Washington Policy Center: green buildings get mixed results
The Washington Policy Center, a conservative think-tank whose mission is to "improve lives through market solutions," has issued a report on green buildings in the state that has less than stellar results.
However, the center is not totally a nonpartial organization. And the study, which is not even a full four
Nevertheless, the points brought up in the study are of interest. The gist is that performance-based contracting in Washington State and schools that use the Washington State High Performance Schools Protocol have mixed results. Some save energy, some don't and many have long pay back times. Additionally, the study says there is often not enough information available to track how much energy is actually being saved.
These are important issues that need to be studied on the local level. But I'd like to see them investigated in a more thorough and scientific manner.
The study also proposes three solutions to the problem: rigorous audits of green projects, local control and flexibility as state mandated "cookie-cutter" approaches don't always work, and accountability in holding agencies and contractors responsible for project results. The study says "if there are no costs for the agency or contractor for failing to achieve energy savings targets, there is unlikely to be strict enforcement or effective auditing. Without those elements, savings are not likely to materialize."
In general, these suggestions do make sense. Green projects should be audited and if something is wrong with the design, that information needs to circulate back to the architect so they can learn from their mistakes. Flexibility often has beneficial results (though I don't know I'd go so far as to change state policy on that front). And there should be some level of accountability for projects or team members that don't meet their goals.
Now, how do you think we should do this? I've heard that rough times (ie the past year, anyone?) are the best times to make sweeping changes to the way we work. But I find it hard to imagine legislators moving on requiring audits or some level of accountability in green building at any point in the near future.
Ignoring the study's flakiness, is the Washington Policy Center right with their three suggestions? In a perfect world, what would you want to see? What is the best way to ensure that green buildings are living up to their planned predictions?
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
- House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
- Is it time for Seattle to embrace graffiti?
Recent Comments
- Chantal on 5 tips to improve home energy efficiency
- Jayne on 5 tips to improve home energy efficiency
- Washington, D.C’s Green Building Act: What it Is and What it Could Mean for the Future of Construction | Viridian Wood Products on What can we learn from D.C.’s green building law?
- Less energy: Seattle Green Home Tour 2013 | LD Arch Design on House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- There isn’t anything better coming along. | O'Brien & Company on Crunch the numbers and preservation wins
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events
October 23rd, 2009 - 00:59
myer’s ‘study’ was based on four school upgrades in one county in the entire state of washington?!?
the ‘study’ only focused on the energy aspects of these schools.
the legislation for the washington state high-performance schools protocol isn’t an’energy only’ requirement, as myers implies.
the better questions to ask are:
is the building performing as intended?
are the occupants succeeding/productive?
is worker absenteeism down?
were the costs to implement a ‘green building’ (recycled products, regional materials, protecting habitat, etc) worth it?
it would appear the institute knows absolutely nothing about LEED. under the LEED v2.2 rating system, there were 69 potential points. silver could be achieved with less than half of that – and with minimally intense energy prereqs: meeting local codes and providing a handful of occ-sensors.
in part, this is due to the ridiculousness of the LEED program – you don’t have to have significant energy reductions to be certified ‘green’
the way to address this would be to require that schools meet an strict energy standard – either the living building challenge, or better yet – the proven and tested passivhaus system. passivhaus mandates a minimum energy performance to qualify. there are several schools built to passivhaus standards that would make most leed gold/platinum schools look like energy hogs. yes, the minimum energy requirement would be more difficult to achieve. however, the costs to implement passivhaus have been shown to be minimally more than typical construction while enacting immediate and enormous energy savings. also, the passivhaus system isn’t ‘cookie cutter’ – it allows architects and engineers to come up with creative, progressive solutions. all they have to do is meet the energy requirements. (for reference, look up the klaus secondary school by dietrich |untertrifaller – passivhaus standard, 4,600 btu/ft2 annually (the US k-12 average is about 68,000 btu/ft2 annually, according to the 2006 energy star manual).
myer’s referencing of his own, non-fact based op-ed written last february (‘suspending failed “green” building rules can save schools millions’) does not add legitimacy to the washington policy’s position. in fact, it does the exact opposite. the february article also goes on to complain about the cost of construction escalating – something every architect in seattle had to struggle with prior to the recession. too quote bill clinton, ‘it [was] the economy, stupid.’
i will, however, agree that energy performance needs to be maximized – it only makes sense. the legislation had the right idea – but revisiting the policies to be sure significant energy savings can be achieved should be a common goal.
October 27th, 2009 - 12:34
Katie,
The study raises excellent points about the risks of Performance Contracting. I have been engaged in various forms of the “PC” business for 15+ years. In my experience, I would say that approximately half of all PC projects are sold without either up front trending, back end verification, or both. For some projects – lighting, for example – this is appropriate. But for HVAC and other mechanical systems, it’s unacceptable. Energy savings on these types of projects depends on many factors, including utility rates, occupancy, weather, equipment, setpoints, and hours of operation. The contractor is usually held liable for the items that they control, and indemnified against claims for factors, such as weather and utility rates, over which the contractor has no control.
My point is that purchaser of PC services frequently do not understand this, and are easy prey for the more unscrupulous PC providers. More regulation is unlikely to change this fact.
But the biggest reason some PC projects eventually fail is operational: Equipment is replaced…then not maintained. Automation is installed….then overridden by the staff. Heating setpoints are lowered…but the savings are then obliterated by clerical staff using portable heaters in their offices. Maybe everything worked at project closeout, but by the end of year two things aren’t working and bills are higher.
The best way to guard against this scenario is to include an operations and maintenance agreement into any Performance Contract. In essence, whatever equipment the PC provider installs will be maintained by the PC provider. In addition, the PC provider should be required to visit the site at least quarterly to ensure the equipment is not only functioning but doing so in the manner intended. Finally, the PC provider should be required to verify savings on an annual basis, taking into account factors both in and out of its control. This ensures the PC provider is an ongoing partner in the success of the project. It also helps weed out the “hit it and quit” guys who do the work, get paid, and then leave the customer to deal with the results.
John Bates
Director of Energy Services
Holaday-Parks, Inc.
Seattle