What you can do right now

What You Can Do Right Now: Reuse and Retrofit Existing Buildings

December 9, 2020| Climate Action, What you can do right now|

Download the PDF »

What You Can Do Right Now: Reuse and Retrofit Existing Buildings

The built environment is responsible for close to 40% of annual GHG emissions1 — 28% from operating the buildings we already have and 11% from building new ones. To meet global climate action targets for reducing carbon emissions we need to cut both sources of emissions. Architecture 2030 has set achievable targets:

  • Operating emissions for new buildings: 80% lower now, carbon neutral by 2030;
  • Operating emissions for existing buildings: 50% lower emissions now, carbon neutral by 2050;
  • Embodied emissions: 50% lower by 2030, zero by 2050.

Energy codes, building electrification measures, and cleaner grids are moving new buildings towards zero operating emissions, and there is growing focus on reducing the embodied emissions from construction. But these encouraging trends and codes are mostly focused on new buildings. The number of existing buildings is many times higher than the number of new buildings built each year. These existing buildings contain a huge amount of materials (and embodied carbon), they are usually not very efficient, and we can’t afford to replace them all. We cannot ignore them either.

Why Reusing and Upgrading Existing Buildings Matters

Reusing a  building – including interior renovations and energy upgrades – has a much lower embodied carbon footprint than new construction – typically 50 to 75% lower, depending on the extent of the renovation. But reuse without improving efficiency is not enough, we also need to reduce current operating emissions by implementing efficiency upgrades, electrification, and cleaner sources of electricity.

Reusing and improving existing buildings also has a societal benefit – it can help rebuild existing neighborhood and financial equity, create local jobs, strengthen community control, and increase neighborhood resilience. Investment in communities that have been subjected to historic discrimination and economic “redlining”  has the potential to bring sustainable and equitable climate solutions that also have meaningful economic outcomes to the most impacted communities. To make this potential a reality, decisions must be made by and benefits accrued to those impacted or affected by the improvements.

How are we doing?

Retrofitting, renovating, adapting and remodeling existing buildings accounted for almost half of U.S., architects billing in 2018, an unusually high level for a period of economic growth5 , so we are reusing a lot of our existing buildings. But we are still tearing down perfectly good, functional buildings, with many years of life left in them, and when we do renovate we aren’t reducing operating emissions as much as we need to. We need to double the rate of retrofitting our existing building stock and increase post retrofit performance from 30% to 75%. When we take embodied carbon into account it changes the calculus of when to reuse and retrofit and when to build new. The greatly reduced embodied carbon of reuse shifts the balance towards renovation over building new.

Reusing existing buildings is emerging as a critical strategy in combating climate change. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,2 a seminal report  published in 2011, introduced this topic, but didn’t significantly alter our approach to existing buildings and carbon emissions. With the increased attention given to embodied carbon, electrification and zero net energy buildings, that is changing. In 2017, a group of preservation architects launched the Zero Net Carbon Collaborative (ZNCC)3.  The Climate Heritage Network (CHN)4 – focused on UN heritage sites – was launched at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco a year later. Both organizations are focused on demonstrating, promoting and realizing the carbon benefits of reusing and retrofitting existing buildings.

What can we do?

  1. Make it easier to reuse buildings: Support AIA California’s petition to amend the California Existing Building Standard to include all IEBC Compliance paths.
  2. Promote retaining and upgrading existing buildings over new construction – through awards programs, education, communication, and advocacy. Celebrate creative reuse.
  3. Before deciding to build new, consider reuse + retrofit first. Calculate the carbon emission differential.
  4. Develop materials for architects, building owners, developers, institutions and planners on the carbon and community benefits of retaining and upgrading existing buildings.
  5. Advocate for requiring projects that demolish more than 50,000sf to evaluate the carbon impacts/benefits of reuse compared to new construction.
  6. Advocate for more aggressive goals for energy upgrades and electrification of existing buildings. (U.S. energy efficiency improvement targets are typically 20% – 50%, EU targets are 50% to 80%).
  7. Advocate for cities to remove barriers to and provide incentives to encourage reuse and retrofit.
  8. Advocate for building codes to set minimum energy performance levels and minimum technical requirements to address the renovation of existing buildings. Question to address:
    • Has the building energy code been revised in light of the renovation targets?
    • Is compliance with the building code for renovation and improvement well enforced?
    • Do the requirements actively support the uptake of deep renovations in the jurisdiction?

 References

  1. 2019 Global Status Report, Global Alliance for Building and Construction and Architecture (GABC) and Architecture 2030 https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30950/2019GSR.pdf
  2. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse https://forum.savingplaces.org/viewdocument/the-greenest-building-quantifying
  3. Zero Net Carbon Collaborative https://www.znccollaboration.org
  4. Climate Heritage Network http://climateheritage.org
  5. Renovate, retrofit, reuse: Uncovering the hidden value in America’s existing building stock – AIA 2019 http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/RES19_227853_Retrofitting_Existing_Buildings_Report_Guide_V3.pdf

Resources

  1. Embodied Carbon Benchmarking Study, Carbon Leadership Forum (CLF) – 2017 https://carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/embodied-carbon-benchmark-study/
  2. Life Cycle Assessment of Tenant Improvement in Commercial Office Buildings & Life Cycle Assessment of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing in Commercial Office Buildings, CLF – 2019 https://carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/lca-of-mep-systems-and-tenant-improvements/
  3. CBECS – Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/
  4. NEEA Deep Energy Savings in Existing Buildings , New Buildings Institute – https://newbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NEEA_Meta_Report_Deep_Savings_NBI_Final81520111.pdf

 

Author: Larry Strain

Read More →

White Paper: The Business Case for Climate Action

October 30, 2020| Climate Action, Relevance, What you can do right now, White Paper|

 

By: Henry Siegel, FAIA, Jonathan Feldman, AIA and William Leddy, FAIA

Download the PDF »

MAKING THE CASE FOR CLIMATE ACTION

Most architects understand the enormous impact our work has on the environment: more than 25% of carbon emissions in California[1] (closer to 40% nationally) come from the construction and operation of buildings, and the resulting environmental impacts are enormous. Our clients and the agencies who review our projects may not be aware of these impacts and the importance and urgency of decarbonizing the building sector. This article is designed to show how architectural practice is changing to meet this demand and make the case that zero carbon design is not just an environmental imperative, it’s also good for business.

Where are our clients starting from? How important are the environmental impacts of their projects to them? How do we make the case for building decarbonization — not just the environmental case but the business case? Let’s start with the big picture.

 

THE BIG PICTURE

Societal Costs

The construction and operation of buildings represent one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, so our actions are a large and direct cause of climate change with its many negative outcomes: from rising temperatures, rising sea level, and increased air pollution to droughts, wildfires, and tornados, to threats to our food security. The dire findings of the October 2018 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, “Global Warming of +1.5˚C”[2], followed in November by the US Government’s “Fourth National Climate Assessment”[3], confirm that inaction is not a viable choice. Climate change is here, and the impacts are accelerating faster than previously predicted, as the recent record breaking wildfires throughout the west bring home to us all. The IPCC report concludes that avoiding catastrophic climate impacts requires “a rapid and far-reaching transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that’s never happened before.”

While the cost and complexity of combating these challenges now may be considerable, both will be significantly greater if we wait. Investments in resilience now will be far less expensive than reacting to change later; by acting sooner to decarbonize our industry, we can reduce future environmental impacts and uncertainty – especially for more vulnerable populations – as well as future costs.[4]

And, there is great opportunity as well. Rapid technological change is making low carbon design the lowest cost option for new buildings. Architects can now make the case that we can save money for our clients — construction cost and operating cost  — and increase our clients’ return on investment while also lowering the carbon footprint of their projects.

For new construction, “doing well” and “doing good” are in perfect alignment. The transition to a post-carbon building sector and economy isn’t something to be feared: it’s an extraordinary business opportunity to be embraced.

 

The Political Climate: Legislation, Reach Codes and Building Code Updates

The State of California is moving rapidly to reduce carbon emissions statewide over the coming decades. The Legislature has established decarbonization goals and is drafting a host of policies growing out of these goals that will deeply affect the construction industry, and our day-to-day practices, in a wide variety of ways. Senate Bill 1477 calls on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to develop, in consultation with the California Energy Commission (CEC), two programs (BUILD and TECH) aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings. Assembly Bill 3232 calls on the Energy Commission, in consultation with the CPUC and other state agencies, to develop an assessment by next year of the feasibility of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of California’s buildings 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Many public agencies are studying how to quickly reduce building sector carbon emissions and are concluding that eliminating fossil fuel from buildings, requiring that new buildings use all electric systems, is the most promising way forward:

 

  • The California Public Utilities Commission has launched an effort to transition the state away from the use of fossil fuel in buildings.[5][6]

 

  • “Building electrification is widely recognized as a low-cost method to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It is also an essential strategy for reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health, especially in California, where buildings contribute five times more air pollution than power plants.”[7]

 

  • A State of California study, tasked with evaluating paths to an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, concludes that “building electrification is likely to be a lower-cost, lower-risk long-term strategy compared to renewable natural gas.” California policies and laws will rapidly be evolving in this direction.[8]

 

Action at the local level is happening even more quickly. Many county and city jurisdictions have passed electrification “reach codes,” with the goal to meet decarbonization goals even more quickly than state mandates. In just 12 months, 35 cities representing nearly 10% of the state’s population have committed to gas-free new construction – with more cities and counties joining all the time.[9] [10] Over 40 other cities and counties have similar reach codes in the works.

The 2022 Building Code, now under consideration and enacted as of January 1, 2023, will likely include requirements and/or incentives for all electric buildings. AIA also supports the adoption of the  ZERO Code for California[11], developed by Architecture 2030 and Charles Eley, FAIA, which provides a regulatory overlay of existing California building codes that, if adopted, would lead to accelerated de-carbonization.

These are promising developments on multiple fronts. It is important that as a profession we stay informed about these political efforts, actively support their implementation, and encourage our clients to do the same.

 

Incentives

Tax incentives, carbon credits and other innovative financing mechanisms are under continuing development to make deep energy retrofits of existing buildings and new low-carbon building systems accessible to everyone. Government tax incentives for solar energy adoption have already been a major factor in the success of the solar industry, and these will likely continue. Meanwhile, many other programs are being developed around the country to democratize clean energy, reduce energy poverty, and expand access and affordability of resource efficient homes to low and moderate-income families.  In California, many local and regional agencies, like the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water  and Power (LADWP)[12] are providing incentives for energy retrofits for low-income tenants and affordable housing developers. Since 2012 Fannie Mae[13] has offered the Multifamily Green Bond program that provides innovative financing solutions for energy and water efficiency wrapped into traditional mortgage lending. New and retrofitted green multifamily buildings under this program are estimated to have already contributed $7.2 billion in worker’s income while reducing water use by 5.9 billion gallons and greenhouse emissions by 287,000 metric tons. As the zero carbon economy expands, financial institutions will continue to find innovative ways to serve it, and architects will benefit greatly from the many projects this financing will support.

 

Job Creation

The transition to a decarbonized building sector and economy will create millions of new jobs. (100,000 in California alone[14]) The UN’s International Labor Organization[15] recently predicted that the green economy will generate 18 million new jobs globally by 2030. Influential global market analysts FTSE Russel[16] reported in 2018 that the value of the US green economy is expected to grow from $4 trillion today to $90 trillion by 2030. And according to a Bloomberg[17] analysis of US Bureau of Labor Statistics employment projections, over the next decade “jobs for solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians will grow twice as fast as any other occupation.” [18]

 

The Changing Power Grid and the Decreasing Role of Gas

The electric grid in California is rapidly reducing its carbon footprint – – almost two thirds of California’s electricity came from zero carbon sources in 2019. The cost of building and operating new solar and wind power capacity has fallen below the cost of operating existing coal powered utilities.[19]

Will the grid be up to the task of electrification? California’s peak electric demand is due to air-conditioning in the summer. Most of the increase load due to building electrification comes in winter improving the utilization rate of the electric grid, which should lower cost.[20]

PG&E, the largest investor-owned public utility in California, supports electrification reach codes and the elimination of fossil fuel combustion in buildings. PG&E doesn’t want to invest in new gas infrastructure because it understands that all-electric buildings will be the new standard; and the company realizes that its existing gas infrastructure is on the way to becoming a “stranded asset,” an investment that will eventually provide no return. While most utilities in the state, including PG&E, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Southern California Edison (SCE), support electrification, some, like SoCalGas, are fighting it. Gas is its entire business, of course, and it has the support of trades that install gas infrastructure. The transition away from natural gas combustion in buildings will take decades so workers who want to can retire in those jobs, while others can be retrained and transitioned to well-paying green jobs.

The cost of maintaining aging gas infrastructure is already increasing dramatically as utilities undertake substantial safety upgrades following a number of major disasters in the past decade, including the major leak at Aliso Canyon and explosions in San Bruno and San Francisco. And as California continues to cut fossil fuel use, demand for gas is in decline, and costs will continue to rise. According to research from E3,[21] gas rates could increase from about $1.50 per therm today to as much as $19 per therm by 2050.[22]

 

Injustice of Climate Change

In this moment when the US is wrestling with racism and economic injustice, the communities that suffer most from the systemic manifestations of these issues are also disproportionately suffering from the physical and economic consequences of climate change. To further this injustice, many of these same communities have a smaller environmental footprint and are contributing to climate change the least.[23] As we advance our efforts to address climate change and limit emissions that cause warming, we must widen our understanding of the relevant issues in all communities.

We know that climate change will likely lead to more frequent, more severe, and longer heat waves during summer months and this will be exacerbated in lower income neighborhoods that generally are less shaded and more subject to urban heat island effects. There is growing evidence that GDP will also be reduced by a global average of  5.6% due to, among other causes, increased spending on energy needed for cooling.[24] Heat waves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events caused by climate change have also cost the U.S. billions of dollars[25] for additional health care, and the need, as we have seen in the COVID pandemic, is most acute for already vulnerable, lower income populations .[26]

We also know that we  cannot meet statewide carbon reduction goals without making sure that energy retrofits and other low carbon design strategies are made available to all communities. And making these programs available to all has many other benefits.  “ Electrification provides low-income communities access to major benefits such as cleaner air, healthier homes, good jobs and empowered workers, and greater access to affordable clean energy and energy efficiency to reduce monthly energy bills, while helping the state meet its climate goals, including a net-zero carbon economy and 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.”[27] HVAC heat pumps deliver utility bill savings for both retrofit and new construction of up to $600 per year compared to gas appliances. Decarbonizing homes not only reduces pollution and helps achieve state climate goals, it can also support equity policy goals. “For example, heat pump systems provide a climate adaptation advantage, because they provide both air conditioning and heating. Air conditioning, along with better building design and more resilient communities, can help protect public health in low-income and vulnerable communities as heat waves become more severe under climate change.”[28]

Recently, we have seen numerous affordable housing projects that meet high standards for zero carbon design, demonstrating that projects that must meet stringent cost targets can still achieve ambitious performance and emissions standards. Increasingly, developers are proving that they are willing to consider the triple bottom line, with mutual benefits to  people, planet, and profits.

  

THE DIRECT BENEFITS

The benefits of making the transition to all-electric, zero carbon buildings, and doing it now, are compelling. Zero carbon buildings will save money. Building and business owners will realize more stable and resilient operations as well as first cost and long-term cost reductions for energy and utilities. Zero carbon buildings are more resilient, energy independent and safe. And if we act quickly and stave off the most significant fall-out from a changing climate, all of our businesses will benefit from the increased physical and economic stability.

 

What Will it Cost Me?

While many architects can make a well-reasoned case for the environmental benefits of building decarbonization, our clients still need to understand the practical benefits and implications, such as:

  • What will this cost up front?
  • How will operating costs change?
  • How will this affect permitting?
  • How will it affect the building users?
  • How will it affect value, financing, sales, leasing, resale?

 

New Buildings

For new buildings, we have persuasive answers to all these questions now. Construction costs, operating costs, and carbon emissions can all be lowered by designing all electric buildings. These benefits are made possible by many recent developments, including new higher efficiency heat pump technology for space and water heating. Heat pump equipment is now more efficient, has lower emissions, and costs less to operate than comparable gas equipment.[29]

 

  • Construction cost will decrease;[30] no gas piping will be installed on sites and or in buildings, no gas service or meter required. The cost differential of electrical equipment replacing what would have been gas equipment is negligible, and many utilities and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs)[31] provide rebates for using electric equipment rather than gas.[32]

 

  • Operating costs are also reduced since new heat pump equipment is now many times more efficient than comparable gas equipment.[33]

 

  • Since elimination of fossil fuel combustion in buildings is widely recognized as an important strategy in meeting California carbon emission targets, all electric buildings will quickly become the easiest way to gain agency approvals.

 

  • Elimination of fossil fuel combustion in buildings removes a prime source of toxicity in indoor environments and a dangerous source of combustion during fires. All electric buildings are safer and better for occupant health. Recent studies point to increased awareness of the negative health effects of cooking with gas.[34]

 

  • Carbon neutral buildings cost less to build, are less expensive to operate, protect occupant health, and are safer and more resilient. The result: increased building value.

 

  • With battery back-up, all electric systems are more resilient because they can operate, at least partially, during power outages.[35]

 

Existing Buildings

What about existing buildings?  Retrofitting existing buildings that use gas service is more complex and potentially more costly, but help is on the way. Buildings that use propane or heating oil as a fuel source can, because of the operating costs of these fuels, realize immediate savings by switching to electricity. Buildings that use natural gas may be more expensive to convert in the short run if the electrical service to the building is small. But that will change quickly as new technologies come online. Examples include lower voltage heat pump equipment requiring less amperage (110 volt rather than 220 volt), coming on the market this year and next, and new smart electrical panels and switches that monitor and control electrical draw so that older buildings may not need an upgraded electrical service to go all electric.[36]

 

Rapidly Changing Technologies & Economies of Scale

The move toward building decarbonization will continue to benefit from other rapid changes in technologies such as the growing efficiency and shrinking costs of photovoltaic systems.

The cost of renewable energy on site[37] has dropped dramatically and is now one of the lowest cost sources of energy, significantly less costly than utility power in California. Rooftop solar is now available as low as $1.49/watt (after tax credits)[38] with a payback of 4-5 years.[39] Adding battery storage provides increased resilience in the face of power outages and rolling blackouts. Storing energy on site can produce further savings and provide more energy independence and stability, while allowing owners to lower operating costs by shifting time of use to off-peak hours, lowering carbon demand. Many of these technologies have relatively short pay-back periods, especially with the significant tax credits that are available. Payback periods will continue to shorten as California utility companies prioritize electric power over gas. While time is definitely not on our side when it comes to rising global temperatures, time is lowering the costs and increasing the scale and efficacy of our low carbon design strategies.

 

TALKING WITH CLIENTS

So, how can you talk to clients, consultants and governing agencies about these issues? Architects are typically handed a project brief with clearly defined project goals that tend to focus on tasks, spaces, and personnel, in addition to budget and schedule expectations. We need to broaden the conversation. We have to assume that most clients would welcome an opportunity to improve their organizations by saving money, increasing their stability, improving their office culture and employee health and productivity[40] – and that these efforts can directly strengthen their communities and assist in combating climate change. We can appeal to agency concerns about health and safety. And we can team up with our consultants to set high and achievable targets.

Communication matters. Get to know what your clients really care about. Recognize different levels of understanding and buy-in and then meet them where they are, with respect.  Once you have earned their trust, you have also earned the opportunity to use the resources in this article to advocate for decarbonization. (And you can find many other articles online about how to communicate about climate change.) Some of the common principles include the kind of communication skills that architects are good at:[41]

 

  • Provide a vision for the future and how we are going to get there.
  • Lead with the issues your client cares about such as lower cost or healthier spaces.
  • Don’t shy away from uncertainty.
  • Explain data through storytelling.

 

Making Carbon-Free Building Design the Baseline Assumption

Another strategy is to simply assume that the goal of every project is to build responsibly and now that all-electric buildings are less expensive, this should be the default. Clients will always have an opportunity to raise objections if they wish, though they should also be informed that city and state codes are changing rapidly and might even change before permits are issued. Before long, the codes will be dictating that we design this way and designing buildings that depend on fossil fuels will not be an option. By getting ahead of the codes, we can establish our individual practices as leaders on this issue – we can influence our clients and other architects, and we can attract talented employees who overwhelmingly care deeply about combating climate change.

We all have to answer tough questions from clients, and this resource[42] provides examples of answers from firms who are experienced in low carbon design and bringing their clients along with them. They answer questions like:

 

  • This project is tight on time and budget. We do not have the resources to conduct additional analyses or to reinvent the wheel here.

 

  • Having high-performing buildings is not a part of our organization’s mission, so why should we make the investment?

 

  • What is the cost premium to reduce my project’s embodied carbon or improve building performance? These strategies sound expensive.

 

Finally, here is a link to a power point of all electric buildings of many different building types and sizes completed or in design throughout the state:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLgWDbk18tojSQjNDi5Y6GBBtm_Zu70s/view

And here is a link to the newly developed Clean Building Compass from the Building Decarbonization Coalition provides a host of additional links and resources:

http://www.buildingdecarb.org/compass.html

 

Authors

Henry Siegel, Jonathan Feldman, Bill Leddy

11/4/2020

[1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/joe-vukovich/real-climate-impact-californias-buildings

[2] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[3] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

[4] https://www.theclimategroup.org/news/delaying-climate-action-will-raise-costs-50-world-bank-report

 

[5] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cpuc-launches-rulemaking-transition-natural-gas/570653/

[6] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-begins-planning-for-transition-away-14996560.php

[7] https://rmi.org/californias-investment-in-building-electrification-opens-new-job-creation-opportunity/

[8] https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-500-2019-055/CEC-500-2019-055-F.pdf

[9] https://localenergycodes.com/content/local-ordinance-map

[10] http://www.buildingdecarb.org/active-code-efforts.html

[11] https://zero-code.org/

[12] https://www.nrdc.org/stories/angeles-renters-want-their-own-green-new-deal

https://www.la-bbc.com/

[13] https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/multifamily-green-bond-impact-report-highlights-benefits-fannie-mae-loan-programs-0

[14] https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/California_Building_Decarbonization-Executive_Summary-1.pdf

[15] https://www.ilo.org/weso-greening/#Intro-1

[16] https://unfccc.int/news/green-economy-overtaking-fossil-fuel-industry-ftse-russel-report

[17] http://www.digitaljournal.com/business/labor-dept-renewable-energy-jobs-fastest-growing-sector-in-usa/article/506220

[18] https://rmi.org/californias-investment-in-building-electrification-opens-new-job-creation-opportunity/

[19] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#54a4435531f3

[20] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/merrian-borgeson/californias-grid-ready-all-electric-buildings

[21] https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CA_Gas_System_in_Transition.pdf

[22] https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CA_Gas_System_in_Transition.pdf

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-nears-tipping-point-on-all-electric-building-regulations

[23] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFfGsGMq_zhW–NHVmRG4EZPaTtgcjKh/view

[24] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170529133714.htm

[25] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GH000202

[26] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525226/

 

[27] https://greenlining.org/publications/reports/2019/equitable-building-electrification-a-framework-for-powering-resilient-communities/

[28] https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf

 

[29] https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/a1803.pdf

[30] https://rmi.org/insight/the-new-economics-of-electrifying-buildings?submitted=1983dhtw8

[31] https://cal-cca.org/about/members/

[32] https://www.bayrenresidential.org/get-rebates

https://www.sce.com/residential/rebates-savings/rebates

https://www.smud.org/en/Rebates-and-Savings-Tips

https://www.sdge.com/residential/savings-center/rebates/multifamily-rebates

[33] https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf

[34] https://rmi.org/insight/gas-stoves-pollution-health/

[35] https://rmi.org/insight/the-economics-of-electrifying-buildings/

[36] http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/RES19_227853_Retrofitting_Existing_Buildings_Report_Guide_V3.pdf

https://rmi.org/insight/the-economics-of-electrifying-buildings/

https://rmi.org/insight/how-to-calculate-and-present-deep-retrofit-value/

[37] https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019#:~:text=Solar%20and%20wind%20power%20costs,and%20offshore%20wind%20at%2029%25

[38] https://www.tesla.com/energy/design

[39] https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panel-cost/california

[40] https://stok.com/research/financial-case-for-high-performance-buildings

[41] https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/communicating-climate-change-focus-framing-not-just-facts

[42] https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/eight-questions-youll-hear-when-proposing-zero-carbon-design_o

 

For a PDF version, click here.

 

Read More →

Things you can do RIGHT now: 2030 Commitment

September 29, 2020| Climate Action, What you can do right now|

 

Next in the AIA CA series, Things You Can Do Right Now, we have some information about the AIA 2030 commitment. Be sure to register for the October 8 FREE introduction to the commitment as well.

Download the PDF »

What is the AIA 2030 Commitment?

The 2030 Commitment is a free, voluntary AIA program for firms to align their firm goals and culture to support the Architecture 2030 Challenge – for all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030. Its mission is to transform the practice of architecture in a way that is holistic, firm-wide, project based, and data-driven. The program has existed for about a decade, and hundreds of firms have signed on so far.

2030 Signatory firms track performance data for all projects in their portfolio that are in a design phase, with the goal of meeting the 2030 Challenge fossil fuel reduction targets. In addition, signatory firms develop a “Sustainability Action Plan” to establish a path to transform their design culture to integrate sustainability into practice.

Why is the AIA 2030 Commitment important?

According to Architecture 2030, the urban built environment is responsible for 75% of annual global GHG emissions, and buildings alone account for 39%. The 2030 Challenge was established by Architecture 2030 in 2006 to establish targets for the building and design industry to align to the Paris Agreement targets for emissions reductions. The AIA adopted these targets and transformed the goals to a format that is adoptable and actionable for any architecture firm, from sole practitioners to large firms.

Some firms may be lucky enough to work on projects and with clients that are already “on board” with deep sustainability goals and green building certification targets. But that is likely not the case for the majority of clients or projects. The 2030 Commitment provides a method to “close the gap” with the rest of the projects in a typical firm’s portfolio – it is a tool to establish a performance goal at the beginning of all projects, track progress towards the goals, demonstrate improvement, and provide value and cost savings to clients that may not have had low carbon goals initially.

The most important groundwork of the program happens in the realm of firm-wide culture change, to educate designers and enable the performance goals improvements to become visible. Because of this holistic approach, the 2030 Commitment is among the most important design tools available to create meaningful change across our profession in the face of climate change.

What are the results showing?

1.     The program’s base is broad, and it is growing. As of July 2020, the 2030 Commitment has 818 firms signed on, with an average growth rate of 20% per year. The most recent reported data available show over 3 billion square feet of projects across 92 countries.

2.     2030 designs are projected to save money and carbon. Recent program-wide reported results showed the equivalent of 17.7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions saved, and operating savings of more than $3.3 billion.

3.     Projects can achieve the targets across all project types and U.S. climate zones. The most recent “2030 By the Numbers” report released by AIA showed results of all projects based on climate zone and typology. Firms have demonstrated that the 2030 Commitment targets are achievable, regardless of location and project type.

4.     Firms can achieve the 2030 goals across their portfolio. Sixteen firms recently demonstrated that they could achieve the 2030 targets across all projects in their portfolio – signaling that education and firm culture change can transform practice.

5.     2030 Signatories are industry leaders. Seven of the ten most recent AIA Firm Award winners are also signatories to the 2030 Commitment. Firms that are dedicated to high performance work are also recognized for healthy work cultures and design excellence.

6.     Project performance is improving, but average results are still below the targets. While the targets have been proven as achievable for a set of the reported projects, most firms/projects are not achieving the 2030 goals. Program-wide performance has been incrementally improving year to year, but not at the rate needed to achieve the targets.

What’s changed in the program?

In 2020, the program’s stepped reduction targets have increased, from 70% reduction from a baseline building performance, to 80%. This expected change was established at the beginning of the program, leading to 90% reduction in 2025, and 100% in 2030. The program’s metrics have been based on predicted energy use intensity (pEUI), which relies on efficiency and on-site renewable energy.

This current 80% reduction target based on this metric is very difficult especially for urban, dense projects or project typologies with very high loads, such as labs and hospitals, who can’t produce on-site renewable energy to offset the energy consumed over the period of a year, even if the building is very energy efficient. Therefore, the program will incorporate off-site renewable energy beginning in the 2020 reporting year, as a means to achieve the program targets – while keeping design and efficiency at the center of the work for architects.

Additionally, the program will be evolving to address the goal to reduce fossil fuel combustion in buildings. On- and off-site renewables may only be used to offset grid electrical energy use. If gas is used in a building design, that energy and those emissions cannot be offset with renewable energy. Therefore, the program and tracking tool (known as the Design Data Exchange, or DDx) will be structured to make this technical distinction clearer.

Finally, embodied carbon is going to be included in the DDx as well. Designing for low embodied carbon is just as important (and for some project types in certain locations, more important) than low operational carbon. Many firms have started performing lifecycle analysis on their projects to understand embodied carbon impacts. While embodied carbon will not formally be wrapped into the AIA 2030 Commitment’s target for the time being, the tool will enable firms to track that information and endeavor to show improvement year after year. It should be noted that Architecture 2030 has also issued a 2030 Challenge for Embodied Carbon, to achieve 65% reduction by 2030.

Look for more information about this from AIA this fall.

Costs:

Participation in the program and access to the DDx tool is free.

Get started:

  • If your firm has not yet signed onto the commitment, ask why. Consider polling your coworkers to gauge interest and build support. And sign on. https://2030ddx.aia.org/registerFirm
  • If your firm is already signed on but has not yet reported, get organized. Log into the free DDx tool and start tracking projects – now! Data tracking does not have to wait. https://2030ddx.aia.org/users/sign_in
  • If your firm is already signed on and reporting, consider upping your game. Embodied carbon is now able to be tracked in the DDx.

Things you can do right now:

  • Reach out to your local component to join, or start, a local 2030 Roundtable. Groups may already exist in your local area; if not – reach out and start connecting with others at firms that are responding to climate change through their practice.
  • Reach out to a firm that has not yet signed on, and educate them on the 2030 Commitment. Small- and medium-sized firms are underrepresented signatories. To make an impact on climate change as an industry, all of us have to be on board. If you’re an experienced signatory, help demystify the process.
  • Don’t forge the October 8 Introduction to the AIA 2030 Commitment. Learn more and register herehttps://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_53zmsYOmQ0CafA0RvJszVA.

Tools and resources:  

Read More →

Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

August 19, 2020| Climate Action, What you can do right now|

Download the PDF »

What is EUI?

Energy use intensity (EUI) is an indicator of the energy efficiency of a building’s design and/or operations. EUI can be thought of as the miles per gallon rating of the building industry. It is used in a number of different ways including to set a target for energy performance before beginning design, to benchmark a building’s designed or operational performance against others of the same building type, or to evaluate compliance against energy code requirements. It is important to remember that EUI varies with building type[i]. A hospital or laboratory will have a higher EUI than a residence or small office building.
EUI is expressed as energy per square foot or meter per year. It is calculated by dividing the total energy consumed by the building in one year by the total gross floor area of the building. EUI is expressed as thousands of British thermal units used per square foot per year (kBtu/sq. ft./year) or gigajoules per square meter per year (GJ/m2/year). To calculate EUI, energy used for one year must be converted from kilowatt hours of electricity or therms of natural gas to kBtu or GJ.

What is Energy and how does it affect EUI?

The amount of energy used by a building can be considered in two different ways, at the building site or at the source, meaning where it was generated[ii]. It’s important to know which definition of energy you’re using. There is also a third definition, Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy, used only in California in the Performance Approach to documenting compliance with the California Energy Commission’s Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Standards.[iii]
Site energy is the amount of energy consumed at the building site indicated in utility statements or via metering for an existing building or as predicted by energy modeling software for a building in design. Utility delivered energy plus Renewable Energy generated and used onsite are included because they are required to operate the building. Renewable energy exported to the electric grid is not included because it is not used for building operations. Site EUI is the amount of site energy used in one year divided by the total square feet of building area.
Source energy traces heat and electricity used at the site back to the original raw inputs. Electricity, for example, can be generated at a power plant by burning raw fuels such as coal or natural gas, from clean sources such as large hydropower plants, or from renewable ‘fuels’ such as sun, wind, small hydropower, and geothermal. Source energy includes the total amount of raw fuel used at power plants to operate a building.
In calculating source energy, a ‘multiplier’ or ‘factor’ is applied to metered site energy to reflect the raw fuel used to generate and deliver the metered site energy. The Source Energy Factor used by the US EPA as of 2019 for utility delivered electricity was 2.8.[iv] As grid-supplied electricity replaces fossil fuels with renewable sources such as sun and wind, this multiplier grows smaller.[v] In calculating source energy, the amount of utility-supplied electricity used on site would be multiplied by the Source Energy Factor. Onsite solar or wind energy used in building operations has a Source Energy Factor of 1.0, meaning there is no multiplier. For natural gas used at the building, the Source Energy Factor is 1.05. Adding together utility delivered energy with the multiplier applied, plus the actual amount of on-site renewable energy used in operations gives the total amount of source energy required to operate the building. Renewable energy exported to the electric grid is not included because it is not used for building operations. Source EUI is the total amount of source energy used in one year divided by the square feet of building area.
Net EUI adds consideration of the amount of renewable energy exported to the grid in a year. The amount exported is subtracted from Annual Energy Use and the remainder is divided by square feet of building area. A Net Zero Energy building has a Net EUI of zero.

How can I use EUI in architectural practice?

Before starting design, you can determine the Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) baseline for the building type and set a target Site EUI for your building.
During design you can use energy modeling to compare design alternatives. At key points in the process you can use the model to estimate the amount of energy your proposed building design will and then calculate Site EUI. In this way you’ll learn whether you are on track to meet your energy target and revise the design if necessary.
You can sign on to the AIA 2030 Commitment and use EUI to document the energy performance of your projects. Through the 2030 Commitment you can evaluate portfolio wide energy performance of your firm’s projects and see where your Firm stands in relation to others in your region and nationwide.
You can estimate performance of past projects by using spreadsheets available from AIA California to derive Site EUI from 2013 and 2016 Title 24 Part 6 whole building compliance reports.[vi]

What should I explore and do next?

1.   Benchmarking and EUI by building type.
·      Benchmark EUIs for many building types have been established based on the 2012 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, known as CBECS, and available here: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
·      Energy Star provides median Source and Site EUI numbers for many building types here:
·      Architecture 2030 uses benchmarks as a starting point in establishing energy performance targets for design. See: https://zerotool.org/about/
2.   Setting energy targets for your projects before beginning design.
·      The Architecture 2030 Zero Tool can guide you in setting energy targets for both EUI and percent reduction compared to a building type average from the 2005 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. See:
·      More information on setting high performance EUI targets by building type and ASHRAE climate zone, but not California Title 24 Part 6 climate zone, can be found here: https://newbuildings.org/nbi-releases-zero-energy-performance-targets-for-new-construction-projects/
3.   Learn how to Incorporate Energy Modeling into Your Design Process. Make informed design decisions and track whether you are achieving your target EUI. See AIA’s Architect’s Guide to Building Performance – Integrating performance simulation in the design process: http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/AIA_BPSGuide_2019_FINAL.pdf

References

[i] Median EUI for different building types in the USA can be found at https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager/understand-metrics/what-energy
[ii] https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/buildings/energy-benchmarking/update/getready/19453
[iii] The concept behind TDV is that energy efficiency measures that save energy should be valued differently depending on which hours of the year the savings occur, to better reflect the actual costs of energy to consumers, to the utility system, and to society. TDV multipliers are established for each hour of the year for electricity and month of the year for gas. They are applied to predicted energy use within Title 24 compliance software. TDV EUI is the total amount of TDV energy used in one year divided by the square feet of building area. Because it is California specific, TDV EUI cannot be used with national energy benchmarking standards.
[iv] https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/Source%20Energy.pdf
[v] The EPA does not report Source Energy Factor for subsectors of the national electric grid. However, as of 2018 the carbon intensity of the CAMX grid serving most of California was 496.5 lbs/MWh or 52% of the 947.2 lbs/MWh number for the national grid as a whole. [https://www.epa.gov/energy/power-profiler#/ ] This reflects the high percentage of California’s electricity generated from renewable energy sources and “clean” large hydropower. Nuclear power supplied 9.1% of California’s electricity in 2018. California’s sole remaining nuclear plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, will close in 2025 and will be replaced by sources and grid management strategies that are greenhouse gas free. Source Energy Factor and carbon intensity of the electric grid are different metrics. However, lower carbon intensity of the electric grid does suggest that electric powered equipment on the CAMX grid requires less greenhouse gas emitting source energy than in other regions of the USA.
[vi] AIA CA has calculators to derive Site EUI from 2013 and 2016 Title 24 Part 6 reports. See https://aiacalifornia.org/design-awards/.
Read More →

Embodied Carbon: What you Can Do Right Now

March 5, 2020| Climate Action, What you can do right now|

Download the PDF »

By Henry Siegel, FAIA and Larry Strain, FAIA

This short article on Embodied Carbon is the first in a series designed to give practitioners pragmatic guidance on immediate steps to take to reduce the carbon impacts of their projects. Each article will present in brief:

  • Background information – What is it? Why is it important? What are the costs? etc.
  • Action items – What can I do immediately in my projects and my practice?
  • Tools and Resources – References for those wanting to learn or do more.

As each article is released, it will also be added to a collection available on the Climate Action page of the AIA California website.

What is embodied carbon?

Embodied carbon is the sum of all the greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide) resulting from the mining, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, transportation and installation of building materials. The global warming emissions associated with these materials, along with emissions associated with construction itself, are the “embodied carbon footprint” of design and construction. Smart choices during design can greatly reduce this footprint.

What are the impacts of embodied carbon?

Embodied carbon emissions are released during the process that begins with sourcing materials and ends with the completion of construction; operating carbon emissions – from heating, cooling, lighting, and plug loads — occur over the life of a building, which can be 50 years or more. For new buildings, embodied carbon emissions typically equal about 20 years of operating emissions. When looking at total greenhouse gas emissions for new buildings built over the next ten years — the critical period for action to address the global climate emergency — Architecture 2030 estimates that 80% will come from embodied emissions, so lowering embodied carbon emissions is now even more urgent than lowering operating emissions.

What about existing buildings and materials?

Renovating, remodeling, and repurposing existing buildings almost always generates significantly fewer embodied emissions than new construction. Finding creative ways to reuse existing buildings is an increasingly important strategy for reducing embodied emissions. The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short term means that the calculus for saving rather than demolishing an existing building has changed and is now weighed much more heavily against demolition. Reusing buildings also offers the opportunity to reduce current operating emissions from existing building through deep energy upgrades, so they can contribute in the long term as well as the short term.

How do you calculate embodied carbon?

There are a number of tools available for calculating embodied carbon. Some of these tools are meant for quick, early estimates while others take a deeper dive. More information on these tools can be found in the resources section at the end of this document. There are also data bases that evaluate the life cycles of products and a growing number of environmental product declarations (EPDs) for specific products or product categories that document product global warming potential. Many of these tools are new and not yet widely used. Benchmarks need to be developed; more research is needed. Nevertheless, there are many steps architects can take now.

Where to start?

  • Get educated about embodied carbon. Learn more about new tools.
  • Consider the time value and impact of different ways to achieve carbon reductions
  • Set goals for reducing embodied carbon on each project
  • Focus on high volume materials: Between 50% and 75% of embodied emissions typically come from the concrete and steel in the foundation and structure.
  • Focus on high emission materials: For example, small amounts of aluminum and certain kinds of foam insulation can have very large emission footprints.

10 things you can do right now

  1. Reuse buildings (especially the foundations and structure where most of the embodied carbon is). Always consider reuse and retrofit before designing a new building.
    Reuse and renovation with system upgrades typically generates 50% to 75% less embodied carbon emissions than new construction.
  2. Concrete, specifically the production of cement for concrete, is responsible for more GHG emissions than any other material. Specify low carbon concrete mixes – replace cement with fly ash, ground blast furnace slag, calcined clays, and other substitute materials, reducing the cement content of concrete as much as possible.
  3. Use high recycled content materials – especially metals. Steel is second only to concrete in embodied carbon impact. Virgin steel can have an embodied carbon foot print that is 5 times higher than high recycled content steel. Virgin aluminum can be more than 6 times higher than recycled aluminum.
  4. Limit carbon intensive materials – aluminum, plastics, certain foam insulations, etc.
    Use these materials sparingly and only when there are no alternatives.
  5. Choose lower carbon alternatives for structure and finishes, such as wood structure over steel and concrete, wood siding over vinyl siding. Compare EPDs.
  6. Choose carbon sequestering materials whenever possible. Wood is usually a lower carbon choice than steel or concrete, but it is important to note that the carbon footprint of wood is determined by forestry practices. (One study showed that wood from FSC certified forests sequestered 20% to 60% more carbon than wood from traditionally managed forests.) Consider the use of other agricultural products such as straw, hemp, cork, and cellulose.
  7. Reuse materials – brick, metals, broken concrete, wood. Salvaged materials typically have a much lower embodied carbon footprint than newly manufactured materials.
  8. Maximize structural efficiency. Use the most efficient structural solutions to save on quantities of materials used. For example, “advanced framing” reduces wood use in wood framed structures.
  9. Use structural materials as finishes and use fewer finish materials. Exposed concrete floors and ceilings and exposed wood structure look good and save carbon.
  10. Minimize waste. Design in material size modules to minimize waste, taking advantage of standard size sheets for common materials such as 4×8 plywood and gypsum board.

Resources

Tally – embodied carbon calculator utilizing Revit. https://kierantimberlake.com/page/tally

Athena – Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and carbon calculator http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/overview/

EC3 – embodied carbon calculator https://buildingtransparency.org/
http://www.carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/ec3/

One Click – embodied carbon calculator https://www.oneclicklca.com/

ICE – British database of embodied energy and carbon of materials http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html#.XcsL8r97lTY

EPDs – Environmental Product Declarations https://www.environdec.com/

AIA report on renovation: http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/RES19_227853_Retrofitting_Existing_Buildings_Report_Guide_V3.pdf

Advanced Wood Framing https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-design/advanced-house-framing

Carbon Leadership Forum – https://carbonleadershipforum.org/

About the Authors

Henry Siegel, FAIA

Henry Siegel, FAIA LEED AP BD+C
Principal

Since the early 1990s Henry has championed the idea that sustainable design is an essential element of good design. He has put that conviction into practice through projects that combine design for environmental stewardship with thoughtful and site sensitive building design. His projects have won local, regional and national awards including multiple Top Ten Green Projects of the Year from the AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE).

Henry is past chair of the COTE National Advisory Group and current member of AIA California COTE steering committee, where he advocates for laws and codes that address the climate change and the building sector, and for the incorporation of sustainable design values and metrics into architectural awards programs and architecture school curriculums.

Henry has taught sustainable design and design studios at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a past member of the University’s Design Review Committee. He has spoken widely on ecological design and the work of the firm and has served on architectural awards juries across the US.

Larry Strain, FAIA

Larry Strain, FAIA
Principal
Larry has been a leader in sustainable design since the 1980s and brings a deep commitment to environmental stewardship to all projects. His practical experience as a builder prior to becoming an architect and his problem-solving skills are great assets. He has led many of Siegel & Strain Architect’s greenest projects, including many projects on environmentally-sensitive sites and with active community involvement. His industry-leading research on embodied carbon has helped to establish methods and benchmarks for designing lower impact buildings. He shares his expertise, speaking frequently at conferences throughout the country. Larry has served on the boards of the Carbon Leadership Forum, USGBC–Northern California Chapter, and the Ecological Building Network.
Read More →
↑