Energy-Efficiency Standards and Green Building Certification Systems Used by the Department of Defense for Military Construction and Major Renovations (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Consultant's Report: Cost Effectiveness Study of Various Sustainable Building Standards in Response to NDAA 2012 Section 2830 Requirements
Appendix C: Consultant's Report: Cost Effectiveness Study of Various Sustainable Building Standards in Response to NDAA 2012 Section 2830 Requirements
Pages 91-177
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 91... ...
C Consultant's Report: Cost Effectiveness Study of Various Sustainable Building Standards in Response to NDAA 2012 Section 2830 Requirements This appendix reproduces substantially (with minor reformatting) as submitted, a study prepared by Sarah Slaughter for the Committee to Evaluate Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the Department of Defense for Military Construction and Repair, dated September 10, 2012.
|
From page 92... ...
92 ENERGY-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS USED BY THE DOD COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY OF VARIOUS SUSTAINABLE BUILDING STANDARDS IN RESPONSE TO NDAA 2012 SECTION 2830 REQUIREMENTS PREPARED BY: Dr. Sarah Slaughter DATE: September 10, 2012 PURPOSE: National Research Council Committee to Evaluate Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the Department of Defense for Military Construction and Repair
|
From page 93... ...
, 116 RESULTS OF ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY EVALUATION OF SPECIFIED BUILDING 118 STANDARDS AND RATING SYSTEMS ASHRAE 90.1-2010 -- Economic Efficiency Results Across Building Types and Locations, 119 Long-Term Cost-Benefit, 119 Rate of Return on Investment, 122 Payback, 123 Summary Results for ASHRAE 90.1-2010, 124 ASHRAE 189.1-2011 -- Economic Efficiency Results Across Building Types and Locations, 125 Long-Term Cost-Benefit, 126 Rate of Return on Investment, 129 Payback, 129 Summary Results for ASHRAE 189.1-2011, 131 LEED -- Economic Efficiency Results Across Building Types and Locations, 131 Long-Term Cost-Benefit, 133 Rate of Return on Investment, 137 Payback, 138 Summary Results for LEED, 138 Green Globes -- Economic Efficiency Results Across Building Types and Locations, 140 Long-Term Cost-Benefit, 142 Rate of Return on Investment, 144 Payback, 145 Summary Results for Green Globes, 146 Summary of Results of Economic Efficiency Evaluation, 147 2
|
From page 94... ...
94 ENERGY-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS USED BY THE DOD APPLICABILITY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY TO DOD MILITARY 150 CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION Implications of Economic Efficiency Evaluation for Military Construction and Renovation Investments, 150 Applicability of Analytical Framework for DOD Military Construction, 152 Timing of Economic Efficiency Analysis for Decision Support, 154 Current DOD Data Collection for Strategic Investment in DOD Capital Facility Assets, 154 Industry and Market Factors for Long-term Cost Efficiency of Military Construction and Renovation, 156 APPENDIX A: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DATA 158 APPENDIX B: PROTOTYPE BUILDINGS -- CHARACTERISTICS 159 APPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS OF BENEFIT -- COST CATEGORIES 162 APPENDIX D: BASELINE PROTOTYPE BUILDINGS RESOURCE USAGE AND FACTOR 163 UNIT PRICES BY LOCATION APPENDIX E: FEDERAL STATUTES FOR LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS 164 APPENDIX F: REFERENCES FOR FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR 165 BENEFIT-COST CATEGORIES APPENDIX G: ASHRAE DATA GENERATION METHODOLOGY 165
|
From page 95... ...
2. Prototype Buildings and Locations: This study established a common basis on which to calculate the long-term cost-benefits, return on investment, and payback using prototype buildings and selected locations to represent the heating and cooling loads and local factor prices that influence the economic efficiency calculations.
|
From page 96... ...
Specifically, this study analyzed the economic efficiency of buildings built under the guidance of: ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2010 and 189.1-2011; LEED Silver, Gold and Platinum Certifications; and Green Globes One, Two, Three and Four Certifications. The results of the analysis in this study indicate that the building standards and rating systems provide buildings that are economically efficient depending on building type and location.
|
From page 97... ...
This study highlighted opportunities for cost-effective high performance buildings built under the guidance of the specified standards and rating systems for different building types, specifically for a residential facility and an office building, in both energy and water usage. It also examined the potential economic value in different locations that represent the variety of climate zones and urban/rural markets across the U.S., incorporating local factor unit prices and conditions that affect cost efficiency.
|
From page 98... ...
First, the analytical approach of economic efficiency analysis would be most effectively applied across a portfolio of projects -- with respect to the overall installation requirements -- that increase mission effectiveness and economic efficiency. Second, the application of an economic efficiency analysis requires access to credible and verifiable data on the initial investment costs, major repair/replacement costs, and operations, maintenance and repair costs over the expected life of the facility.
|
From page 99... ...
accredited standards, such as Green Globes. • The report must also include a copy of the DOD policy prescribing a comprehensive strategy for the pursuit of design and building standards that include specific energy-efficient standards and sustainable design attributes based on the cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, and demonstrated payback for the aforementioned building design standards.
|
From page 100... ...
The final chapter provides potential factors and approaches that the DOD should consider in developing a comprehensive strategy for military construction and renovation that includes standards for energy efficiency and sustainable design. METHODOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SPECIFIED RATING SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS The consultant developed and applied the methodology building on existing research, methods, best practices, and existing tools to analyze the economic efficiency of the specified building standards and rating systems and to provide input into the development of the DOD comprehensive strategy.
|
From page 101... ...
In discussions with the staff from ASHRAE, the data for the analysis of the specific building standards were generated using the PNNL building models for the two prototype buildings in the selected locations. ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS This study analyzed the economic efficiency of the specified building standards and rating systems in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
|
From page 102... ...
represents foregone opportunities in the market for investment. If the Net Savings are greater than zero, the investment is economically efficient and higher Net Savings indicates better economic efficiency.
|
From page 103... ...
, the investment is economically efficient and higher ARROI (relative to the same discount rate) indicates better economic efficiency for independent projects.
|
From page 104... ...
6 This study uses an annual water escalation rate of 2% as a conservative estimate of expected water price increases. For this study, the Long-term cost-benefit used throughout this report is defined as: Discount rate: 2.0% Study Period: 40 years Energy price escalation (eE)
|
From page 105... ...
Long-term Cost-Benefit 2.0%1 40 0.5%2 2% Short-Term Cost-Benefit 1.7%1 20 0.5%2 2% "Economic High Growth" 3% 20, 40 0.5%2 0% "Economic Slow Growth" 1.5% 20, 40 2% 4% 1OMB Real Discount Rates FY2013. 2Annual equivalent of EIA/FEMP energy price escalations eE = Energy (Annual)
|
From page 106... ...
The higher discount rate, which represents more opportunity in the market for higher returns, means that an alternative has to perform better to be economically efficient. The lower discount rate, which represents less opportunity in the capital market, reduces the economic efficiency boundary -- that is, an alternative that was not economically efficient at 8% (in 1982)
|
From page 107... ...
Even with the lower energy and water prices, the alternative is economically efficient for a Study Period of just over 30 to 40 years. Figure 2: Example of Sensitivity Analysis for Price Escalation For this report, the variations in both the discount rates and prices escalations are combined in the scenarios and represented as the feasible range of Net Savings for a specific alternative under a range of conditions (Figure 3)
|
From page 108... ...
The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 version of the two prototype building models was used as the baseline for this study because it is specified as the basis for improved building performance in the Energy Policy Act (2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
|
From page 109... ...
. Table 2: Selected PNNL Prototype Buildings and Climate Zones Prototype building type (2)
|
From page 110... ...
Table 4: Benefit-Cost Categories Investment Costs Operations, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R) Costs • Initial Investment • Major Repair and Replacement Costs • Building energy Current Reporting Requirements • Supporting Facilities/Site energy • Building water supply • Building waste water (disposal)
|
From page 111... ...
for each location using public data sources and local unit prices. The initial investment costs for each prototype building in each location was calculated using R.S.
|
From page 112... ...
in the 5 selected locations. In discussions with the staff of ASHRAE, Green Building Initiative, and the US Green Building Council, those organizations agreed to provide detailed cost and benefit data for the prototype buildings in locations that were similar to or near the selected locations.
|
From page 113... ...
The selected certified building projects represent current capabilities of "expert users" of the rating system. Data Requirements The organizations were provided with a data template for each building type for each location, in which to provide the initial investment costs (i.e., construction costs)
|
From page 114... ...
The initial investment costs for these energy generation units were included in the construction cost, and the on-site energy was used to offset the energy used by the building. Table 7: ASHRAE Data Sample Building Types Locations Standards Office 5 90.1-2010, 189.1-2011 Small Hotel 5 90.1-2010, 189.1-2011 Table 8: ASHRAE Data: Energy and Water Performance by Building Type and Standard Average Average Building Average Site Building Average Site Number with Building Energy1 Energy Water Water On-site Total Type Standard Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Energy Buildings Hotel 90.1-2010 11% 31% 0% 0% 0 5 189.1- 24% 35% 48% 97% 5 5 Office 90.1-2010 21% 64% 0% 0% 0 5 189.1- 26% 63% 88% 91% 5 5 1 Average Building Energy Reduction calculated as percentage of energy cost savings.
|
From page 115... ...
Table 9: USGBC LEED Sample by Location, Building Type, and Certification Level Location Hotel Office Total Baltimore 2 Silver 1 Silver 8 1 Gold 3 Gold 1 Platinum Helena 1 Platinum 1 Silver 6 3 Gold 1 Platinum Memphis 2 Gold 3 Silver 8 1 Platinum 1 Gold 1 Platinum Miami 1 Silver 0 1 Phoenix 1 Silver 1 Silver 2 Total 9 16 25 Table 10: LEED Data: Energy and Water Performance Data by Building Type and Certification Level Average Average Average Site Certification Energy Building Water Water Number with Building Type Level Reduction Reduction Reduction Onsite Energy Total Hotel Silver -24% -31% -100% 2 4 Gold -21% -27% -83% 1 3 Platinum -42% -30% -75% 1 2 Office Silver -30% -28% -46% 6 Gold -31% -30% -79% 7 Platinum -37% -30% -100% 2 3 Total Sample -30% -29% -78% 6 25 The "investment costs" of the sample of LEED buildings (that is, the construction costs as identified through USGBC communications and public sources) were in many cases assumed to include all project costs, specifically construction costs plus related architect, engineering, and construction management fees (but excluding land purchase costs)
|
From page 116... ...
Table 11: LEED Silver, Gold, Platinum Buildings: Construction Cost Variation Standard Minimum Cost per Maximum Cost Deviation of Cost Average Cost per Sample Building Type square foot per square foot per square foot square foot Size Hotel $96.01 $259.68 $48.36 $134.65 9 Office $97.47 $279.64 $62.47 $179.54 16 Total Sample $96.01 $279.64 $60.85 $163.38 25 Green Globes Data: Certified Buildings from Green Building Initiative (GBI) The Green Building Initiative (GBI)
|
From page 117... ...
. Therefore, the initial investment costs for some of the Green Globes projects was over 2 times the investment costs for the baseline prototype buildings.
|
From page 118... ...
, the investment is economically efficient and higher ARROI (relative to the same discount rate) indicates better economic efficiency for independent projects.
|
From page 119... ...
. This analysis calculated the Net Savings and other economic efficiency measures using the energy cost savings relative to the incremental construction costs (i.e., incremental initial investment costs)
|
From page 120... ...
For office buildings, while Baltimore Office has the highest Net Savings, the second highest Net Savings is the Helena Office, which has the second highest reduction in annual energy use under ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Figure 6: ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Long-term Cost-Benefit: Net Savings for All Building Types, All Locations NOTE: Long-term Cost-Benefit when N=40, d=2%, eE=0.5%, eW=2%.
|
From page 121... ...
Figure 7: ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Annual Net Savings for All Building Types, All Locations The sensitivity analysis represents the potential benefits that could be captured by buildings built under the guidance of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 under different conditions. That is, if energy prices escalate at 2%, the Net Savings over the 40 years would increase by over 50%.
|
From page 122... ...
for the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 buildings in all locations and all building types is greater than the discount rate (2%) , indicating that ASHRAE 90.1-2010 is economically efficient (Figure 9)
|
From page 123... ...
Figure 9: ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Long-term Cost-Benefit: Adjusted Rate of Return on Investment (ROI) for All Building Types, All Locations Note: Long-term Cost-Benefit when N=40, d=2%, eE=0.5%, eW=2%.
|
From page 124... ...
. In those conditions, considering the Long-term Cost-Benefit, all building types and all locations analyzed in this study would be economically efficient investments.
|
From page 125... ...
, and the building's impact on the atmosphere, materials and resources." 18 17 ASHRAE/ANSI/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2011, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 2011, p.
|
From page 126... ...
As noted in the Methodology section of this report, the initial investment costs for these energy generation units were included in the construction costs, and the on-site energy was used to offset the energy used by the building. The resulting overall energy usage for the building, therefore, is less than the energy usage under ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and the savings are greater compared to the baseline prototype building.
|
From page 127... ...
The Long-term Cost-Benefit for the 40-year Study Period (Figure 11 and Table 18, middle column) represents the expected Net Savings with the current OMB discount rate of 2% and energy price escalation as per the EIA/FEMP energy price models, with water escalation at 2%.
|
From page 128... ...
, these buildings built under the guidance of ASHRAE 189.1-2011 would still be economically efficient. Both energy and water price escalation rates are included in the sensitivity analysis, and the potential future opportunities for Net Savings under different conditions can be graphically represented with the example of the Miami Office and Hotel (Figure 13)
|
From page 129... ...
for the ASHRAE 189.1-2011 buildings in all locations and all building types is greater than the discount rate (2%) , indicating that ASHRAE 90.1-2010 is economically efficient (Figure 14)
|
From page 130... ...
Figure 15: ASHRAE 189.1-2011 Simple Payback through Cumulative Annual Net Savings: All Building Types, All Locations 39
|
From page 131... ...
LEED -- ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY RESULTS ACROSS BUILDING TYPES AND LOCATIONS The U.S. Green Building Council developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
|
From page 132... ...
, and therefore no data was provided, so these measures were then excluded from the analysis. This analysis calculated the Net Savings and other economic efficiency measures using the energy and water costs relative to the incremental construction costs (incremental initial investment costs)
|
From page 133... ...
. There are differences in the Net Savings between the building types; for instance, the Net Savings for the Hotels in this sample generally tend to be higher than the Net Savings for the Offices in this sample.
|
From page 134... ...
, it would be expected that the LEED projects would be economically efficient. From this limited sample of 25 LEED projects, it appears that buildings with incremental initial investment costs less than 20% of the baseline prototype buildings have Net Savings greater than the threshold (NS>0)
|
From page 135... ...
, the Net Savings >0 within the Study Period range of 20 to 40 years for both building types, indicating that they are economically efficient investments for the scenarios under consideration. The potential Net Savings for the Hotel is more than twice the Net Savings for the Office, and these savings increase rapidly over the time period as the savings accumulate.
|
From page 136... ...
. In this example, it can be noted that even though the Net Savings are less than 0 for the Long-term Cost-Benefit, a portion of the boundary area that represents the feasible range of Net Savings is above the threshold, indicating that the investment could provide economically efficient results in the future under certain conditions -- specifically, with energy and water price escalation at 2% and 4% respectively, and decreasing cost of money (represented by the discount rate, d, at 1.5%)
|
From page 137... ...
For the three (3) LEED buildings that have initial investment costs less than the baseline prototype buildings' initial investment costs (i.e., the Baltimore Hotel-Gold, Baltimore Hotel-Silver, and Memphis Office-Silver)
|
From page 138... ...
provide economically efficient investment opportunities under certain conditions, examined within the context of the five selected locations for this study. Three projects have initial investment costs that are less than the baseline prototype buildings, and therefore provide benefits without additional costs (Table 23)
|
From page 139... ...
, indicating relatively high liquidity. The sensitivity analysis of Net Savings addresses the robustness of these results under different conditions, specifically changes in the discount rate (from 1.5% to 3%)
|
From page 140... ...
The Green Globes certification is a voluntary rating system that uses credits that are weighted to reflect potential environmental impacts.
|
From page 141... ...
Green Globes rating and certification is attainable for a wide range of commercial and government buildings, and enables building owners to credibly market their environmental responsibility to shareholders, tenants, and their community." 21 The analysis of the economic efficiency of the Green Globes certification levels (One, Two, Three and Four Globes) used the five selected locations and two building types (medium office and small hotel)
|
From page 142... ...
together with the local factor prices, balanced against the incremental initial investment costs. The Annual Net Savings for the Green Globes buildings range from approximately $500 to over $80,000 compared to the baseline prototype buildings (Figure 23)
|
From page 143... ...
. If the incremental initial investment costs are greater than 20% of the baseline prototype building's investment cost -- or if the Annual Net Savings are small -- the Net Savings will likely be negative, and therefore an inefficient economic investment (Table 25)
|
From page 144... ...
The potential Net Savings for the Baltimore Hotel is considerably greater than the potential Net Savings for the Memphis Office, and these savings increase rapidly over the time period, particularly related to the water price escalation. Figure 24: Green Globes Sensitivity Analysis for Net Savings: Memphis Office and Baltimore Hotel Rate of Return on Investment The (Adjusted)
|
From page 145... ...
The Cumulative Annual Net Savings for each of the five (5) Green Globes buildings with NS>0 indicates the time at which the accumulating savings equal the incremental initial investment (that is, when the line crosses the x-axis)
|
From page 146... ...
, indicating relatively high liquidity. The sensitivity analysis of Net Savings addresses the robustness of these results under different conditions, specifically changes in the discount rate (from 1.5% to 3%)
|
From page 147... ...
In particular, the water cost reductions equaled approximately 50% of the Annual Savings across the building types and locations. ASHRAE 189.1-2011 also includes the requirement for on-site energy generation, and these incremental initial construction costs were included, and the on-site energy was used to offset the building energy used, so the overall building energy reductions were greater for 189.1-2011 than for 90.1-2010.
|
From page 148... ...
, the potential Net Savings could increase to $2-4 million over the 40-year Study Period. These potential Net Savings can also be viewed as the potential future additional costs that may be incurred for these building types and locations under different scenarios.
|
From page 149... ...
This study also analyzed the economic efficiency of buildings built under the guidance of the Green Globes rating system for two building types (office, hotel) and five (5)
|
From page 150... ...
The study highlighted opportunities for cost-effective high performance buildings built under the guidance of the specified standards and rating systems for different building types, specifically for a residential facility and an office building, in both energy and water usage. It also examined the potential economic value in different locations that represent the variety of climate zones and urban/rural markets across the U.S., incorporating local factor unit prices and conditions that affect cost efficiency.
|
From page 151... ...
In particular, the water cost reductions equaled approximately 50% of the Annual Savings across the building types and locations. ASHRAE 189.1-2011 also includes the requirement for on-site energy generation, and these incremental initial construction costs were included, and the on-site energy was used to offset the building energy used, so the overall building energy reductions were greater for 189.1-2011 than for 90.1 2010.
|
From page 152... ...
The sensitivity analysis incorporated variations in energy and water price escalations, as well as the cost of capital (represented by the discount rate)
|
From page 153... ...
In particular, the discussion raises certain challenges and opportunities associated with economic efficiency evaluations in the following areas: Timing of economic efficiency analysis for decision support on project planning, design, and implementation, particularly in the context of current authorization and • appropriation processes, as well as existing legislative mandates; Current data collection and analysis processes at the installation, component, and DOD level, related to legislative requirements for reporting, and current management • processes for strategic investment in DOD capital facility assets; Industry and market factors influencing the long-term economic efficiency of DOD military construction and renovation.
|
From page 154... ...
Current DOD Data Collection for Strategic Investment in DOD Capital Facility Assets The application of an economic efficiency analysis requires access to credible and verifiable data on the initial investment costs, major repair/replacement costs, and operations, maintenance and repair costs over the expected life of the facility. The DOD components, installations and construction agents are initiating specific programs to collect information on energy and sustainability performance for capital facility assets, including both the expected and actual performance of the facilities.
|
From page 155... ...
and thereby offer greater opportunities for water savings. Further data collection related to specific DOD military facility types could identify specific opportunities for reducing OM&R costs related to facility-specific resource use and therefore increase economic efficiency in military construction and renovation going forward.
|
From page 156... ...
Further, several of the locations were predicting a rapid increase in water and wastewater rates. 27 Therefore, future economic efficiency analyses should explicitly incorporate consideration of local water and wastewater disposal costs, and the potential of significant future price escalations.
|
From page 157... ...
Several factors may be driving the market as a whole, and may significantly increase the economic efficiency of high performance buildings in general, and for DOD military construction and renovation specifically. The "learning curve" (in economic terms)
|
From page 158... ...
Further research is needed to determine the extent to which industry development as a whole may increase the cost-effectiveness of military construction and repair. APPENDIX A: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DATA Table A.1: Price Escalation 2010-2011 and Equivalent Annual Escalation for Energy, Water/Sewer, and Municipal Waste Equivalent Annual 2011 Annual Percent change Escalation Rate Expenditure Category Average (CPI)
|
From page 159... ...
DOE contracted with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to analyze the energy and cost savings of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 compared to ASHRAE 90.1 2004 to provide technical and economic analysis support, utilizing the EnergyPlus simulation framework and sixteen prototype building types (Table 2)
|
From page 160... ...
7 Duluth Apartment (mid-rise, high-rise) 8 Fairbanks Source: DOE EERE Building Energy Codes Program, 90.1 Prototype Building Models (http://www.energycodes.gov/commercial/901models/)
|
From page 161... ...
All of the attributes from the form, space configuration, construction type and floor plan are based on the specification of the medium size office schematics. Table B.3: Building Details for Medium Office 70
|
From page 162... ...
7.2 Annual water usage (summer, winter) -- total water use; water use by square foot.
|
From page 163... ...
APPENDIX D: BASELINE PROTOTYPE BUILDINGS RESOURCE USAGE AND FACTOR UNIT PRICES BY LOCATION Table D.1: Benefit-Cost Data for Baseline Buildings: Quantities Baseline Building Data Benefit-Cost Category Office Hotel References Energy DOE EERE Building Energy Codes Program, 90.1 Prototype Building Models, http://www.energycodes.gov/commercial/90 1models/ Building 62 gal/sf/yr 165 gal/sf/yr Office: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/SECO_Water_ water (includes laundry) Standards_2002.pdf Hotel: http://coloradowaterwise.org/Resources/Doc uments/ICI_toolkit/docs/Brendle%20Group% 20and%20CWW%20ICI%20Benchmarking%2 0Study.pdf Landscape 30 gal/sf/yr 60 gal/sf/yr Office: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/SECO_Water_ water Standards_2002.pdf Hotel: http://www.watertechonline.com/municipal industrial/article/finding-hidden-water Municipal 0.00178 0.000712 http://www.wastecare.com/usefulinfo/Waste solid waste tons/sf/yr ton/sf/yr _Generated_by_Industry.htm Hazardous 0.005 ton/sf/yr 0.000007 http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/document waste ton/sf/yr s/2010_Sustainability_Metrics_Report.pdf http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/solid/ho use.html Building/ $3.00/sf/yr $3.00/sf/yr FM Benchmark 6/19/2012, site O&M http://www.fmbenchmarking.com/ Building $2.50/sf/yr $2.50/sf/yr FM Benchmark 6/19/2012, http://www.fmbenchmarking.com/ Cleaning Landscaping $0.28/sf/yr $0.28/sf/yr 2008 M&O Study, http://asumag.com/Maintenance/2008M&OC ostStudy.pdf 72
|
From page 164... ...
incorporates the OMB and FEMP discount rates, and the energy indices based on the DOE EIA forecasts into the Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 135, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program. NIST also provides the NIST Building Life-Cycle Cost (BLCC)
|
From page 165... ...
Table F.1: Annual Energy Management Report -- Outcome Measures Measures Facilities energy use (electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, coal, purchased steam, LPG/Propane and renewables) Energy intensity level (BTU/area)
|
From page 166... ...
Ltg. interior lighting kWh kilowatt hour LPD lighting power density Mcf thousands of cubic feet NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PPL plug and process loads PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PV photovoltaic SWH service water heating TSD technical support document VAV variable air volume FIGURES Figure 1 Overlay of Representative Cities by Climate Zones Figure 2 Incremental First Costs vs Energy Savings TABLES Table 1 Representative Cities Table 2 Sources of Information Table 3 Incremental First Costs for the Medium Office Table 4 Incremental First Costs for the Small Hotel Table 5 Standard 90.1-2010 Medium Office First Costs Table 6 Standard 90.1-2010 Small Hotel First Costs Table 7 Annual On-Site Renewable Energy Criteria Table 8 Conditioned Space and Roof Areas Table 9 Annual On-Site Renewable Energy Criteria Table 10 PV Panels Energy Performance Table 11 Annual On-Site Renewable Energy -- Standard 189.1-2009 Table 12 Annual On-Site Renewable Energy -- Standard 189.1-2011 Table 13 Standard 189.1-2011 Medium Office First Costs Table 14 Standard 189.1-2011 Small Hotel First Costs Table 15 Summary of Results for Standard 90.1-2010 Table 16 Summary of Results for Standard 189.1-2011 Table 17 Range of Energy Savings (%)
|
From page 167... ...
Thus, this report contains the annual energy savings as well as the first costs. 2.0 Objective The objective of this analysis was to determine the first costs for ASHRAE Standards 90.1 2010 and 189.1-2011 relative to the baseline ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004.
|
From page 168... ...
189.1-2009 2007-Medium Office 31.0% (Long) 2007-Small Hotel 34.3% 6.0 Technical Approach Fundamentally, the technical approach was to use the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides energy savings for each specific building and location which also had the incremental first costs.
|
From page 169... ...
However, the actual calculations use a specific linear relationship for each individual city and building type which is the slope of each line. The first step in this process was to estimate the energy savings for both of the building types in all five cities relative to the baseline Standard 90.1-2004.
|
From page 170... ...
The $/ft2 was assumed to go through the origin when there were no energy savings. As an example of this concept, Figure 2 shows the five locations for both building types.
|
From page 171... ...
The next requirement in determining the PV first cost was to calculate the number of PV panels required for each building type in each city. An analysis was completed using the PVWatts calculator developed by NREL which is readily available at their internet web site.
|
From page 172... ...
annual AC (kWh) 1 Miami 5.26 5,357 2 Phoenix 6.57 6,468 3 Memphis 5.18 5,352 4 Baltimore 4.66 4,911 6 Helena 4.71 5,040 Table 11 Annual On-Site Renewable Energy -- Standard 189.1-2009 Medium Office Small Hotel Energy Panels FC FC Energy Panels FC FC CZ City (kWh)
|
From page 173... ...
Table 13 Standard 189.1-2011 Medium Office First Costs 90.1- 189.1- Building 2004 2011 Incremental PV 90.1-2004 189.1-2011 Energy Energy Save FC FC FC Baseline Total CZ City (kWh)
|
From page 174... ...
Total ($) 1 Miami 905,411 733,948 18.9 2.10 156,797 65,906 5,049,888 5,206,685 2 Phoenix 891,109 727,481 18.4 2.03 142,398 54,585 4,977,888 5,120,286 3 Memphis 939,094 727,860 22.5 2.07 159,559 65,967 4,825,388 4,980,947 4 Baltimore 1,001,871 738,893 26.2 2.16 165,328 71,891 5,172,960 5,338,288 6 Helena 1,067,193 765,549 28.3 2.33 170,788 70,051 4,990,888 5,161,676 11.0 Summary Tables 15 and 16 present the Standard 90.1-2010 and 189.1-2011 first costs and site energy consumptions for both building types so all of the information is conveniently located and summarized for quick reference.
|
From page 175... ...
. ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2009: Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
|
From page 176... ...
. Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings Design Technology Packages for Medium Office Buildings.
|
From page 177... ...
• DU -- Distribution Uniformity • FF -- Freeze factor when system off in Winter • 0.623 -- Gallons per inch on one square foot of area Monthly evapotranspiration for each site was taken into consideration along with plant material and practices common to those areas. Savings were based on the difference between the amounts of water given in the data templates and the water use based on good practice for all of the eight principles outlined above.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.