The M Files

Amid the energy uproar concerning Marcellus Shale drilling practices, a new green building bill quietly slipped through the Pennsylvania legislature. On January 25, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed the High-Performance, State Buildings Standards Act by a vote of 170–18. The legislature gave the bill the following short description: “An Act requiring the design, construction and renovation of certain State-owned or State-leased buildings to comply with specified energy and environmental building standards; and providing for the powers and duties of the Department of General Services.”

The new law will be administered by the Department of General Services (DGS). It will apply to all new and major renovation building projects on buildings larger than 20,000 square feet. Major renovations are defined as those affecting more than 90% of the building’s total floor area.

The law mandates certification by “an organization that has a track record of certified green buildings in the United States and uses a consensus-based rating system.” Of course, the dominant green building rating system is the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED.

The bill states 11 goals of the legislation, which span the scope of green building certification systems from environmentally preferable materials to occupant health and productivity to job creation and economic vitality. The word “energy” is mentioned five times in those 11 goals.

Perhaps of greatest note are the legal teeth given to energy performance. According to the law, the newly certified buildings will have to be designed to achieve an EPA Energy Star rating of 75 or greater. This is fairly respectable performance. The burden of developing procedures to attain the standards and then monitor and report results will fall on the shoulders of DGS.

What I find encouraging about the legislation is that the energy goals are clearly stated and quite reasonable. Additionally, it appears that DGS will issue report cards on how the buildings perform as compared to pre-construction expectations. Bravo!

What I would caution would-be designers and project managers against is green energy over-exuberance. Let’s keep these projects simple. Simple is sustainable. Let’s also treat the tax dollars used to fund the projects as if they’re our own… because they are.

By example, I’ll share our experiences with the energy retrofit of the Ashkar Elementary School in Hughesville, Pennsylvania. The EPA awarded the school district an Energy Star award for boosting the school’s score from 30 in 2002 to 83 in 2009. How did we do it? Renewable energy? Daylight harvesting strategies? A green roof? The answers are no, no, and no.

The renovations were simple. They included things like basic lighting replacements, HVAC efficiency upgrades, and improvements to the building automation system. The school sips energy because a simple design led to a simple and sustainable operation. Our results coincide with the findings of a recent New Buildings Institute (NBI) study which suggest that “green education” plays as big of a role in energy performance as installed assets.

As the green building industry evolves into an era of greater transparency, we’re likely to discover that less is actually more, especially as it relates to sustainable, reliable energy performance.

Have you seen the latest green building news? Even the U.S. Department of Defense is now mandated to prove the financial value of LEED certification.

We're entering an era of green transparency, my friends, and we better stop making excuses why our LEED projects fall short of energy expectations.

My last post pointed out three problems with LEED energy goals, and why achieving their energy efficiency targets tend to be hit or miss. This week let's flip those problems into opportunities. Here's a three-step strategy to LEED energy success.

1. Communicate the energy goals in plain English.
2. Establish energy accountability measures.
3. Begin with the end in mind—a sensible Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan.

Communicate the energy goals in plain English.
Learn to speak the language of Energy Use Intensity (EUI). Nothing says more with so little effort. If you don't know the definition of EUI, you should. It's a single number that represents a building's energy use relative to its floor area. EUI serves as the basis of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager tool. The EPA has a nice explanation of the concept on its website.

So what I'm advocating is this: On LEED projects, where it's necessary to seek certification points based on X% improvement from a theoretical base condition, convert that goal into an EUI target. In the case of our example cited in my last post, the 25% savings from the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline converted to an EUI of roughly 50 kBtu/square foot annually. Now that's a good goal. It's easily communicated and committed to memory. It implies responsibility both on the parts of building designers and operators. It's easily measured and verified on the project's tail end.

Getting the project team to think this way might take awhile. But doing it time and again will eventually make you a building energy prophet. Our team can often predict energy retrofit outcomes with very little effort. After initial engineering analyses, we subject our energy goals to the all important "sniff test." If it doesn't smell right, we re-check our calculations. No kidding!

Establish energy accountability measures.
After my last post, a colleague wrote, "I would be interested to hear if you have any ideas on how to improve the [accountability] process for LEED projects other than the obvious recommendation of a [Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreement.]" He knows of our appetite for energy performance-based contracts.

Putting a single entity contractually on the hook for energy performance is the absolute best way of assuring successful outcomes. As he said, that's obvious. Unfortunately, this method of contracting hasn't reached the building construction industry mainstream yet, and I'd be perceived as a radical by proposing widespread acceptance of performance contracting as the LEED energy solution.

So what accountability measures can be introduced to traditional building design and construction models?

If you aren't willing to institute a contractual framework, how about simply assigning a LEED energy champion? Let's call him the Energy Czar. We did that in my college fraternity. We gave him authority. When the Czar spoke, we obeyed. It was simple and highly effective.

As with our successful performance-based contracts, the Czar would have energy expertise. He'd play a role in conceptualizing, designing, administering construction, and commissioning the facility. There would be no fragmentation of energy responsibilities. It seems so simple, but I've never experienced anything like it on a project seeking certification.

Begin with the end in mind – a sensible M&V plan.
Stephen Covey asserts that Habit #2 of Highly Effective People is to Begin with the End in Mind. I suggest that thoughtful M&V plans do just that on any project with an energy goal.

Many perceive M&V plans as adding a layer of paper-laden bureaucracy to the end of a construction project. It doesn't need to – and shouldn't – be that way. The most effective M&V plans are action-laden, paper-light. We prefer to use International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) standards and our reports are rarely more than 20 pages.

Commit to engaging the M&V team early in the design phase, and then, give them a voice to influence design decisions. After living with our energy guarantees for over a decade – the good, the bad, and the ugly – I can unequivocally swear that this step is essential to create a legacy of energy success stories.

M&V plans should be specific to the building, and every building is unique. By having the M&V plan feed the design, actual execution of the plan after occupancy can feel like a formality. When's the last time you experienced that on a LEED-certified project?

LEED energy victory is within our grasp.

I’ve written several times about the energy performance gap that we frequently experience on projects seeking LEED certification. That is, the gap between the LEED score card targeted performance and what’s experienced in actual operation. LEED building energy performance can be hit or miss. Yet experience with our portfolio of Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreements has been exceptional, with aggressive energy targets repeatedly scoring direct hits.

So what is it between the two delivery processes that creates such distinction in performance expectations? Let’s start with the LEED goal-setting process. We’ve narrowed it down to three simple points.

1. They aren’t communicated in plain English. The goals are obscure at best. We’re currently working on a LEED project where the energy goal is to achieve 25% below an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 baseline condition. Confused? I thought so. Even the most experienced HVAC engineer needs to do some background checking to figure out what this goal might mean. That kind of technical language intimidates a lot of players on the project team. What are the chances of achieving aggressive goals when few understand what they really are? Since the targets aren’t simply stated, they rarely guide consensus-based design decisions.

2. Nobody is ultimately accountable for achieving the goal. Usually when an energy question comes up during a LEED project’s design activities, all eyes turn to the project’s mechanical engineer. But that engineer usually has little authority over team decision making. Further, the energy engineer is rarely contracted to ensure implementation of various energy model assumptions, including an effective owner-training program.

What happens if a facility owner discovers that his LEED energy goals are missed? Here’s one head-spinning sequence we observed not long ago: The owner called the construction manager, who then contacted the architect, who then contacted the mechanical engineer. After some initial investigation the engineer advised the architect who advised the construction manager that something was wrong with the building automation system (BAS). So the construction manager called in the mechanical contractor who then called on his BAS subcontractor. The BAS sub pointed out that they met their contractual obligation, so the construction manager advised the owner to call in their third party commissioning agent, who held a contract directly with the owner. The commissioning agent wasn’t on the hook for hitting energy goals, either. So, the owner had to pick up the pieces.

Nobody was accountable. The goal was purely a failed theory. The buck never stopped, and I think it’s still running wild despite the LEED plaque on the lobby wall.

3. There’s rarely a sensible plan to measure and verify results. There’s only so much energy efficiency that can be designed into a building. Even the most efficient of designs can fall flat on its face through inadequate operational practices. Yet, despite the ability to gain LEED points through instituting a measurement and verification (M&V) plan, most project teams are disbanded shortly after a building’s substantial completion. When M&V activities are contracted, they usually engage too late in the design process, as if they’re bolted on to a confused and suspicious project team.

A good M&V plan is a road map to energy success. The best plans are conceived during the design development phase, so that they can influence design decisions. Post-occupancy M&V activities create an ongoing energy feedback loop to building operators and designers, allowing them to diagnose problems and make timely adjustments.

So the natural follow-up question to all of this is, How should LEED (or any other) energy goals be set? The short answer is that we should state the goals in plain English, establish accountability measures, and create specific M&V plans early in the design process. I’ll share some of the secrets to our success in our next post.

by Lynn DeSantis
Marketing Coordinator

McClure Company employees were delighted to join nearly 1,200 people at the Lancaster Convention Center on Thursday, December 1 to celebrate the Best Places to Work in Pennsylvania. We were honored to rank 8th overall in the large company category.  In an impromptu moment we asked some of our folks why they believe McClure Company is among the best places to work. The responses were so entertaining that we decided to share them. Enjoy!

In 2009, I was wilting under a Florida summer sun while waiting in line with my kids to board a ride at Disney’s Magic Kingdom. As we approached the entrance, cool air from an air-conditioning system comforted us before we even entered the open-door structure. My inner geek emerged. I focused on the massive amount of energy consumed to keep us comfortable and entertained. I saw a regular Pandora’s Box of BTUs, even as we were subjected to a sermon on “Environmentality.”

Several years prior to my trip, Disney implemented a highly publicized energy management program. Trade journals and the seminar speaker circuit spread the good news of their successful energy measures. Disney hoped their program could serve as an inspiration to other facility managers. As one article stated, “it will inspire other facility owners to develop their own [energy management programs] and cultivate the economic, energy, and environmental benefits that Disney has.”

One plank of the Disney project was a large-scale recommissioning* effort branded as a Building Tune-Up (BTU) program. That aspect of the energy efforts yielded, by far, the best financial returns. Disney was able to save gobs of energy by making simple, low-cost adjustments like changing set point temperatures and altering equipment schedules. Disney’s case was so persuasive that engineers (myself included) and facility managers latched on to look for similar low-hanging fruit in their buildings. Probably not coincidentally, many AEC industry firms began offering some form of recommissioning services.

Recommissioning efforts became the AEC industry’s magic pixie dust.

Our experience is that Disney’s results don’t necessarily translate to the smaller-scale facility owner. Sometimes we discover energy gold. But more often, well-intentioned recommissioning efforts uncover a host of hidden surprises. The school of hard knocks taught us to keep a wary eye on these three most frequent hidden problems:

1. Higher energy costs: Believe it or not, recommissioning efforts often increase a facility’s energy use. Why? Because the number one industry-wide comfort and energy “fix” is to close HVAC system outside ventilation air dampers. Outside ventilation air is required by building codes to provide a healthy indoor environment. But treating the air is frequently a major contributor to facility energy use and, sometimes, poorly treated air can cause comfort problems. Maintenance crews can avoid complaints and expensive repairs simply by closing the dampers. Frightening, but truly an epidemic.
2. Nickel –dime repair costs: Finding inoperable building systems can be pretty simple. But uncovering why they aren’t functioning properly often comes with a price tag. Small system components like damper actuators and hydronic valves sometimes need replacing to make whole systems work properly again. Bunches of small-scale repairs can add up to big dollars, and it’s impossible to know the extent of necessary repairs prior to opening the investigation. We try to manage our clients’ recommissioning cost expectations by recommending a replacement cost allowance as part of our proposal. We bill against the allowance on a time-and-material basis as we uncover their facility’s deepest, darkest operational secrets.
3. Chronic illness: Sometimes the building isn’t functioning properly because it has an underlying terminal illness. The only way to recommission might include major surgery, in the form of a full-scale capital upgrade to fix a flawed design. Case in point: Once we found a building with an HVAC system operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Additionally, the cleaning crew kept lighting systems energized all night through the week. Thinking we had struck energy gold, we instituted a temperature setback schedule and turned the lights off when unoccupied. Their energy bills fell dramatically along with their employees’ attitudes. We couldn’t maintain warm enough temperatures through the winter months with the new operating procedures due to an undersized HVAC system. The only way to fix the problem was a full-scale system replacement or to turn everything back “on” again.

Do you have any recommissioning stories to share?

*I’ve chosen the word recommissioning in this post. Commissioning purists might point out that I should use the word retrocommissioning. I believe we can get too caught up in those definitions when, ultimately, we’re just talking about fixing broken buildings. My personal experience is that many commissioning authorities spend too much time chasing paper instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting stuff to work properly. Perhaps we’ll address that issue in a future post.