht tp://www.wbdg.org/

Federal Guidance

GSAs Design Excellen ce Program G uide: h ttp ://h ydra.gsa.gov/ pb s/pc/d esign _excell/

Key rules and legislation affecting Federal facilities:

h ttp://www.eere.energy.gov/femp /resources/legislation.h tm l

U.S. Department of Interiors Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design:

http://www.nps.gov/dsc/dsgncnstr/gpsd/

U.S. Departmen t of Housing and Urban Developmen ts Guide to Decon struction :

http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/decon.html

Publications

Rocky Mountain Institute. Greening the Building and the Bottom Line: easing Productivity Through

Energy-Efficient Design.

U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. Greening Federal Facilities: An

Energy, Environm ental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers,

2nd Edition. Bratt leboro, VT.U.S. Federal Facilities Council. Sustainable Federal Facilities: alue Engineering,

Life Cycle Costing, and Sustainable Development. echn ical Report No. 142.

Nation al Academ y Press. ashin gton , D.C.

U.S. General Services Administration and U.S. Department of Energy. Building Commissioning

Guide Version 2.2. http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/techassist/bldgcomgd.html

U.S. Green Building Council. Building Momentum : rends and Prospects for

High-Performance Green Buildings. ashington , D.C.

U.S. Green Building Council. Making the Busin ess Case for High Performance Green Buildings (Brochure).

20

http://hydra.gsa.gov/planetgsa/

http://www

Incr

1994.Sn owm ass, CO.

2001.A Guide to Integrating V

Federal Facilities T

W

1998.

2003. National T

W

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

23/24

A Strong Energy Portfolio for a Strong America

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and

greater energy independence for America. By investing in technology breakthroughs today, our nation can look

forward to a more resilient economy and secure future.

Far-reaching technology changes will be essential to America's energy future. Working with a wide array ofstate, community, industry, and university partners, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy invests in a portfolio of energy technologies that will:

- Conserve energy in the residential, commercial, industrial, government, and transportation sectors

- Increase and diversify energy supply, with a focus on renewable domestic sources

- Upgrade our national energy infrastructure

- Facilitate the emergence of hydrogen technologies as vital new "energy carriers."

THE OPPORTUNITIES

Biomass Program

Using domestic, plant-derived resources to meet our fuel, power, and chemical needs

Building Technologies Program

Homes, schools, and businesses that use less energy, cost less to operate, and ultimately,

generate as much power as they use

Distributed Energy & Electric Reliability Program

A more reliable energy infrastructure and reduced need for new power plants

Federal Energy Management Program

Leading by example, saving energy and taxpayer dollars in federal facilities

FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program

Less dependence on foreign oil, and eventual transition to an emissions-free, petroleum-free vehicle

Geothermal Technologies Program

Tapping the Earth's energy to meet our heat and power needs

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

Paving the way toward a hydrogen economy and net-zero carbon energy future

Industrial Technologies Program

Boosting the productivity and competitiveness of U.S. industry through improvements in energy

and environmental performance

Solar Energy Technology Program

Utilizing the sun's natural energy to generate electricity and provide water and space heating

Weatherization & Intergovernmental Program

Accelerating the use of today's best energy-efficient and renewable technologies in homes,

communities, and businesses

Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program

Harnessing America's abundant natural resources for clean power generation

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyBringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable

8/3/2019 bcsddoc

24/24

FEMP works to reduce the cost

and environmental impact of

the Federal government by

advancing energy eff iciency

and water conservation,

promoting the use of

distributed and renewable

energy, and improving util ity

management decisions atFederal sites.

Federal EnergyManagement Program

For more information, or to order materials

contact the FEMP Help Desk at

800-363-3732or visit us at

www.eere.energy.gov/femp

August 2003

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy